...or get the information from the/. article published on the BBC site.
I may be missing something, but does the BBC article have a byline? Or was it thoroughly researched and written by the evil twin sister of Anonymous Coward?
Star guest of the LinuxWorld at the beginning of of Octobers in Frankfurt was
Linus Torvalds. The success of Linux has the free operating system and its
`Erfinder the ' far beyond EDV world admits made.
1991 had begun Torvalds from its discontent with the PC operating systems
existing at that time, a its own, to program Unix similar operating system.
Originally Linux was only for the computer at that time of the 21-Jaehrigen
meant; but after publication of the version 0.01 in the InterNet Linux won very
fast trailers and a constantly growing crowd of developers. Meanwhile the open
SOURCE system on all usual hardware architectures runs and particularly with
the InterNet servers a fixed workstation captured.
c't: Linux what you wanted originally, but already some years ago achieved. Why
did you continue at this point?
Torvalds: The targets changed. At the start it concerned to me above all to
make something interesting and have fun. I assumed that I would be the only
user, and made also no concrete plans regarding the features. I knew, what I
expected from a Unix; but I was not interested for example in diagram, because
I wanted to only edit and compile source code.
After I had published Linux in the InterNet, however different users asked for
features, of which I had never thought, and ever more new ideas arose. Instead
of a Unix for my own Desktop Linux should become now the best operating system
at all. By the desires of other people and later then its Patches and
assistance it became many more interesting. In the meantime most work is made
by others.
Meanwhile it concerns to me a good operating system Design, which is useful for
other people also. My activity did not change at all so much: I program and
read a quantity of enamel. In view to my original plans Linux is long finished;
but the many new areas of application for Linux motivate me to continue. If I
had not placed Linux in the InterNet and these other users were not, I would
have probably already terminated the work on Linux 1992.
c't: How long do you want to continue with Linux? You see one point sometime in
the future, at which you will say: `Jetzt has I enough of it?'
Torvalds: I do not believe that there is a special point there. I always
stopped with individual things, and began already very early. Completely at the
start for example I provided for all applications: I had - additionally to the
work on the Kernel - portieren which Shell, the compiler and the libraries.
Therefore then however very early different people worried, and I could
concentrate on the Kernel. Nowadays I operate still on the Kernel, but I am
limited now to a large extent to central functions such as memory and task
management and the fundamental Design.
Likewise I stopped to a large extent speaking on meetings like this LinuxWorld.
I participated here in the panel discussion, but no key note held, because me
such things dreadfully stresses. I assume I will concentrate on ever more
special areas; but I do not believe that I will stop completely with Linux -
until someone comes perhaps sometime, which is better than I, so that I
withdraw myself.
c't: If you sometime no more desire on Linux have - as then the organization of
the Linux developers could turn out?
Torvalds: I do not see that in foreseeable time occurs; but there is a quantity
of people, which could do my work. Meanwhile I hardly still program, but I show
`guten taste ' - I make decisions regarding architecture. But there are other
people, which have likewise `guten taste '. I am a type central start place,
process enamels, read her, send her to the correct people.
Meetings are obviously PR work, and there are enough people, which could do
that just as well. Zurzeit is most important it to be a type identification
figure for Linux purely for psychological reasons. Meanwhile one knows Linux of
companies such as SuSE, IBM or talks has; but long time was Linux this radical,
movement aforementioned by Linus Torvalds.
If the airplane from Frankfurt would fall now to San Francisco, everyone could
- now well, perhaps everyone, but a quantity of people could not take over mine
job. It would not be surely only one person. The fact that it is for the moment
a person has historical reasons. In reality Linux is not only one person: I do,
what I do, and [ the XFree86-Entwickler ] my technical work on the Kernel makes
its job for Dirk Hohndel for example could several people complete.
If one regards, how Linux is actually developed: I do not touch for example the
Kernel 2,2, make all [ the Kernel hacker ] Alan Cox. now have we soon the
Anwenderkernel 2,4 finished, and then Ted Ts'o [ developer of the
ext2-Dateisystems ] will worry about the Kernel 2,4. I can concentrate then on
the Entwicklerkernel, because me in most interested and because the developers
thereby are content, as I do. But it is not like that that that could not do
anybody to others. It would surely give a quantity to excitement in the media,
if I fell over the ocean, but for the Linux development I am no longer
important so.
c't: Can you tell us a little more about it, how the development of Linux is
organized?
