Slashdot Mirror
Linus Torvalds: 'I Still Want the Desktop'
darthcamaro writes: Linux has clawed its way into lots of places these days. But at the LinuxCon conference in Chicago today Linus Torvalds was asked where Linux should go next. Torvalds didn't hesitate with his reply. "I still want the desktop," Torvalds said, as the audience erupted into boisterous applause. Torvalds doesn't see the desktop as being a kernel problem at this point, either, but rather one about infrastructure. While not ready to declare a "Year of the Linux Desktop" he still expects that to happen — one day.
Torvalds doesn't see the desktop as being a kernel problem at this point, either, but rather one about infrastructure.
Is this a kinder, gentler Linus saying that it's everything but the kernel's fault Linux isn't on the desktop? Sounds like it to me, but I will have to see if I can watch the whole takl to get the correct context.
Actually Google is taking a page from MSFT and is going EEE on Android and if the rumors are true Win 9 will either be free or insanely cheap so...good luck with that.
BTW what Torvalds SHOULD have said was "I want the desktop....but not enough to give up my shitty 1970s throwback driver model" because you look at the forums and a good 90% of what the problems in linux get boiled down to is that shitstorm of a driver model, it'd be like MSFT trying to build Windows 9 on top of the old DOS .INI drivers because when you have such a fundamental thing old and shitty it makes all the new stuff on top just new and shitty. BTW this is NOT a FOSS thing, its a LINUX thing, as nobody in the FOSS world besides Linux uses his shitty driver model, not BSD, not Android, NOBODY.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
In Windows, there's an ABI (Application Binary Interface) that 3rd parties can code against to create their drivers. No cooperation is required from Microsoft to implement a new driver. And the 3rd party doesn't need to release source, so any trade secrets embodied or hinted at by the source can be kept secret.
In Linux, there is no ABI. Drivers have to be accepted and included in the kernel source tree. Yes really. It's that fucked up.
This means that you have to have cooperation from the Linux kernel team. And you have to divulge any trade secrets embodied in the source. Which may compromise an advantage that you have on other platforms.
It is practically possible to create a binary Linux driver and embed it in an open source wrapper. But then politics bites you in the ass. Only some distributions will accept them.
So the missing Linux drivers aren't just because it's a tiny marketshare that isn't worth bothering with. OSX was better served with drivers back in the day when it was as rare as desktop Linux. It's because the politics of Linux and it's broken model are often acting against the business interests of the device manufacturers.