Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming Linux

Interviews: Linus Torvalds Answers Your Question 187

Posted by samzenpus from the read-all-about-it dept.
Last Thursday you had a chance to ask Linus Torvalds about programming, hardware, and all things Linux. You can read his answers to those questions below. If you'd like to see what he had to say the last time we sat down with him, you can do so here.
Productivity
by DoofusOfDeath

You've somehow managed to originate two insanely useful pieces of software: Linux, and Git. Do you think there's anything in your work habits, your approach to choosing projects, etc., that have helped you achieve that level of productivity? Or is it just the traditional combination of talent, effort, and luck?

Linus: I'm sure it's pretty much always that "talent, effort and luck". I'll leave it to others to debate how much of each...

I'd love to point out some magical work habit that makes it all happen, but I doubt there really is any. Especially as the work habits I had wrt the kernel and Git have been so different.

With Git, I think it was a lot about coming at a problem with fresh eyes (not having ever really bought into the traditional SCM mindset), and really trying to think about the issues, and spending a fair amount of time thinking about what the real problems were and what I wanted the design to be. And then the initial self-hosting code took about a day to write (ok, that was "self-hosting" in only the weakest sense, but still).

And with Linux, obviously, things were very different - the big designs came from the outside, and it took half a year to host itself, and it hadn't even started out as a kernel to begin with. Clearly not a lot of thinking ahead and planning involved ;). So very different circumstances indeed.

What both the kernel and Git have, and what I think is really important (and I guess that counts as a "work habit"), is a maintainer that stuck to it, and was responsive, responsible and sane. Too many projects falter because they don't have people that stick with them, or have people who have an agenda that doesn't match reality or the user expectations.

But it's very important to point out that for Git, that maintainer was not me. Junio Hamano really should get pretty much all the credit for Git. Credit where credit is due. I'll take credit for the initial implementation and design of Git - it may not be perfect, but ten years on it still is very solid and very clearly the same basic design. But I'll take even _more_ credit for recognizing that Junio had his head screwed on right, and was the person to drive the project. And all the rest of the credit goes to him.

Of course, that kind of segues into something else the kernel and Git do have in common: while I still maintain the kernel, I did end up finding a lot of smart people to maintain all the different parts of it. So while one important work habit is that "stick to it" persistence that you need to really take a project from a not-quite-usable prototype to something bigger and better, another important work-habit is probably to also "let go" and not try to own and control the project too much. Let other people really help you - guide the process but don't get in their way.



init system
by lorinc

There wasn't a decent unix-like kernel, you wrote one which ultimately became the most used. There wasn't a decent version control software, you wrote one which ultimately became the most love. Do you think we already have a decent init system, or do you have plan to write one that will ultimately settle the world on that hot topic?

Linus: You can say the word "systemd", It's not a four-letter word. Seven letters. Count them.

I have to say, I don't really get the hatred of systemd. I think it improves a lot on the state of init, and no, I don't see myself getting into that whole area.

Yeah, it may have a few odd corners here and there, and I'm sure you'll find things to despise. That happens in every project. I'm not a huge fan of the binary logging, for example. But that's just an example. I much prefer systemd's infrastructure for starting services over traditional init, and I think that's a much bigger design decision.

Yeah, I've had some personality issues with some of the maintainers, but that's about how you handle bug reports and accept blame (or not) for when things go wrong. If people thought that meant that I dislike systemd, I will have to disappoint you guys.



Can Valve change the Linux gaming market?
by Anonymous Coward

Do you think Valve is capable of making Linux a primary choice for gamers?

Linus: "Primary"? Probably not where it's even aiming. I think consoles (and all those handheld and various mobile platforms that "real gamers" seem to dismiss as toys) are likely much more primary, and will stay so.

I think Valve wants to make sure they can control their own future, and Linux and ValveOS is probably partly to explore a more "console-like" Valve experience (ie the whole "get a box set up for a single main purpose", as opposed to a more PC-like experience), and partly as a "second source" against Microsoft, who is a competitor in the console area. Keeping your infrastructure suppliers honest by making sure you have alternatives sounds like a good strategy, and particularly so when those suppliers may be competing with you directly elsewhere.