Torvalds: We take a simple example. There someone has an idea. First he will
discuss that with acquaintance and on the Kernel mailing list: I need this
feature for those reasons, operate there someone to? If nobody announces
itself, he will program it. Then it uses the new feature only once, speaks with
people in its environment more drueber and postet it on the Kernel mailing
list, if it liked that its code is received into the Standardkernel. He knows,
how it runs, and does not send not equal a Mail to me.
If it is perfect code, it is called perhaps alike in the mailing list: we want
to have `Ja, that.' But does not occur in practice. The reaction looks rather
in such a way: `Wir understand, what you want, but like that are that
considerable muck. I would like to make something something similar, but does
not go together with your code.' And then one modifies the interfaces, so that
both goes at the same time, and it comes to modifications, in which other
people are interested.
That can last for a very long time. Above all large modifications can circulate
even several years as Patches in the Kernelliste, while and even a quantity of
people the new code is discussed to begin. I receive such Patches and
discussions on the list; and I decide sometime then that the code is so useful
that it is to become part of the Standardkernels. Perhaps particularly with
important questions I discuss along and legend: `Ich sees, for which you are;
but from view of the Kernelarchitektur that is the false way '. The code flows
sometime then into my Standardkernel, or it remains an external Patch for
special purposes.
c't: How are you to the possibility of a code Forking in the Kernel? The Linux
boss at IBM about said recently that a Kernel cannot cover all request of the
Embedded DEVICE up to the enterprise-critical server.
Torvalds: Forking constantly occurs. Only because my Kernel is considered as
the official, that does not mean that there is not a quantity `inoffizielle '
Kernel. For example most Distributoren has own Kernelversionen with special
features. SuSE about attaches much importance on ISDN, because in Germany is
important; for the remainder of the world ISDN is however no topic. Different
distributions address themselves to different classes of users; SGI for example
is interested particularly in the SGI market with computers with hundreds of
CPUs. The SGI Kernel will contain therefore features for the application on
large machines.
I try to maintain a common Standardkernel; but that is not Kernel for everyone.
Naturally supercomputers and Embedded DEVICE make completely different demands,
and the Kernel will be never the same. I try to keep the differences as small
as possible to insert and new things in such a way that they do not obstruct
extreme applications.
c't: During the work on the Entwicklerkernel 2,3 there was a quantity of
discussions around the store management...
Torvalds:.. it gives still.
c't: If one wants to address large quantities in servers at primary storages,
one needs a store management, which is not so efficient in systems with few
RAM.
Torvalds: That is a classical example. A quantity of things seems to be
incompatibly together. There I need page on the support for small devices, and
on the other page are large machines with 16 nodes, everyone with its own
memory and altogether hundreds of GByte at RAM. The solutions for it must look
naturally completely different. The first response consists usually of two
different code watering gene, simply because it makes work to few - the code
does not have to consider so many possibilities. But the maintenance of the
code becomes more difficult, because one must have interfaces to both code
watering gene.
But then it comes to a Virtualisierung of the store management. That was one of
the things, on which we operated during the 2.3-Entwicklung: to virtualisieren
the term of a `Speicherknotens '. A small device is then the same like a large
machine, with the only difference that it has only a memory node, while the
large computer has several this node. The small device becomes in such a way a
simple case of the large machine.
From the same code then different Kernel develops over an appropriate
configuration option. In the source code there is a loop over the nodes; but
with a node the loop runs from zero to zero, when compiling is away-optimized
and is missing in the Binary any longer. That makes the maintenance of the
source texts many simpler, and with such Design questions I deal with myself.
Naturally that cannot be done always in such a way. Sometimes one has simply
different devices, which need different drivers. One must with the Design the
decision meets, which code is general, and when one writes different code for
the different cases. Therefore it goes in the long run into the computers
Science.
c't: The Kernelquellen is meanwhile very extensive...
Torvalds:.. around the 55 MByte of source texts; I do not have the exact
number ready, but there is about three million lines code. The Kernel is
enormous, and nobody could maintain him, if not very most driver completely
independent of it were. In addition, driver development is not simple, because
one must out-iron all the weaknesses of the hardware.
c't: Programmers know the problem that they modify something in a place in the
code and the program falls then in another place.
Torvalds: Occurs such a thing with the Kernel also.
c't: How do you kriegt such difficulties into the grasp?
Torvalds: There is only one solution: clean interfaces. Ideal way should give
it never surprising of bug or to interactions, of which one never thought. The
interfaces must be so clear that one knows with a modification of the code in a
place, in which places one otherwise still modify must. I do not state that the
interfaces are always so clean in Linux, but we operate on it. Many of the
modifications in the Kernel 2,4 direct in this direction. It in most cases
concerned more to sketch clean interfaces to write than actually new code.
