Linus Interviewed 407
a9db0 writes "There is a somewhat low-content interview with Linus here in the Seattle Times about his move to Portland. It does have a couple of Linus classic one-liners."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Linus Interviewed
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
Low content? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
May we all realize this much some day.
Is there any way an AC can mod Linus + gajillion Insightful for that quote? If so, allow me.
Re:Election 2004 (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, I think the Microsoft execs would make much better politicians. They already have the BSing part down, not much else to learn.
Sounds like a great guy! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Proneenciation? (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, people in the US have been brainwashed to pronouce the name "leye-nus" for over 50 years by the comic strip "Peanuts". I never knew there WAS any other way to pronouce that name until after I got into Linux and heard Linus pronounce his name.
I assume most Finnish people pronounce it the way he does.
It's just based on how you pronouce the name "Linus" by default.
Fixing fundamental design mistakes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Some folks still think that *nix is inherently virus proof because anything a mere user runs couldn't touch the really important stuff in
Maybe Linus is saying that as viruses start attacking Linux, he's willing to radically rethink permissions. GRsecurity and SElinux point in that direction, but wouldn't work for a normal user. Could there be a future Linux kernel that prevents an image library exploit from modifying your
Re:Highlights (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Election 2004 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But, how do you really feel? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:But, how do you really feel? (Score:2, Insightful)
I love it how everyone oos and aahs about Windows two billion and five XP special extra home edition not crashing and being slightly more resistant to viruses like that was something that microsoft shouldn't have done in the late 80s/early 90s. They literally have more money than they know what to do with and yet they still produce shitty insecure software.
Re:I find this quote more interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Anti-GPL arguments tend to boil down to one issue--if the code were truly "free," then you ought to be able to do anything you want with it, including slipping the original authors a deuce and taking the code and making it proprietary.
The GPL isn't designed to protect the code, it's designed to protect the community that wrote the code.
Re:Ob. comment (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with your sentiment. I use linux daily (posting from konqi on gentoo). But I have a hard time believing there are at least two million folks world wide that are "developing" for linux. Maybe a few hundred thousand, but I can't fathom two million or more.
If you have a source to back up your claim, please post it. TIA.
BTW, I agree that it's amazing.
Re:Fixing fundamental design mistakes? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are dismissing things too easily. The fact that the stuff under
The stuff stored under $HOME is mostly data, not executable (except for scripts, which are easy to doublecheck). If I find out I have been hacked or virused, I just shrug, tar up
Viruses aren't a problem because they can only hit stuff in
For whom it may concern: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Fixing fundamental design mistakes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it can:
Any program that can only tell a file type by its extension is poorly written.
Re:Fixing fundamental design mistakes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct at that point. It's not just permissions or any other one thing. When you have to react you try to get at the root of the problem as much as possible.
One advantage of Unix is that it is inherently multi-user. If it's just me on the computer, why should I be limited to just one identity? Seems I should be able to run a browser under its own identity and if it catches viruses and whatever, all it can mess up is itself. Adds a wee bit of a hassle in that I have an extra step anytime I want to lift something out of the browser, but has the distinct advantage that I'm in control, not the browser.
When Linux gets attacked, you get responses from several levels. You do not have to wait for official patches. If the official sources are still asleep you'll find something at least marginally effective on Slashdot. Some of the early stuff may do more damage than good, but in the heat of battle you are considerably better off if you can choose your own optimum in the space between "must do something now" and "best to wait for the official patch". The situation may resemble the Keystone Kops, but it is effective and there is a high probability that at the end something does actually get fixed instead of some kinda-sorta workaround.
Some folks still think that *nix is inherently virus proof
Technically, *nix is vulnerable, but there will be enough response and effective enough response that the malware won't get much of anywhere. A simple count of vulnerabilities is a poor indicator of the success of exploiting those vulnerabilities.
Re:Highlights (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly, no. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a mistake that the talented and intelligent often make. Many people cannot make up their own minds about the facts. It's a bell-curve distribution; at one end are the people who have the intelligence and character to weigh the facts and cut through the bullshit, at the other are the ones who believe the MacDonalds healthy fast-food ads.
Of course, I could be wrong. I frequently am.
Re:Sounds like a great guy! (Score:3, Insightful)
The really weird thing is he's actually nicer in person than he sounds in interviews. Or maybe it isn't weird; most normal people come off a little stiffer/less friendly in interviews. Maybe what is weird is that there are so few people who manage to do what they want, don't sell out, and mostly don't care how other people feel about it, that we have no baseline for our expectations when one of them "makes it big".
Maybe the weird thing is that all the class A1 jerks that never manage to do anything useful, get famous, and still wind up sounding like the class A1 jerks they really are have warped our expectations.