So I don't think the aim is really "primary". "Solid alternative" is I think the aim. Of course, let's see where it goes after that.

But I really have not been involved. People like Greg and the actual graphics driver guys have been in much more direct contact with Valve. I think it's great to see gaming on Linux, but at the same time, I'm personally not really much of a gamer.



The future of RT-Linux?
by nurhussein

According to Thomas Gleixner, the future of the realtime patchset to Linux is in doubt, as it is difficult to secure funding from interested parties on this functionality even though it is both useful and important: What are your thoughts on this, and what do you think we need to do to get more support behind the RT patchset, especially considering Linux's increasing use in embedded systems where realtime functionality is undoubtedly useful.

Linus: So I think this is one of those things where the markets decide how important rtLinux ends up being, and I suspect there are more than enough companies who end up wanting and using rtLinux that the project isn't really going anywhere. The complaints by Thomas were - I think - a wake-up call to the companies who end up wanting the extended hard realtime patches.

So I suspect there are companies and groups like OSADL that end up funding and helping with rtLinux, and that it isn't going away.



Rigor and developments
by hcs_$reboot

The most complex program running on a machine is arguably its OS, especially the kernel. Linux (kernel) reached the top level in terms of performance, reliability and versatility. You have been criticized quite a few times for some virulent mails addressed to developers. Do you think Linux would be where it is without managing the project with an iron fist? To go further, do you think some other main OSS project would benefit from a more rigorous management approach?

Linus: One of the nice things about open source is how it allows people to really concentrate on what they are good at, and it has been a huge advantage for Linux that we've had people who are interested in the marketing side and selling Linux, as well as the legal side etc.

And that is all in addition, of course, to the original "we're motivated by the technology" people like me. And even within that "we're motivated by technology" group, you most certainly don't need to find _everything_ interesting, you can find the area you are passionate about and really care about and want to work on.

That's _fundamentally_ how open source works.

Now, if somebody is passionate about some "good management" thing, go wild, and try to get involved, and try to manage things. It's not what _I_ am interested in, but hey, the proof is in the pudding - anybody who thinks they have a new rigorous management approach that they think will help some part of the process, go wild.

Now, I personally suspect that it wouldn't work - not only are tech people an ornery lot to begin with (that whole "herding cats" thing), just look at all the crazy arguments on the internet. And ask yourself what actually holds an open source project like the kernel together? I think you need to be very oriented towards the purely technical solutions, simply because then you have tangible and real issues you can discuss (and argue about) with fairly clear-cut hard answers. It's the only thing people can really agree on in the big picture.

So the Linux approach to "management" has been to put technology first. That's rigorous enough for me. But as mentioned, it's a free-for-all. Anybody can come in and try to do better. Really.

And btw, it's worth noting that there are obviously specific smaller development teams where other management models work fine. Most of the individual developers are parts of teams inside particular companies, and within the confines of that company, there may well be a very strict rigorous management model. Similarly, within the confines of a particular productization effort there may be particular goals and models for that particular team that transcend that general "technical issues" thing.

Just to give a concrete example, the "development kernel" tree that I maintain works fundamentally differently and with very different rules from the "stable tree" that Greg does, which in turn is maintained very differently from what a distribution team within a Linux company does inside its maintenance kernel team.

So there's certainly room for different approaches to managing those very different groups. But do I think you can "rigorously manage" people on the internet? No.



Functional languages?
by EmeraldBot

While historically you've been a C and Assembly guy (and the odd shell scripting and such), what do you think of functional languages such as Lisp, Closure, Haskell, etc? Do you see any advantages to them, or do you view them as frivolous and impractical? If you decide to do so, thanks for taking the time to answer my question! You're a legend at what you do, and I think it's awesome that the significantly less interesting me can ask you a question like this.

Linus: I may be a fan of C (with a certain fondness for assembly, just because it's so close to the machine), but that's very much about a certain context. I work at a level where those languages make sense. I certainly don't think that tools like Haskell etc are "frivolous and impractical" in general, although on a kernel level (or in a source control management system) I suspect they kind of are.