Frequently the program code does not fit however what one considered oneself;
that makes a modifying of the interfaces so laborious. But it is enormously
important, even if the user can detect only no advantage therein - until it
discovers a new machine, where the modified interface is necessary.
c't: I do not even want to ask, when the Kernel will appear 2,4...
Torvalds:.. I hope, still this year...
c't:... but would interest me, where the problems with the new Kernel were
situated.
Torvalds: A fundamental difficulty is not at all technical type, but is
situated in the fact that most people do not want to upgraden at all on a new
Kernel. They are not content with the Kernel 2,2, have larger problems thereby
- why should they try a Entwicklerkernel out? It is a certain group of users,
who test new Kernels; and before the publication of a new Anwenderkernels at
least a section this user must have tested the new Kernel. The developers have
their own view of new versions, we need external users for testing. That is not
only with Linux a problem; some software producers pay even people for trying
new beta versions out.
But there are also still a few technical difficulties. We know of some genuine
bug, for which partly even already solutions exist; however all developers are
not convinced that these solutions are also really good. In this regard there
are still some open questions: Frequently the developers want better solutions,
which guarantee that a certain problem does not occur in the future any
longer.
Beyond that there are also problems in communication. The people, bug find, are
usually the developers themselves and do not describe the problems completely
differently, than that would do a developer. That costs simply much time.
c't: A while ago you already spoke of the Kernelerweiterungen of the Linux
Distributoren. SuSE for example delivers the Anwenderkernels 2,2 with the
Logical volume manager and the Journaling file system ReiserFS. Even ones over
ReiserFS intensively discussed the Kernelentwickler - with the decision not to
take up it yet to the `offiziellen ' Kernel. What do you hold of such
`Eigenmaechtigkeiten '? You had nevertheless surely your reasons for the
decision against ReiserFS.
Torvalds: Particularly in the last year new groups of users were added, and
even SuSE - to want to speak without now for SuSE - co-operated much with large
customers, who are interested in LVM. For the administration of several hundred
disks one needs such Tools. And also, if the system does not fall, but, is not
acceptable e2fsck-Laeufe of several hours is only occasionally again gebootet,
so that one will take dear ReiserFS. Such applications arose only lately, and
it needs simply its time to integrate such a thing. LVM is since a half year in
the Entwicklerkernel 2,3, but still last week we operated on it. ReiserFS
wanted to take up I in no case before the Kernel 2,4, because I always thought,
briefly before the code Freeze to be and no completely new questions more into
the discussion to bring wanted. SuSE and others tested ReiserFS in the
meantime, therefore we will probably take up it to the version 2.4.1. nglish:
Which users do, is never false. I cannot prescribe the Linux Usern
nevertheless, what her to do to have. My opinion always was: Which the people
want to always do, it is correct. I can make only decisions, how architecture
is to look, those enabled, or notes to give, how one can obtain the same result
with another beginning. ReiserFS will come, and I cannot say easily `nein ' to
it. Perhaps for me it goes only around the timing and some modifications, in
order to integrate ReiserFS better into the Kernel.
[ SGIs Journaling file system ] XFS is another thing. **time-out** it be not
yet so far like ReiserFS, and I can not say, whether it in a year section the
Standardkernels be will. [ the successor of the Linux standard Dateisystems
ext2 ] ext3fs is again another affair. Already there the code is, and there are
users, who already use it. ext3fs could be quite integrated into the
Kernelserie 2,4 or at an early point in time in the Kernel 2.5. It concerns to
me flexibility. Open SOURCE means that one can make all possible one with the
code.
That does not mean that I use ReiserFS or ext3fs. Which interests me in it, is
something else. ReiserFS, XFS and ext3fs will have obviously a quantity
together. What means for the Virtual the file system [ the Kernelstruktur,
those the interface to the file systems forms ]? Perhaps take we sections code,
which several of the file systems contained - even if they do different things,
it concerns and tries in the long run the same -, to create for it a common
interface. Makes work real such a thing. Until the VFS can deal with
Journaling, still two or three years will probably offense; but then the file
systems do not have any longer so much work thereby. That is the type of
questions, with which I deal with myself.
c't: What is to time the most interesting technical developments with Linux?
