Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux Software

Linus on Subversion, GPL3, Microsoft and More 350

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the stuff-to-read dept.
victor77 writes "Linus has repeatedly slammed Subversion and CVS, questioning their basic architecture. Subversion community has responded...how valid is Linus's statement?" This and many other subjects are covered in this interview with Linus.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linus on Subversion, GPL3, Microsoft and More

Comments Filter:
  • Can't RTFA... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shish (588640) on Sunday August 19, 2007 @09:20AM (#20285255) Homepage

    [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Transaction (Process ID 128) was deadlocked on lock resources with another process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Rerun the transaction.
    Indeed :|

    Linus has repeatedly slammed Subversion and CVS, questioning their basic architecture.
    Did he slam it, or did he say that it's fine, just not appropriate for a project as distributed as the kernel?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by dknj (441802)
      It's designed for projects as distributed as the kernel. This is just another one of his inane ramblings.

      Who is this Linus character and what does he have to do with Linux?
      • PARADIGM SHIFT! (Score:5, Informative)

        by StCredZero (169093) on Sunday August 19, 2007 @11:56AM (#20286153)
        Damnit, it's a paradigm shift that Linus is talking about. True distributed source code management brings an entirely new way of working. It enables very fast merging at a very fine granularity, which lets you use casually use this information (about what changed and when) in a way that changes the nature of how you work! It's the same sort of difference that code completion or Google search made. Once a certain kind of very useful information -- that has always been available, but a bit inconveniently -- becomes like running water out of the tap, it enables ways of working that just wouldn't have been practical before.

        If you really want to know what Linus is talking about from the man himself, watch this Google Tech Talk. It's over an hour, but there's nothing like hearing it straight from the horse's mouth.

        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-219933204 4603874737&q=git+google+tech+talk&total=3&start=0& num=10&so=3&type=search&plindex=1 [google.com]
        • Re:PARADIGM SHIFT! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by dkf (304284) <donal.k.fellows@manchester.ac.uk> on Sunday August 19, 2007 @02:19PM (#20287011) Homepage

          Damnit, it's a paradigm shift that Linus is talking about. True distributed source code management brings an entirely new way of working. It enables very fast merging at a very fine granularity, which lets you use casually use this information (about what changed and when) in a way that changes the nature of how you work! It's the same sort of difference that code completion or Google search made. Once a certain kind of very useful information -- that has always been available, but a bit inconveniently -- becomes like running water out of the tap, it enables ways of working that just wouldn't have been practical before.
          You know, that sounds so much like an advertorial! Would you care to provide a little bit of original analysis to go with your otherwise-unleavened hype? In exactly what way does a distributed source code management system change the way you work? (Remember, some of us have been using 'cvs annotate' and 'svn blame' over high-bandwidth networks for a long time now.) While you're at it, do distinguish between the various aspects (e.g. multiple repositories vs. braided versioning) even if one really implies the other.

          And do try to go easy on the phrase "paradigm shift" in your explanation even if this is one; marketdroids love over-using it and it's come to be a code phrase for "same old, same old". Focus on how things have changed for you and you'll get a better response.
          • Re:PARADIGM SHIFT! (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19, 2007 @02:55PM (#20287167)

            In exactly what way does a distributed source code management system change the way you work?

            It gives you private branches and commits, which allow you to work with the power of a VCS, but without having to pollute the main repo with dead ends, poorly written changes, and experiments. It also allows for true disconnected operation, and allows any developer to "pull" from another developer, again without having to pollute the master repository.

            And specifically with git vs. SVN, git offers true branches and tags (unlike SVN's bizarre, nonsensical "simulations"), and true merges.

            And do try to go easy on the phrase "paradigm shift" in your explanation even if this is one; marketdroids love over-using it and it's come to be a code phrase for "same old, same old". Focus on how things have changed for you and you'll get a better response.