Many moons ago I worked on sparse (the C parser and analyzer), and one of my coworkers was a Haskell fan, and did incredible example transformations in very simple (well, to him) code - stuff that is just nasty to write in C because it's pretty high-level, there's tons of memory management, and you're really talking about implementing fairly abstract and high-level rules with pattern matching etc.

So I'm definitely not a functional language kind of guy - it's not how I learnt programming, and it really isn't very relevant to what I do, and I wouldn't recognize Haskell code if it bit me in the ass and called me names. But no, I wouldn't call them frivolous.



Critical software to the use of Linux
by TWX

Mr. Torvalds, For many uses of Linux such as on the desktop, other software beyond the kernel and the base GNU tools are required. What other projects would you like to see given priority, and what would you like to see implemented or improved? Admittedly I thought most about X-Windows when asking this question; but I don't doubt that other daemons or systems can be just as important to the user experience. Thank you for your efforts all these years.

Linus: Hey, I don't really have any particular project I would want to champion, largely because we all have so different requirements on the desktop. There's just no single thing that stands out as being hugely more important than others to me.

What I do wish particularly desktop developers cared about is "consistency of experience". And by that I don't mean some kind of enforced visual consistency between different applications to make things "look coherent". No, I'm just talking about the pain and uncertainty users go through with upgrades, and understanding that while your project may be the most important project to *you* (because it's what you do), to your users, your project is likely just a fairly small and irrelevant part of their experience, and it's not very central at all, and they've learnt the quirks about that thing they don't even care about, and you really shouldn't break their expectations. Because it turns out that that is how you really make people hate their desktop.

This is not at all Linux-specific, of course - just look at the less than enthusiastic reception that other operating system redesigns have received. But I really wish that we hadn't had *both* of the major Linux desktop environments have to learn this (well, I hope they learnt) the hard way, and both of them ending up blaming their users rather than themselves.



"anykernel"-style portable drivers?
by staalmannen

What do you think about the "anykernel" concept (invented by another Finn btw) used in NetBSD? Basically, they have modularized the code so that a driver can be built either in a monolithic kernel or for user space without source code changes ( rumpkernel.org ). The drivers are highly portable and used in Genode os (L4 type kernels), minix etc... Would this be possible or desirable for Linux? Apparently there is one attempt called "libos"...

Linus: So I have bad experiences with "portable" drivers. Writing drivers to some common environment tends to force some ridiculously nasty impedance matching abstractions that just get in the way and make things really hard to read and modify. It gets particularly nasty when everybody ends up having complicated - and differently so - driver subsystems to handle a lot of commonalities for a certain class of drivers (say a network driver, or a USB driver), and the different operating systems really have very different approaches and locking rules etc.

I haven't seen anykernel drivers, but from past experience my reaction to "portable device drivers" is to run away, screaming like little girl. As they say in Swedish "Bränt barn luktar illa".



Processor Architecture
by swv3752

Several years ago, you were employed by Transmeta designing the Crusoe processor. I understand you are quite knowledgeable about cpu architecture. What are your thoughts on the Current Intel and AMD x86 CPUs particularly in comparison with ARM and IBM's Power8 CPUs? Where do you see the advantages of each one?

Linus: I'm no CPU architect, I just play one on TV.

But yes, I've been close to the CPU both as part of my kernel work, and as part of a processor company, and working at that level for a long time just means that you end up having fairly strong opinions. One of the things that my experiences at Transmeta convinced me of, for example, was that there's definitely very much a limit to what software should care about. I loved working at Transmeta, I loved the whole startup company environment, I loved working with really smart people, but in the end I ended up absolutely *not* loving to work with overly simple hardware (I also didn't love the whole IPO process, and what that did to the company culture, but that's a different thing).

Because there's only so much that software can do to compensate.

Something similar happened with my kernel work on the alpha architecture, which also started out as being an overly simplified implementation in the name of being small and supposedly running really fast. While I really started out liking the alpha architecture for being so clean, I ended up detesting how fragile the architecture implementations were (and by the time that got fixed in the 21264, I had given up on alpha).