Torvalds: With most things it does not concern at all the Kernel. Naturally
there are there exciting developments, for example the scaling barness - that
was technically extremely interesting. But the really fascinating things make
other people. The whole excitement around DVD was very interesting, although
perhaps something discouraging. And then naturally the Desktop and things,
which are quite unusual actually for Unix. If I look for example television, I
do with a Linux computer, whose fixed disk serves as video recorder. If one
used such a device times, one wants to never touch again a classical video
recorder. I use such devices only for films, which there are not on DVD.
c't: And generally in the IT world? Finally you operate in a Hightech company.
Torvalds: These whole wireless stories. I have for example a great Handy, a
laptop and a Palm. If I on the way am, use I mean laptop, in order to read
E-Mail; and then I want to use the Handy as modem. But does not go; this type
communication does not function simply yet. I think, in five years all these
devices to communicate together will be able. Interesting thereby the
technique, but the conversion to applications is fewer.
c't: If you on the long history of the development of Linux back-look: Were
there things, which surprised you there?
Torvalds: Very few. Naturally I would have been at the start very surprised, if
I had known, where Linux would develop. But when that all occurred, nothing
really surprised me of it. When I placed the version 0.01 in Internet, I
counted on comments. Perhaps came at that time somewhat more reactions, than I
had expected; but I believe, not times that was really like that. After some
months there was 50 instead of the expected five people, then some hundreds;
and that surprised me already somewhat. But I at the same time experienced the
development of five over ten and twenty to fifty Usern, therefore there was no
point, at which I said myself: `Mein God, which occurs there? ' Then the
commercial interest, which increasing medium echo - which think most people,
which is everything in the last two years occurs, but actually developed it
slowly of the last nine years. Companies began to support Linux - sometimes it
was surprising to be seen, in which extent, approximately at IBM nobody counted
on the fact that IBM would go so far. In addition, there was not these one
point there, at which I would have been really surprised.
c't: Does it give somewhat, what annoyed you?
Torvalds: Not much. The most unpleasant surprise was this Mindcraft study [ one
of Microsoft financed study, in in April 1999 Linux in relation to Windows NT
very badly had probably cut off ]. I remember still, how sour at that time I
was. Meanwhile it does not annoy me any longer, since it went out at the end
well. Perhaps most surprisingly the constantly positive reactions are opposite
Linux. The developer municipality was from the outset very friendly, despite
all these discussions around the Linux Kernel, which can work occasionally very
violently.
c't: There there is a quantity of ugly discussions...nglish:
Torvalds: Yes, with discussions around their technical ideas the people become
very heated and unpleasant.
c't: Is typical for the open SOURCE municipality? For example this strong
antipathy opposite Microsoft...
Torvalds: No, not only. Are there very similar to Mac user. Internet makes it
easy to talk simply straight on and then it comes fast to Fleming Wars. One
does not know the people, with which one argues, and then exaggerates one it
easily. That is not definitely only with Linux like that - if one all `Advocacy
the Groups ' there outside regards... it is amusing. The arguments between
Linux and FreeBSD fans for example are still many more violent, because these
groups know each other and know well, where it pain-does. The people argue
simply gladly. It is a social competition, one shows so its superiority other
one opposite. Many of these fundamental debates are in the meantime completely
past, for instance the argument around vi versus Emacs (odi)
Okay, as long as we're ragging on lame/annoying advertising aimed at selling to sheep, how about the policy of vendors pricing everything at $XX.99? I guess this must work, or they wouldn't bother to do it, right? But isn't it obvious to the sheep that this is essentially equivalent to $(XX+1). Hmmm, I wonder how much of the GNP goes toward printing that extra.99 on the price tickets, sales ads, and whatnot. Maybe that's a good topic for 'Ask Slashdot'...
And while I'm on the topic, why do gas stations charge $1.XX9? I can see that coming from the whole sheep clientelle thing, but does anybody know where that extra decimal place come from?
I was kind of hoping this merger would go through -- it would have decreased the number of annoying telemarketing calls to my phone by *at least* 50%. This is clearly an instance where the anti-monopoly law fail to serve the public interest. Heh.
...has a short story with a corollary subject. It's in an anthology called "Ends", and I think the title is "Computers don't lie". Not to give away the plot or anything, but it starts out with a guy named Childs returning R.L. Stevenson's "Kidnapped" to a Book of the Month Club and then getting notices from them that they'll turn his account over to a collection agency if he doesn't pay for the book... eerily familiar to some of us, no?
I downloaded the RPM and installed on a RH6.0 machine. The registration utility has a bug in it (whitespace in responses seems to be interpreted as \n's). After figuring out the bug, I got the software enabled. It was *remarkably* slow. And it was unable to load Canvas5.2 files from disk. At that point I lost interest. It doesn't make sense to me to rush a product to 'market' if its early introduction is just going to irritate potential users. (But I am glad Deneba is working on it.)