            It (git and distributed VCS) is a "paradigm shift" the same way that, say, the relational model is a paradigm shift over the network model. It generalizes the problem and strips it down to certain fundamental concepts, and makes those concepts available to you directly, instead of under a layer of ill-conceived and limited operators.

            For instance, in SVN, how do you move a changeset from the tip of one branch to another? You can't. It's not allowed by the model, even though in terms of more fundamental operations, it's easy to describe. But in git, you can. Just cherry pick it to the new branch, then move the tip of the old branch back one changeset (the "dangling" changeset on the old branch will eventually get garbage collected). You could also write your own "git-move-changeset" command using the existing low-level git commands.

            Instead of considering the deeper, underlying issues, the SVN team just cloned CVS's behavior and made it cleaner. Too bad.

            That's exactly what a "paradigm shift" is: finding the deeper, fundamental operations and then showing how the existing systems are just subsets of that functionality.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by OptimusPaul (940627)
              When I first heard this crap about Linus not liking SVN I was thinking what a dork, SVN is great. But then this post opened my eyes. This reminded me of all the crap I have to deal with in SVN, it's a pain. I also have to be honest, I've never heard of git, now I must find out more about it.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by ajs (35943)

              [git] gives you private branches and commits

              Subversion provides the capability for private branching an commits. Problem is, you failed to define "private". If you mean private in the sense that you can work on your own without having others' changes affect your personal work area (or visa versa), then subversion provides private branching. If you are talking about privacy in the sense of others not knowing what you're doing, then you need svk for that.

              And specifically with git vs. SVN, git offers true branches and tags (unlike SVN's bizarre, nonsensical "simulations")

              Subversion provides true branches. It just does so in a directory-tree model. There's no mathemat

        • Re:PARADIGM SHIFT! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by peterarm (95041) on Sunday August 19, 2007 @02:21PM (#20287021) Homepage
          This is what's great about Linus Torvalds:

          [me using random software]: 'This sucks. I could code something better in two weeks.' [false, or "true in theory, but I didn't do it"]

          [Linus Torvalds using random software]: 'This sucks, and basically 99% of the software in this entire category sucks, for reasons X, Y and Z. I could code something better in two weeks.' [true; done]

          Truly impressive. Whenever I start to think I've accomplished anything programming, I look at video like that (which was on reddit how long ago?) and realize once again that there are people who live on a different planet than I do.
        • LOLLINUS (Score:4, Funny)

          by Synthaxx (1138473) on Sunday August 19, 2007 @07:27PM (#20288619)
          (Linus with a little balloon on hovering over his head)
          "Oh hi, i shiftedz ur paradigmses."

          Paradigmses, he shifted them.
    • Re:Can't RTFA... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Nasarius (593729) on Sunday August 19, 2007 @09:28AM (#20285295)

      Did he slam it, or did he say that it's fine, just not appropriate for a project as distributed as the kernel?
      The former. I was able to load the article, but can't get it back now. He said something like it's "good enough" for many people, but no one's really excited about SVN. To me, that's crap. SVN does what it does very well. What more could you really want from a centrally-managed versioning system?
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Deorus (811828)
        > SVN does what it does very well. What more could you really want from a centrally-managed versioning system?

        Proper branching and tagging would help a lot.
        • There are other issues: the Subversion authors have made a very real mistake here in keeping unencrypted passwords online, by default, in every public Linux or UNIX client compiled from Subversion's basic source code.

          I just had to have a polite conversation with a professional peer who kept his home directory on his laptop, then turned on NFS shares "to get work done". I waited, very politely, until he put his laptop on the DMZ with his NFS shares turned on. Then I pulled his SSH keys for a set of sourcefor
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by chthon (580889)

        Too bad Continuus costs too much to try, I think he would want to return to SVN after using that piece of shit.

        • by krow (129804) *
          Hi!