So I've come to absolutely detest CPU's that need a lot of compiler smarts or special tuning to go fast. Life is too short to waste on in-order CPU's, or on hardware designers who think software should take care of the pieces that they find to be too complicated to handle themselves, and as a result just left undone. "Weak memory ordering" is just another example.

Thankfully, most of the industry these days seems to agree. Yes, there are still in-order cores, but nobody tries to make excuses for them any more: they are for the truly cheap and low-end market.

I tend to really like the modern Intel cores in particular, which tend to take that "let's not be stupid" really to heart. With the kernel being so threaded, I end up caring a lot about things like memory ordering etc, and the Intel big-core CPU's tend to be in a class of their own there. As a software person who cares about performance and looks at instruction profiles etc, it's just so *nice* to see that the CPU doesn't have some crazy glass jaw where you have to be very careful.



GPU kernels
by maraist

Is there any inspiration that a GPU based kernel / scheduler has for you? How might Linux be improved to better take advantage of GPU-type batch execution models. Given that you worked transmeta and JIT compiled host-targeted runtimes. GPUs 1,000-thread schedulers seem like the next great paradigm for the exact type of machines that Linux does best on.

Linus: I don't think we'll see the kernel ever treat GPU threads the way we treat CPU threads. Not with the current model of GPU's (and that model doesn't really seem to be changing all that much any more).

Yes, GPU's are getting much better, and now generally have virtual memory and the ability to preempt execution, and you could run an OS on them. But the scheduling latencies are pretty high, and the threads are not really "independent" (ie they tend to share a lot of state - like the virtual address space and a large shared register set), so GPU "threads" don't tend to work like CPU threads. You'd schedule them all-or-nothing, so if you were to switch processes, you'd treat the GPU as one entity where you switch all the threads at once.

So it really wouldn't look like a thousand threads to the kernel. The GPU would still be scheduled as one single entity (or maybe a couple of entities depending on how the GPU is partitioned). The fact that that single entity works by doing a lot of things in massive parallelism is kind of immaterial for the kernel that doesn't end up seeing that parallelism as separate threads.



alleged danger of Artificial Intelligence
by peter303

Some computer experts like Marvin Minsky, Larry Page, Ray Kuzweil think A.I. will be a great gift to Mankind. Others like Bill Joy and Elon Musk are fearful of potential danger. Where do you stand, Linus?

Linus: I just don't see the thing to be fearful of.

We'll get AI, and it will almost certainly be through something very much like recurrent neural networks. And the thing is, since that kind of AI will need training, it won't be "reliable" in the traditional computer sense. It's not the old rule-based prolog days, when people thought they'd *understand* what the actual decisions were in an AI.

And that all makes it very interesting, of course, but it also makes it hard to productize. Which will very much limit where you'll actually find those neural networks, and what kinds of network sizes and inputs and outputs they'll have.

So I'd expect just more of (and much fancier) rather targeted AI, rather than anything human-like at all. Language recognition, pattern recognition, things like that. I just don't see the situation where you suddenly have some existential crisis because your dishwasher is starting to discuss Sartre with you.

The whole "Singularity" kind of event? Yeah, it's science fiction, and not very good SciFi at that, in my opinion. Unending exponential growth? What drugs are those people on? I mean, really..

It's like Moore's law - yeah, it's very impressive when something can (almost) be plotted on an exponential curve for a long time. Very impressive indeed when it's over many decades. But it's _still_ just the beginning of the "S curve". Anybody who thinks any different is just deluding themselves. There are no unending exponentials.



Is the kernel basically a finished project?
by NaCh0

Aside from adding drivers and refactoring algorithms when performance limits are discovered, is there anything left for the kernel? Maybe it's a failure of tech journalism but we never hear about the next big thing in kernel land anymore.

Linus: I don't think there's much of a "next big thing" in the kernel.