-- MarkusQ
Re:Election 2004 (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really believe that makes them better suited for the job, or does it just make them fit in better with the incumbents?
Re:But, how do you really feel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, is Microsoft a monopolist? Before you answer, read up on your history [com.com]. Have they used this monopoly power to hurt consumers, by locking them in, by limiting choice?
If that's the American Dream, then I maybe its time to revise the American Dream.
By the way, from here [reference.com], an ecosystem is "a community of organisms." There isn't much of an ecosystem if one of the "organisms" has absolute power over every other one.
Re:I find this quote more interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Anti-GPL arguments tend to boil down to one issue--if the code were truly "free," then you ought to be able to do anything you want with it, including slipping the original authors a deuce and taking the code and making it proprietary.
Nobody can make your code proprietary. You have a copy of it and the same rights you always had. What a person can do with BSD-licensed code is incorporate it into something with a more restrictive license. That doesn't hurt the original creators of the code. It just opens the code up to more uses. For the same reason that I don't consider unauthorized copying "theft" or "piracy", I don't consider reuse of code in propietary software "taking it and making it proprietary". The original owner is not deprived of their code.
Re:Election 2004 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What if... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it would certainly stagnate. Linus is, in quite a few ways, the largest driving force: philosophically, technically, organizationally, nice-person-figurehead....ly, etc.
I'd say that, by far, his strongest point is his ability to colaborate with thousands upon thousands of people, balance personalities and egos that are typically more excentric than your average geek (let alone average person), and still manage to piss off a minimal number of people, all while cultivating a thriving heirarchy of kernel development culture. It's utterly amazing, and blows my mind utterly and completely. Very few people on earth, if anyone else, could do such a thing and have a coherrent piece of software at the end of the day.
Re:But, how do you really feel? (Score:2, Insightful)
Woah there! (Score:5, Insightful)
If Linux isn't ready for the desktop, how did my otherwise computer illiterate ex-girlfriend start using it for web/email/AIM/wordproc? How do people who come over my house know how to use the 'weird' machine? How is it a more pleasant desktop experience than XP for most people who try it out on a managed (read: not the 'everything installed' default system)?
Linux is ABSOLUTELY ready for the desktop, but like any new OS, you need someone who knows what they're doing to show it (and tailor it) to each individual newbie. Average folks weren't BORN with the Windows way of doing things already in their heads. The lack of Linux on the desktop is the result of several factors:
1. Not large enough expert userbase to provide 'neighborhood support'.
2. No marketing to the home market.
3. Total disregard/denial of desktop viability by admins and managers afraid of an OS that isn't their current bread-and-butter.
4. People like you.
In any case, Linus is as responsible for Linux GUI usability as You or I, that being 'not at all'. You can't blame a kernel hacker for the faults of the designers of the windowing environment, toolkits, and desktops.
um, metamods? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But, how do you really feel? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, Microsoft has a PR problem, but to call them greedy and anti-American Dream is taking things way too far. Microsoft fucking epitomizes the American Dream.
The American dream is not about creating a Monopoly, where competetion is stiffled via patents.
1) Doulbe clicking
2) How about putting icons on the desktop (IE: trash can). Ok, the trash can was, I think an Apple patent.
3)What about patents for scroll bars?
How are small developers to compete with insane patents.
"Microsoft made billions selling licenses to great software, and created a vibrant ecosystem where everyone respects everyone elses intellectual property rights. Linux and other communist-type free software ideals threaten to destroy that ecosystem which employs so many people! Take Econ101. "
My major/degree is in Finance and I have taken several econ courses in my life.
1) How is a sense of community a communist scheme to destroy the economic foundation of a capitolstic society? I have been born a bread a capitolist, I firmly dont believe in communism. Linux is a different financial model.
Back to Econ 101: As countries develop, they move from an industrialzed to a service orientend economy. The software industry can loosely be defined as a good. Someone creates a good and then sells it. Now, Linux comes along and creates an opportunity to give a product away for Free/Low cost. Now it opens the door to provide Sevice and Support for such a product.
Here are some aspects to Linux and service provided:
Have you ever rolled your own distribution? No. Well people get paid for making their own distribution.
Ever had to patch a distribution? No, well companies will pay for a service to patch a distribution.
There is money to be made by creating a pure service side to software.
Have you ever called MS for support? If you have, they ask you to whip out your credit card.
If I buy a new car, and I have an issue, I can take it to the dealer and have my car serviced. Ever try to get your windows install serviced? Call MS and what happens. Credit Card number please.
What about manuals for software. I remember back in 1980 that you got a hardcover manual with your software purchase. What happens now? The divisions that make the manuals for their software actually put out the manuals for purchase.