          You certainly have a different experience of Continuus then what I have. My one experience with it involved one company were we had purchased it and then blown hours of consulting time getting it to work. Never happened. The few projects that tried to use it had constant problems with corruption. It was an awful tool, and not one I would recommend any one to use.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by coryking (104614)
        easy

        - Not mess up my working directory with a bunch of .svn hidden directory junk.
        - As somebody else said, proper branching & tagging
        - Related to the .svn directory stuff, it is *way* to easy to ruin a working copy. Why related? You ever try to version a 3rd party tree (say, the ports tree)? It is virtually impossible because when you update the ports tree, it will mess with the filesystem enough to de-sync the .svn directory and ruin the entire working copy.
        - While getting better, it isn't very fas
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by thenerdgod (122843)
          What you're really asking for is filesystem-level versioning (splitting and merging)

          The problem is you can have "everything is a file" or you can have "inconspicous metadata".

          This implies a return to the structured-data days and an end to the 'Unix Philosophy'. And you kind of have that these days, with microsoft's offerings. And we all know how much you love the Registry.
      • Re:Can't RTFA... (Score:5, Informative)

        by smenor (905244) on Sunday August 19, 2007 @12:08PM (#20286221)

        I used to use CVS (and still do for some projects). Then I switched over to SVN. It was remarkably unremarkable.

        Then, a few months ago, there was a /. article on git [git.or.cz]. It sounded interesting so I tried it... and was thoroughly impressed.

        I was up and running in about 20 minutes. You can use cvs/svn like commands, *but* you get local / decentralized repositories with fast forking and merging.

        Start a project. Type "git init" and you've got a repository in place (you don't have to initialize and then check it out). "git add ." and "git commit" and you've got your first revision.

        It took a little bit more effort to figure out how to push/pull from a remote repository, but it's fairly straightforward. A bunch of people can work in a group, have their own local repositories, and then merge their changes (along with the revision history). It's awesome.

        The only reason I haven't switched all of my projects over to it is that the IDEs I use (Xcode and Eclipse) don't have good git integration (as far as I know).

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Crayon Kid (700279)
          Oh come on, you can't tell me you've moved from CVS to SVN and haven't felt a damn thing. It is bloody better. It doesn't feature distributed repositories, which is Linus' pet peeve, and probably some subtler stuff, but you can't honestly compare it to CVS and say it's "totally unremarkable".
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by smenor (905244)

            Sorry but in my experience it was just marginally better (and in day-to-day use, from the end-users perspective, the only real difference I felt was that I was typing "svn commit" or "svn update" instead of "cvs commit" or "cvs update").

            I'm not saying there aren't cool things about SVN (like atomic commits and directories), but Subversion doesn't fundamentally change the way you work like Git.

            You say "it doesn't feature distributed repositories" like that's some sort of trivial throw-away nothing. It's

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by CryBaby (679336)

              It's also trivial to create a local repository with Git. "git init" and you're running. Sure, you can do it with CVS or SVN, but you've got to create a special directory, check your stuff in and then check it out. It might not sound like much, but that extra little barrier was enough to keep me from even considering SVN/CVS for small throw-away projects that I wouldn't hesitate to keep under version control with Git.

              On the contrary, until Git has better IDE plugins it's actually easier to use Subversion fo

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by DrXym (126579)
          I'm sure git is wonderful in all sorts of change control related situations but Subversion is a great source control system too partly because it is so unremarkable - it just works. It has also got a great deal more cross-platform support and tools than git. Personally I use it as a distributed filing system because it has fantastic integration with Windows Explorer (via TortoiseSVN) so I can checkin files that I intend to share between machines (Linux & Windows).
    • Re:Can't RTFA... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Oddscurity (1035974) * on Sunday August 19, 2007 @09:39AM (#20285343)
      He did slam CVS indeed, SVN likewise. In Linux talk at Google about Git [google.com][video] he mentions SVN and their credo at on time being something along the line of "CVS done right", commenting that "there is no way to do CVS right."