Slashdot Mirror
$34 $32
(Actually, it's possible to compress *much* more information into these two bytes.)
...or get the information from the /. article published on the BBC site.
I may be missing something, but does the BBC article have a byline? Or was it thoroughly researched and written by the evil twin sister of Anonymous Coward?
`Was users do, are never false '
Linus Torvalds to history and future of Linux
Star guest of the LinuxWorld at the beginning of of Octobers in Frankfurt was
Linus Torvalds. The success of Linux has the free operating system and its
`Erfinder the ' far beyond EDV world admits made.
1991 had begun Torvalds from its discontent with the PC operating systems
existing at that time, a its own, to program Unix similar operating system.
Originally Linux was only for the computer at that time of the 21-Jaehrigen
meant; but after publication of the version 0.01 in the InterNet Linux won very
fast trailers and a constantly growing crowd of developers. Meanwhile the open
SOURCE system on all usual hardware architectures runs and particularly with
the InterNet servers a fixed workstation captured.
c't: Linux what you wanted originally, but already some years ago achieved. Why
did you continue at this point?
Torvalds: The targets changed. At the start it concerned to me above all to
make something interesting and have fun. I assumed that I would be the only
user, and made also no concrete plans regarding the features. I knew, what I
expected from a Unix; but I was not interested for example in diagram, because
I wanted to only edit and compile source code.
After I had published Linux in the InterNet, however different users asked for
features, of which I had never thought, and ever more new ideas arose. Instead
of a Unix for my own Desktop Linux should become now the best operating system
at all. By the desires of other people and later then its Patches and
assistance it became many more interesting. In the meantime most work is made
by others.
Meanwhile it concerns to me a good operating system Design, which is useful for
other people also. My activity did not change at all so much: I program and
read a quantity of enamel. In view to my original plans Linux is long finished;
but the many new areas of application for Linux motivate me to continue. If I
had not placed Linux in the InterNet and these other users were not, I would
have probably already terminated the work on Linux 1992.
c't: How long do you want to continue with Linux? You see one point sometime in
the future, at which you will say: `Jetzt has I enough of it?'
Torvalds: I do not believe that there is a special point there. I always
stopped with individual things, and began already very early. Completely at the
start for example I provided for all applications: I had - additionally to the
work on the Kernel - portieren which Shell, the compiler and the libraries.
Therefore then however very early different people worried, and I could
concentrate on the Kernel. Nowadays I operate still on the Kernel, but I am
limited now to a large extent to central functions such as memory and task
management and the fundamental Design.
Likewise I stopped to a large extent speaking on meetings like this LinuxWorld.
I participated here in the panel discussion, but no key note held, because me
such things dreadfully stresses. I assume I will concentrate on ever more
special areas; but I do not believe that I will stop completely with Linux -
until someone comes perhaps sometime, which is better than I, so that I
withdraw myself.
c't: If you sometime no more desire on Linux have - as then the organization of
the Linux developers could turn out?
Torvalds: I do not see that in foreseeable time occurs; but there is a quantity
of people, which could do my work. Meanwhile I hardly still program, but I show
`guten taste ' - I make decisions regarding architecture. But there are other
people, which have likewise `guten taste '. I am a type central start place,
process enamels, read her, send her to the correct people.
Meetings are obviously PR work, and there are enough people, which could do
that just as well. Zurzeit is most important it to be a type identification
figure for Linux purely for psychological reasons. Meanwhile one knows Linux of
companies such as SuSE, IBM or talks has; but long time was Linux this radical,
movement aforementioned by Linus Torvalds.
If the airplane from Frankfurt would fall now to San Francisco, everyone could
- now well, perhaps everyone, but a quantity of people could not take over mine
job. It would not be surely only one person. The fact that it is for the moment
a person has historical reasons. In reality Linux is not only one person: I do,
what I do, and [ the XFree86-Entwickler ] my technical work on the Kernel makes
its job for Dirk Hohndel for example could several people complete.
If one regards, how Linux is actually developed: I do not touch for example the
Kernel 2,2, make all [ the Kernel hacker ] Alan Cox. now have we soon the
Anwenderkernel 2,4 finished, and then Ted Ts'o [ developer of the
ext2-Dateisystems ] will worry about the Kernel 2,4. I can concentrate then on
the Entwicklerkernel, because me in most interested and because the developers
thereby are content, as I do. But it is not like that that that could not do
anybody to others. It would surely give a quantity to excitement in the media,
if I fell over the ocean, but for the Linux development I am no longer
important so.
c't: Can you tell us a little more about it, how the development of Linux is
organized?