I wouldn't say that there is nothing but drivers (and architectures are kind of "CPU drivers) and improving scalability left, because I'm constantly amazed by how many new things people figure out are still good ideas. But they tend to still be pretty incremental improvements. An OS kernel doesn't look *that* radically different from what it was 40 years ago, and that's fine. I think radical new ideas are often overrated, and the thing that really matters in the end is that plodding detail work. That's how technology evolves.

And judging by how our kernel releases are going, there's no end in sight for that "plodding detail work". And it's still as interesting as it ever was.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interviews: Linus Torvalds Answers Your Question More

Interviews: Linus Torvalds Answers Your Question

Comments Filter:

  • Fallen Hero (Score:5, Funny)

    by nmb3000 ( 741169 ) on Wednesday July 01, 2015 @01:02PM (#50027063) Journal

    You can say the word "systemd", It's not a four-letter word. Seven letters. Count them.

    Heretic! Blasphemer! Shun the non-believer!

  • Disappointed (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I really wanted the definitive answer to HOSTS vs AdBlock.

  • If you read beyond the answers to specific questions, and consider how these answers illustrate how this person thinks, you have a very significant interview...

  • According to Google translate his Swedish quote is 'Burned child smells bad'

    • Re:Swedish quote (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01, 2015 @02:29PM (#50027683)

      According to this native Swedish speaker, Google Translate is spot on (well, "burned" -> "burnt"). It is a jocular rewrite of "bränt barn skyr elden", aka "burnt child shuns the fire".

      From Wikipedia [wikiquote.org]:

      Bränt barn skyr elden.

      • Translation: Burnt child shuns fire.
      • Note: Sometimes jokingly put as "bränt barn luktar illa" ("burnt child smells bad").
      • English equivalent: Once bitten, twice shy.
      • "Somebody who has had an unpleasant experience thereafter shrinks from the cause of that experience."
    • English equivalent: "once bitten, twice shy" - https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/... [wikiquote.org]

  • kinda dissapointed... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by hitmark ( 640295 )

    That Torvalds has bought the whole "just a init" marketing spiel surrounding systemd.

    It is a init.
    And a cron.
    And a inetd.
    And a network manager.
    And a dhcp client.
    And a (caching) DNS client.
    And a session/seat manager.
    And a firewall manager.
    And a boot manager.
    And a /dev manager.
    And soon to be a tty manager.

    Its proponents may claim that all those are optional.

    From a init point of view sure.

    But from a desktop point of view, wanting to use any of those make systemd-as-init mandatory.

    • Re:kinda dissapointed... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Barsteward ( 969998 ) on Wednesday July 01, 2015 @03:44PM (#50028269)
      Unfortunately for you, Torvalds understands more about systemd that you do. You need to read and comprehend a little more, stop relying on trolls that also don't know what systemd is or isn't. 90% of those items listed are optional but are part of the "systemd project" and not part of the systemd binary, you can choose to use any of them over the current offerings if you wish, its not compulsory.

      • Re:kinda dissapointed... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Wednesday July 01, 2015 @11:06PM (#50030481) Homepage Journal

        Yep, Linus himself brings up the two actual main issues with systemd itself. one, not a fan of binary logging. two, some of the personalities involved are problematic. The bigger issue, though, is systemd's influence over other projects. But that wasn't raised, so why would he comment?

        • The bigger issue, though, is systemd's influence over other projects. But that wasn't raised, so why would he comment?

          Oh, it was asked, but my question about Red Hats' (and their one employees') increasingly out-sized dominance even over desktop apps wasn't deemed worthy, much to all our detriment.

        • "one, not a fan of binary logging." so he's not a fan of binary logging but he didn't say why, maybe he'll update his thoughts once he uses the related tools like journalctl to see what benefits it brings.

          "two some of the personalities involved are problematic." - he's not exactly a charmer at times either depends which side of the fence you are sitting at the time. He has brought many a developer into line when they step over the boundary.

          " The bigger issue, though, is systemd's influence over other pr

          • so he's not a fan of binary logging but he didn't say why, maybe he'll update his thoughts once he uses the related tools like journalctl to see what benefits it brings.