      The article linked here is light on details concerning SCM, though.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SnowZero (92219)
        It may be a slam, but its true. SVN had a very careful design that they put a lot of effort into -- unfortunately they chose the wrong model to start from, which severely limited what they could do compared to distributed version control systems.
    • Re:Can't RTFA... (Score:5, Informative)

      by nwbvt (768631) on Sunday August 19, 2007 @10:19AM (#20285539)
      Site seems to be back up, here is what he had to say:

      I suspect a lot of people really don't much like CVS, so I didn't really even expect anybody to argue that CVS was really anything but a legacy system. And while I've gotten a few people who argued that I shouldn't have been quite so impolite against SVN (and hey, that's fair -- I'm really not a very polite person!), I don't think anybody actually argued that SVN was 'good'.

      SVN is, I think, a classic case of 'good enough'. It's what people are used to, and it's 'good enough' to be used fairly widely, but it's good enough in exactly the sense DOS and Windows were 'good enough'. Not great technology, just very widely available, and it works well enough for people and looks familiar enough that people use it. But very few people are 'proud' of it, or excited about it.

      And here is the reaction from the subversion team [tigris.org]. For those of you who don't want to RTFA, they basically say they agree, its not appropriate for something like Linux.

      BTW, isn't this all old news? His original comment on subversion was dated from 05

      • Re:Can't RTFA... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by thePsychologist (1062886) on Sunday August 19, 2007 @11:20AM (#20285941) Journal
        Yes this is extremely old news. I thought it would be something new, but then I see the comment from the SVN guys is dated 2006: last year for people who keep track of time.

        For instance, the comment from the Subversion team states that they hope the kernel dev team find some VCS that they like. They already did and it was git (http://git.or.cz/), a program that Linus Torvalds wrote himself.

        As a side comment, I like git over Subversion for a number of reasons. First it has data verification in the form of checking SHA1 (note that this isn't for repository protection from attacks but just for verification from corruption). It's distributed, and doesn't blow up the repository size when the repository gets large. SVN keeps a .svn metadata folder in each normal directory; hence if you have 1000 normal directories you get 2000 directories.

        Even if that's not much of an increase in space, it's ugly and it makes the repository (just files) hard to copy (have no idea why they implemented it this way). Of course there's a backup feature in the program so there's no reason to copy by hand, but still, it's inelegant.
        • by Entrope (68843)

          SVN keeps a .svn metadata folder in each normal directory; hence if you have 1000 normal directories you get 2000 directories.

          Not only that, for each file, Subversion keeps a copy of the last version you checked out of (or in to) the repository, so if you have 10 MB of source code, you end up with 20 MB used on disk. GIT's pack file support lets you keep the entire history of a project in space that is usually comparable to the size of the source code.

          In one of my projects that uses GIT, I have 7.5 MB of

          • by statusbar (314703)
            One of the things that I hate about svn is that not only is everything in there duplicated, but svn can't easily revert everything in a tree, I need to rm -r -f X and then svn cleanup; svn update...

            jeffk
    • "Did he slam it, or did he say that it's fine, just not appropriate for a project as distributed as the kernel?"

      I can't tell you what he said now. But he repeteadly said that CVS and Subversion didn't fit the Linux development model, not because it is big, or distributed, just because it is different. And it seems people keep asking him that same question :)

      • If you have some time to kill, you could always watch his Google Tech Talk about Git [google.co.uk] - his alternative to CVS. He can't help himself from insulting CVS/SVN numerous times. If I remember correctly, he thinks SVN is "pointless".
    • LOL. They actually ask us to perform DDOS?
    • Why did you specify bitlength 4? Wouldn't it work for any unsigned units since the leading zeros would turn into leading ones in the invert operation?
  • GPL Comment (Score:2, Funny)

    by woodchip (611770)
    I hereby release this comment under a GPL. You are free to use this comment or modify this comment in away you feel fit. But if you distribute this comment or any modifications of it, you need to also publish all the embarrassing things you have said said drunk.
  • Article (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19, 2007 @09:29AM (#20285299)
    Sunday, August 19, 2007: Did Microsoft's Men In Black ever met Linus Torvalds? But why is he so critical of GPLv3? Why does he slam Subversion? What would happen to the kernel development if he chooses to do something else more important? These are some of the questions Linux/open source community from around the globe wanted to ask Linus. And, here is Linus candid and blunt, and at times diplomatic. Check if the question you wanted to ask to the father of Linux is here and what does he have to say...
    Q: What are the future enhancements/paths/plans for the Linux kernel? --Subramani R