Torvalds: We take a simple example. There someone has an idea. First he will
discuss that with acquaintance and on the Kernel mailing list: I need this
feature for those reasons, operate there someone to? If nobody announces
itself, he will program it. Then it uses the new feature only once, speaks with
people in its environment more drueber and postet it on the Kernel mailing
list, if it liked that its code is received into the Standardkernel. He knows,
how it runs, and does not send not equal a Mail to me.
If it is perfect code, it is called perhaps alike in the mailing list: we want
to have `Ja, that.' But does not occur in practice. The reaction looks rather
in such a way: `Wir understand, what you want, but like that are that
considerable muck. I would like to make something something similar, but does
not go together with your code.' And then one modifies the interfaces, so that
both goes at the same time, and it comes to modifications, in which other
people are interested.
That can last for a very long time. Above all large modifications can circulate
even several years as Patches in the Kernelliste, while and even a quantity of
people the new code is discussed to begin. I receive such Patches and
discussions on the list; and I decide sometime then that the code is so useful
that it is to become part of the Standardkernels. Perhaps particularly with
important questions I discuss along and legend: `Ich sees, for which you are;
but from view of the Kernelarchitektur that is the false way '. The code flows
sometime then into my Standardkernel, or it remains an external Patch for
special purposes.
c't: How are you to the possibility of a code Forking in the Kernel? The Linux
boss at IBM about said recently that a Kernel cannot cover all request of the
Embedded DEVICE up to the enterprise-critical server.
Torvalds: Forking constantly occurs. Only because my Kernel is considered as
the official, that does not mean that there is not a quantity `inoffizielle '
Kernel. For example most Distributoren has own Kernelversionen with special
features. SuSE about attaches much importance on ISDN, because in Germany is
important; for the remainder of the world ISDN is however no topic. Different
distributions address themselves to different classes of users; SGI for example
is interested particularly in the SGI market with computers with hundreds of
CPUs. The SGI Kernel will contain therefore features for the application on
large machines.
I try to maintain a common Standardkernel; but that is not Kernel for everyone.
Naturally supercomputers and Embedded DEVICE make completely different demands,
and the Kernel will be never the same. I try to keep the differences as small
as possible to insert and new things in such a way that they do not obstruct
extreme applications.
c't: During the work on the Entwicklerkernel 2,3 there was a quantity of
discussions around the store management...
Torvalds:
c't: If one wants to address large quantities in servers at primary storages,
one needs a store management, which is not so efficient in systems with few
RAM.
Torvalds: That is a classical example. A quantity of things seems to be
incompatibly together. There I need page on the support for small devices, and
on the other page are large machines with 16 nodes, everyone with its own
memory and altogether hundreds of GByte at RAM. The solutions for it must look
naturally completely different. The first response consists usually of two
different code watering gene, simply because it makes work to few - the code
does not have to consider so many possibilities. But the maintenance of the
code becomes more difficult, because one must have interfaces to both code
watering gene.
But then it comes to a Virtualisierung of the store management. That was one of
the things, on which we operated during the 2.3-Entwicklung: to virtualisieren
the term of a `Speicherknotens '. A small device is then the same like a large
machine, with the only difference that it has only a memory node, while the
large computer has several this node. The small device becomes in such a way a
simple case of the large machine.
From the same code then different Kernel develops over an appropriate
configuration option. In the source code there is a loop over the nodes; but
with a node the loop runs from zero to zero, when compiling is away-optimized
and is missing in the Binary any longer. That makes the maintenance of the
source texts many simpler, and with such Design questions I deal with myself.
Naturally that cannot be done always in such a way. Sometimes one has simply
different devices, which need different drivers. One must with the Design the
decision meets, which code is general, and when one writes different code for
the different cases. Therefore it goes in the long run into the computers
Science.
c't: The Kernelquellen is meanwhile very extensive...
Torvalds:
number ready, but there is about three million lines code. The Kernel is
enormous, and nobody could maintain him, if not very most driver completely
independent of it were. In addition, driver development is not simple, because
one must out-iron all the weaknesses of the hardware.
c't: Programmers know the problem that they modify something in a place in the
code and the program falls then in another place.
Torvalds: Occurs such a thing with the Kernel also.
c't: How do you kriegt such difficulties into the grasp?