Last car I bought, I got an owners manual.
Its kind of funny. You pay 300 USD for a product with virtually no support and how much does this product cost MS? Last estimates approx 28-30 USD.
What would happen if your electic company started charging 1 USD per kilowatt? You would have a stroke.
I am all for the best product. How about those wacky proprietary file formats. Open up the format and let the best product win. ECON 101, competetion is a good thing. Monopolies are a bad thing.
Re:Highlights (Score:3, Insightful)
They have equally much right to fight for their aspirations as you and me. It's a global competitive market; if you're not offering a better solution than others, you will not be picked.
Of course, American's are perplexed why US is generally the most hated country in the world. With this type of "American Dream"... LOL.
The hatred for the USA is far more complex than you make it seem. It is not an entirely rational argument and it is many times not even dependant on the actions of the USA, although there are many cases which are.
I've spent a lot of time both inside and outside the USA. There are a great number of misconceptions of the character and source of the hatred, as well as the nature of the USA. Just do what you believe is the right thing, you will be despised either way.
As for the American dream, I would like to give you a quote:
"I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. To seek opportunity to develop whatever talents God gave me - not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say: 'This, with God's help, I have done.' All this is what it means to be an American."
Dean Alfange
Yes, fundamental design mistakes. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, UNIX is inherently virus-resistent because it was developed in a multiuser environment where you did things like having professors keeping exam results on the same computers that students had accounts on. You had to, it was too expensive to have separate computers for every group that might have a reason to compromise another's security. At Berkeley, it was fairly common for people to set up trojan horses in their home directory to try and trap people who visited their accounts.
The result of this is that the default behaviour of the standard applications (like word processors, browsers, the file managers) when faced with an unknown object isn't to execute it and see what happens. The few exceptions are well publicised and used as object lessons as to why you shouldn't do things that way.
Windows, on the other hand, has this model of "security zones", and once an object (file, document, web page) gets to a place where it's seen as local... in the "trusted zone"... standard Microsoft applications like IE and Outlook happily let it do anything its little heart desires. In response, Microsoft has spent the past seven years (at least) repeatedly redrawing the boundaries of this "trusted zone" in an attempt to keep bad guys from sneaking something into it.
That's one of the fundamental design mistakes that Linus is talking about. There are others, like the lack of a formal system call mechanism, or the fact that implementing strong local security is so inconvenient that it's normal and accepted for most home users to work with the equivalent of local root privilege all the time (and, yes, that really does matter in UNIX... it's some of the other design flaws in Windows that make this one relatively unimportant).
There are pathways for viruses and other malware to attack UNIX systems, but these pathways are due to bugs: fixing a buffer overflow hole in an image viewer won't change the way legitimate applications work or force the user to change the way they use the computer. Redefining the "trusted zone" in Windows does, because too many applications (including standard utilities and aministration tools shipped with the OS) depend on them... so every "fix" has a ripple effect that requires applications to use different APIs or devise workarounds, and often those workarounds end up being useful to malware authors as well.
And on top of that:
Could there be a future Linux kernel that prevents an image library exploit from modifying your
If you want to run your browser in a sandbox that prevents it from modifying your
So... given the security available on a 6th edition UNIX system in 1978, there are tricks that can be pulled to do that, but he'd need to be root first, so he'd have to have a third exploit to become root... from a sandbox where there's no root-owned and root-setuid executables to use to boost his privileges. It's possible there's a kernel attack that can be used, but it's much harder to devise a kernel attack on UNIX because verything has to pass through the same system call interface... you don't have separate call gates for each privileged component... so there's one interface the OS designers can depend on the attacker having to go through.
It could be done, but even with the facilities available in UNIX almost 30 years ago it was much much harder than it is now.
Today,
Re:Wow, good job for american propoganda machine (Score:1, Insightful)
In practice, maybe. That's really communism's largest flaw - an egalitarian collectivist system is doomed to break down if you reserve all the treats for party apparatchics and favourites. In practice, you throw out one class system, and introduce another one.
Some of the western poor may well resent the rich, but at least the rich don't go swanning around in luxury saying "Everyone is equal". They know full well that, in practice, people with lots of cash have more power, more influence and more rights than people without any.
Re:Fixing fundamental design mistakes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Highlights (Score:2, Insightful)
I wasn't specifically addressing America; rather, I was addressing the statement that the 'American dream' is to be able to say that you did something all by yourself but with God's help. In reality, except in the complete absence of government, very few people accomplish something without at least some measure of direct or indirect government assistance.
No man is an island, etc. Government welfare doesn't just come in the form of a handout, and your garden-variety rugged individualist is deluding herself if she believes that she's done anything all by herself.