    Linus: I've never been much of a visionary -- instead of looking at huge plans for the future, I tend to have a rather short timeframe of 'issues in the next few months'. I'm a big believer in that the 'details' matter, and if you take care of the details, the big issues will end up sorting themselves out on their own.

    So I really don't have any great vision for what the kernel will look like in five years -- just a very general plan to make sure that we keep our eye on the ball. In fact, when it comes to me personally, one of the things I worry about the most isn't even the technical issues, but making sure that the 'process' works, and that people can work well with each other.

    Q: How do you see the relationship of Linux and Solaris evolving in the future? How will it benefit the users?

    Linus: I don't actually see a whole lot of overlap, except that I think Solaris will start using more of the Linux user space tools (which I obviously don't personally have a lot to do with -- I really only do the kernel). The Linux desktop is just so much better than what traditional Solaris has, and I expect Solaris to move more and more towards a more Linux-like model there.

    On the pure kernel side, the licensing differences mean that there's not much cooperation, but it will be very interesting to see if that will change. Sun has been making noises about licensing Solaris under the GPL (either v2 or v3), and if the licence differences go away, that could result in some interesting technology. But I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude to that.

    Q: Now that the GPLv3 has been finalised and released, do you foresee any circumstance that would encourage you to begin moving the kernel to it? Or, from your perspective, is it so bad that you would never consider it? -- Peter Smith / Naveen Mudunuru.

    Linus: I think it is much improved over the early drafts, and I don't think it's a horrible licence. I just don't think it's the same kind of 'great' licence that the GPLv2 is.

    So in the absence of the GPLv2, I could see myself using the GPLv3. But since I have a better choice, why should I?

    That said, I try to always be pragmatic, and the fact that I think the GPLv3 is not as good a licence as the GPLv2 is not a 'black and white' question. It's a balancing act. And if there are other advantages to the GPLv3, maybe those other advantages would be big enough to tilt the balance in favour of the GPLv3.

    Quite frankly, I don't really see any, but if Solaris really is to be released under the GPLv3, maybe the advantage of avoiding unnecessary non-compatible licence issues could be enough of an advantage that it might be worth trying to re-license the Linux kernel under the GPLv3 too.

    Don't get me wrong -- I think it's unlikely. But I do want to make it clear that I'm not a licence bigot, per se. I think the GPLv2 is clearly the better licence, but licences aren't everything.

    After all, I use a lot of programs that are under other licences. I might not put a project I start myself under the BSD (or the X11-MIT) licence, but I think it's a great licence, and for other projects it may well be the right one.

    Q: Currently are there any Indians who you'd like to highlight as key contributors to the Linux kernel?

    Linus: I have to admit that I don't directly work with anybody that I actually realize as being from India. That said, I should clarify a bit: I've very consciously tried
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Q: India is one of the major producers of software engineers, yet we don't contribute much to the Linux domain.

      The interviewer is not correct. There are a goodly number of India-based developers who contribute to the Linux kernel. Suparna Bhattacharya and Badari Pulavarty come to mind, there are lots more.

      To some extent, the heavy influence of India-based developers on the kernel is due to IBM having a major lab there, which is being emulated by a number of other Linux-backing corporations. The quality of technology education seems exceptionally high from what I can see, and to be honest, the Indian culture seem

  • Alternate link (Score:4, Informative)

    by MythMoth (73648) on Sunday August 19, 2007 @09:30AM (#20285305) Homepage
    This one is not (yet) slashdotted:
    http://www.efytimes.com/archive/144/news.htm [efytimes.com]
  • by nighty5 (615965) on Sunday August 19, 2007 @09:30AM (#20285311)
    [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Transaction (Process ID 666) was summoned by an evil deadlocked process in order to lock up and throw away the key to any IT resources process to request any reasonable requirement for open source software chosen by the deadlock victim. Rerun the transaction with Microsoft products next time and this threat will disappear into thin air - Steve Balmer, Head Deadlocker.