Torvalds: There is only one solution: clean interfaces. Ideal way should give
it never surprising of bug or to interactions, of which one never thought. The
interfaces must be so clear that one knows with a modification of the code in a
place, in which places one otherwise still modify must. I do not state that the
interfaces are always so clean in Linux, but we operate on it. Many of the
modifications in the Kernel 2,4 direct in this direction. It in most cases
concerned more to sketch clean interfaces to write than actually new code.
Frequently the program code does not fit however what one considered oneself;
that makes a modifying of the interfaces so laborious. But it is enormously
important, even if the user can detect only no advantage therein - until it
discovers a new machine, where the modified interface is necessary.
c't: I do not even want to ask, when the Kernel will appear 2,4...
Torvalds:
c't:... but would interest me, where the problems with the new Kernel were
situated.
Torvalds: A fundamental difficulty is not at all technical type, but is
situated in the fact that most people do not want to upgraden at all on a new
Kernel. They are not content with the Kernel 2,2, have larger problems thereby
- why should they try a Entwicklerkernel out? It is a certain group of users,
who test new Kernels; and before the publication of a new Anwenderkernels at
least a section this user must have tested the new Kernel. The developers have
their own view of new versions, we need external users for testing. That is not
only with Linux a problem; some software producers pay even people for trying
new beta versions out.
But there are also still a few technical difficulties. We know of some genuine
bug, for which partly even already solutions exist; however all developers are
not convinced that these solutions are also really good. In this regard there
are still some open questions: Frequently the developers want better solutions,
which guarantee that a certain problem does not occur in the future any
longer.
Beyond that there are also problems in communication. The people, bug find, are
usually the developers themselves and do not describe the problems completely
differently, than that would do a developer. That costs simply much time.
c't: A while ago you already spoke of the Kernelerweiterungen of the Linux
Distributoren. SuSE for example delivers the Anwenderkernels 2,2 with the
Logical volume manager and the Journaling file system ReiserFS. Even ones over
ReiserFS intensively discussed the Kernelentwickler - with the decision not to
take up it yet to the `offiziellen ' Kernel. What do you hold of such
`Eigenmaechtigkeiten '? You had nevertheless surely your reasons for the
decision against ReiserFS.
Torvalds: Particularly in the last year new groups of users were added, and
even SuSE - to want to speak without now for SuSE - co-operated much with large
customers, who are interested in LVM. For the administration of several hundred
disks one needs such Tools. And also, if the system does not fall, but, is not
acceptable e2fsck-Laeufe of several hours is only occasionally again gebootet,
so that one will take dear ReiserFS. Such applications arose only lately, and
it needs simply its time to integrate such a thing. LVM is since a half year in
the Entwicklerkernel 2,3, but still last week we operated on it. ReiserFS
wanted to take up I in no case before the Kernel 2,4, because I always thought,
briefly before the code Freeze to be and no completely new questions more into
the discussion to bring wanted. SuSE and others tested ReiserFS in the
meantime, therefore we will probably take up it to the version 2.4.1. nglish:
Which users do, is never false. I cannot prescribe the Linux Usern
nevertheless, what her to do to have. My opinion always was: Which the people
want to always do, it is correct. I can make only decisions, how architecture
is to look, those enabled, or notes to give, how one can obtain the same result
with another beginning. ReiserFS will come, and I cannot say easily `nein ' to
it. Perhaps for me it goes only around the timing and some modifications, in
order to integrate ReiserFS better into the Kernel.
[ SGIs Journaling file system ] XFS is another thing. **time-out** it be not
yet so far like ReiserFS, and I can not say, whether it in a year section the
Standardkernels be will. [ the successor of the Linux standard Dateisystems
ext2 ] ext3fs is again another affair. Already there the code is, and there are
users, who already use it. ext3fs could be quite integrated into the
Kernelserie 2,4 or at an early point in time in the Kernel 2.5. It concerns to
me flexibility. Open SOURCE means that one can make all possible one with the
code.
That does not mean that I use ReiserFS or ext3fs. Which interests me in it, is
something else. ReiserFS, XFS and ext3fs will have obviously a quantity
together. What means for the Virtual the file system [ the Kernelstruktur,
those the interface to the file systems forms ]? Perhaps take we sections code,
which several of the file systems contained - even if they do different things,
it concerns and tries in the long run the same -, to create for it a common
interface. Makes work real such a thing. Until the VFS can deal with
Journaling, still two or three years will probably offense; but then the file
systems do not have any longer so much work thereby. That is the type of
questions, with which I deal with myself.
c't: What is to time the most interesting technical developments with Linux?