  • by ahsile (187881) on Sunday August 19, 2007 @09:32AM (#20285317) Homepage Journal
    This article is only slightly about Subversion. A couple paragraphs from the whole thing! They talk about "the plan" for the Kernel, outsourcing to India (they talk a lot about India actually), and other crap. I got bored half way through and just searched for the subversion part, which even then wasn't that interesting.
    • by nurb432 (527695)
      The interviewer apparently has a issue with outsourcing to india and inserts it into any interview he does.

      ( not saying outsourcing to india is a good thing, just an observation )
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bfields (66644)

      outsourcing to India (they talk a lot about India actually)

      They don't talk about outsourcing anywhere; the word isn't even used once as far as I can tell.

      The interview appears to have been conducted (and the questions provided by) Indians, so questions like "[how could we] encourage Indians to get involved and contribute heavily [to open source]?" are not surprising. I thought they were interesting questions, actually.

  • My project recently switched from BitKeeper (Torvalds preferred system before the license issues) to SVN. BitKeeper is a nice system and I think it is better if you have a good development process. For my project with less than 10 developers and with a loose process, SVN is the better tool. SVN allows updates to single files and this really comes in handy whereas BitKeeper forces _everything_ as atomic changesets. For example, if a global.h in the trunk gets updated with new parameters and I only want t
  • Linus isn't slamming SVN and he responses very insightful why he things git is better. Please, stop this propaganda style summary writing, it is getting very old.

    Nevermind that, interview was ok, not lot of new info, but much calmer and clever Linus than last months.
  • Oh come on (Score:2, Funny)

    by bsander (774553)

    I love penis. Frankly the batcave scares me.
    43 comments already and nobody found that funny?
  • by One Childish N00b (780549) on Sunday August 19, 2007 @11:41AM (#20286067) Homepage
    As to my 'iconic image', I tend to dislike that part personally. I'm not a great public speaker, and I've avoided travelling for the last several years because I'm not very comfortable being seen as this iconic 'visionary'. I'm just an engineer, and I just happen to love doing what I do, and to work with other people in public.

    This, people, is the key difference between Linux and Microsoft, and even Apple. Steves Ballmer and Jobs both want to be seen as visionaries, as all-knowing technological sages of our time. That isn't neccessarily a bad thing, as we've seen with the way Jobs has turned Apple around since he took over, but it does explain the difference between the philosophies of the groups: Apple and Microsoft take the approach of throwing new features in whenever they find them, so as to be seen as forward-thinking and 'next-gen', and sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't - Spotlight being an example of something that does work (yeah, there had been desktop search before, but nothing quite that efficient and right-on-the-desktop in what can be called the 'Big 3' operating systems), and things like the are-they-in, are-they-out dropped features from Vista being an example of something that doesn't.

    Linux, however, taking it's cues from Linus, approaches things from an engineering perspective. Visionary? That's all well and good, but will it run the risk of breaking? Yes? Then it's not going in. When you don't have a product to sell, it's a lot easier to base your development priorites on a more sound engineering base. Therein lies the difference; Jobs and Ballmer see themselves as visionaries, while Linus - who, whether he likes it or not, is the 'spiritual leader' of the Linux community - sees himself as 'just an engineer'. (Of course, the point could be made that Linus has the luxury of only being concerned with the kernel, where security and stability are the key things and form over function is rarely if ever required - do the likes likes of Mark Shuttleworth, Matthew Szulik, etc see themselves as engineers, or as visionaries?)
  • by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Sunday August 19, 2007 @12:47PM (#20286453) Homepage Journal
    ``Q: India is one of the major producers of software engineers, yet we don't contribute much to the Linux domain. What do you think is keeping Indians from becoming proactive on that front? How do you feel we could encourage Indians to get involved and contribute heavily? You have a fan following in India; could your iconic image be used to inspire enthusiasts? -- Bhuvaneswaran Arumugam.

    Linus: This is actually a very hard question for me to answer. Getting into open source is such a complicated combination of both infrastructure (Internet access, education, you name it), flow of information and simply culture that I can't even begin to guess what the biggest stumbling block could be.''

    My guess is it's because the _bulk_ of Indian software engineers are being raised on Microsoft technology (the fact that it's Microsoft is irrelevant here; what matters is that it isn't Linux and doesn't resemble Linux). I don't actually know that this is the case, but I suspect it. I've spoken to a number of people from various parts of the world that aren't Europe or North America, and the picture I get is mostly the same: virtually everybody who uses a computer uses (cheap or pirated) Windows, if you take classes in CS you are taught Microsoft tools, and, at work, you use Windows. It's like nothing else exists. Why would you contribute to Linux, coming from such an environment?

    Also, I know for a fact that a lot of people in India get trained on Java. That's yet another platform that isn't Linux and, even if it's more like Linux than Microsoft's platform is, it's still different in important ways. Besides, Java can run under Linux...but that's not what usually happens.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by thephotoman (791574)
      I'm not so sure about that.

      I work for a company that got burned on outsourcing its support to India. That said, the one guy we hired off of the outsourcing company knows more about Linux than the rest of our system administrators put together. To this day, if anybody has a question that we've found unanswerable by an American employee, we will send him a message.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19, 2007 @01:07PM (#20286585)

    I like making strong statements, because I find the discussion interesting.
    Isn't that another way of saying "I am a troll?"
  • by Tom (822) on Sunday August 19, 2007 @01:08PM (#20286595) Homepage Journal
    He's right about Subversion, but he misses one point:

    Putting your project in a Subversion repository takes an hour or two, maybe half a day if you're an idiot. Setting up an arch repository took me at least twice as long. Explaining how to use arch to developers who hadn't worked with it before is an order of magnitude more difficult than explaining Subversion to developers who haven't worked with it before.

    Subversion is "good enough", but it's also simple, straightforward and frankly if you have anything that goes beyond a very simple project or where more than one person is involved, I can't think of many reasons to not put it into a Subversion repository.

    I still like arch more for the concepts. But I don't use it. I might look at git one of those days, if I have a need Subversion doesn't address.
  • So negative (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Seven001 (750590) on Sunday August 19, 2007 @01:37PM (#20286737)
    Perhaps slightly off topic, but I realize now that I'm always compelled to read stories with Linus' name because I'm a fan (not fanboy) and user of Linux. However, the man never seems to have anything positive to say. Really, is his opinion all that relevant anymore? Of course he will always be somewhat relevant due to the fact he is pretty much in charge of the kernel and contributes heavily to it, not to mention the trademark holder of Linux, but in the end he really has to answer to the community. He has to know he can't ever bite the hand that feeds him or people will go other directions.

    I'm not trying to troll or insight a flame war, I'm just saying his curmudgeonly ways are getting a bit old already. At some point I imagine him being viewed as the Dvorak of Linux. Anyway, I'll understand if I get modded down, I just wanted to put my opinion in even if it's not worth much.
  • Solaris Desktop (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fm6 (162816) on Sunday August 19, 2007 @11:36PM (#20289957) Homepage Journal

    The Linux desktop is just so much better than what traditional Solaris has, and I expect Solaris to move more and more towards a more Linux-like model there.
    Linus seems unaware that the preferred desktop on Solaris is now a rebranded version of GNOME.
  • great comment... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by naChoZ (61273) on Monday August 20, 2007 @09:14AM (#20292109) Homepage Journal
    I like his comment about "rotating" media. What a disdainful term that will become. It immediately made me picture my nine-yr-old son teasing me in 10 years because I still have stuff on my lame rotating media.

An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.

Working...