Torvalds: With most things it does not concern at all the Kernel. Naturally
there are there exciting developments, for example the scaling barness - that
was technically extremely interesting. But the really fascinating things make
other people. The whole excitement around DVD was very interesting, although
perhaps something discouraging. And then naturally the Desktop and things,
which are quite unusual actually for Unix. If I look for example television, I
do with a Linux computer, whose fixed disk serves as video recorder. If one
used such a device times, one wants to never touch again a classical video
recorder. I use such devices only for films, which there are not on DVD.
c't: And generally in the IT world? Finally you operate in a Hightech company.
Torvalds: These whole wireless stories. I have for example a great Handy, a
laptop and a Palm. If I on the way am, use I mean laptop, in order to read
E-Mail; and then I want to use the Handy as modem. But does not go; this type
communication does not function simply yet. I think, in five years all these
devices to communicate together will be able. Interesting thereby the
technique, but the conversion to applications is fewer.
c't: If you on the long history of the development of Linux back-look: Were
there things, which surprised you there?
Torvalds: Very few. Naturally I would have been at the start very surprised, if
I had known, where Linux would develop. But when that all occurred, nothing
really surprised me of it. When I placed the version 0.01 in Internet, I
counted on comments. Perhaps came at that time somewhat more reactions, than I
had expected; but I believe, not times that was really like that. After some
months there was 50 instead of the expected five people, then some hundreds;
and that surprised me already somewhat. But I at the same time experienced the
development of five over ten and twenty to fifty Usern, therefore there was no
point, at which I said myself: `Mein God, which occurs there? ' Then the
commercial interest, which increasing medium echo - which think most people,
which is everything in the last two years occurs, but actually developed it
slowly of the last nine years. Companies began to support Linux - sometimes it
was surprising to be seen, in which extent, approximately at IBM nobody counted
on the fact that IBM would go so far. In addition, there was not these one
point there, at which I would have been really surprised.
c't: Does it give somewhat, what annoyed you?
Torvalds: Not much. The most unpleasant surprise was this Mindcraft study [ one
of Microsoft financed study, in in April 1999 Linux in relation to Windows NT
very badly had probably cut off ]. I remember still, how sour at that time I
was. Meanwhile it does not annoy me any longer, since it went out at the end
well. Perhaps most surprisingly the constantly positive reactions are opposite
Linux. The developer municipality was from the outset very friendly, despite
all these discussions around the Linux Kernel, which can work occasionally very
violently.
c't: There there is a quantity of ugly discussions...nglish:
Torvalds: Yes, with discussions around their technical ideas the people become
very heated and unpleasant.
c't: Is typical for the open SOURCE municipality? For example this strong
antipathy opposite Microsoft...
Torvalds: No, not only. Are there very similar to Mac user. Internet makes it
easy to talk simply straight on and then it comes fast to Fleming Wars. One
does not know the people, with which one argues, and then exaggerates one it
easily. That is not definitely only with Linux like that - if one all `Advocacy
the Groups ' there outside regards... it is amusing. The arguments between
Linux and FreeBSD fans for example are still many more violent, because these
groups know each other and know well, where it pain-does. The people argue
simply gladly. It is a social competition, one shows so its superiority other
one opposite. Many of these fundamental debates are in the meantime completely
past, for instance the argument around vi versus Emacs (odi)
And while I'm on the topic, why do gas stations charge $1.XX9? I can see that coming from the whole sheep clientelle thing, but does anybody know where that extra decimal place come from?
(I'm just waiting until someone releases a plug-in compatible replacement for my head.)
The text of UCITA is here . Check out "Part 4 - Warranties" for the legalese.
I was kind of hoping this merger would go through -- it would have decreased the number of annoying telemarketing calls to my phone by *at least* 50%. This is clearly an instance where the anti-monopoly law fail to serve the public interest. Heh.
...has a short story with a corollary subject. It's in an anthology called "Ends", and I think the title is "Computers don't lie". Not to give away the plot or anything, but it starts out with a guy named Childs returning R.L. Stevenson's "Kidnapped" to a Book of the Month Club and then getting notices from them that they'll turn his account over to a collection agency if he doesn't pay for the book... eerily familiar to some of us, no?
I downloaded the RPM and installed on a RH6.0 machine. The registration utility has a bug in it (whitespace in responses seems to be interpreted as \n's). After figuring out the bug, I got the software enabled. It was *remarkably* slow. And it was unable to load Canvas5.2 files from disk. At that point I lost interest. It doesn't make sense to me to rush a product to 'market' if its early introduction is just going to irritate potential users. (But I am glad Deneba is working on it.)