            He probably understands that making it the primary logging method and thus requiring the use of the special tools for the least troubleshooting is a massive architectural mistake which is totally unnecessary and made for only arrogant reasons.

            he's not exactly a charmer at times either depends which side of the fence you are sitting at the time. He has brought many a developer into line when they step over the boundary.

            Sadly, he's not in a position to do that here, even if he wants to.

            perhaps there was nothing to say about it as its not as worrying as people like to troll about.

            Or perhaps you reveal yourself as a dbag when you call people who care about an issue trolls.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by devent ( 1627873 )

          I don't get the issue of binary logging. All files on my computer are binary, I always need some sort of program to show me the content of the file on my monitor. And what's the difference if SystemRescueCD ships journalctl alongside grep and emacs to show me system-log files?
          The other, systemd's influence over other projects? What? So, if developers of Gnome or KDE decide that systemd brings a feature that they want to use (like systemd-logind) *that's* what you call "system'd influcence over other project

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by DeVilla ( 4563 )

            Just a comment.

            And what's the difference if SystemRescueCD ships journalctl alongside grep and emacs to show me system-log files?

            If I recall correctly, the binary format of the logs are not standardized. They are free to change between releases. Specifically, this was meant that you would need the version of journalctl that was compiled with version of systemd that was running. This was touted as one of the security (through obscurity) features of systemd's logging.

            While upgrading, to debug you may need a rescue CD of the old release and a rescue CD of the new release. Or the rescue CD will have to bundle multipl

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by devent ( 1627873 )

              Citation very much needed.
              Here is a documentation of the binary log format:
              http://www.freedesktop.org/wik... [freedesktop.org]
              Systemd offers a C API to access those, an export format for easier parsing, and of course you can access the binary logs directly.
              http://www.freedesktop.org/sof... [freedesktop.org]
              http://www.freedesktop.org/wik... [freedesktop.org]

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by DeVilla ( 4563 )
                https://docs.google.com/docume... [google.com]

                Will the journal file format be standardized? Where can I find an explanation of the on-disk data structures?

                At this point we have no intention to standardize the format and we take the liberty to alter it as we see fit. We might document the on-disk format eventually, but at this point we don’t want any other software to read, write or manipulate our journal files directly. The access is granted by a shared library and a command line tool. (But then again, it’s Free Software, so you can always read the source code!)

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by devent ( 1627873 )

                  And what? That was in 2011, and they wrote "At this point we have no intention to standardize the format ..." That quoted document was from the introduction of the journal. It's obviosly that the developers didn't want to freeze the format at that time.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by DeVilla ( 4563 )

                    And the format documentation you pointed at said

                    Note that the actual implementation in the systemd codebase is the only ultimately authoritative description of the format, so if this document and the code disagree, the code is right.

                    This document describes the current format of systemd 195. The documented format is compatible with the format used in the first versions of the journal, but received various compatible additions since.

                    Somebody documented a current snapshot but that doesn't tell me that the format has been standardized in any way.

                    The code that generated the journal is the only authority on the format of the generated journal. If you want to be sure you can read it, you need the same code or a promise that the documentation does not make.

                    So unless you can point me at the doc that says they have commited to a standard format, I re-assert

                    the binary format of the logs are not standardized. They are free to change between releases. Specifically, this was meant that you would need the version of journalctl that was compiled with version of systemd that was running.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by devent ( 1627873 )

                      "The documented format is compatible with the format used in the first versions of the journal, but received various compatible additions since."

                      So, your last statement is factually wrong, i.e. that you need the version of journalctl that systemd was running. You can use the first version of journalctl and you will be able to read systemd 195 logs. But pracically, it is not the big deal you want it to make.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by DeVilla ( 4563 )

                      What you quote is not a commitment to a standard format. It merely documents the behaviour of the current implementation. My statement stands. The format's not standardized. The developers have asserted freedom to change it. I have not seen that recanted. All simple facts. Show me the statement that the format has been locked down.

                      The current text logs can be read it with less, more, cat, vi or any number of other tools. If the journal format gets locked down, then I should be able to grab any old

      • Are you saying that "systemd" means many different things?

        Because that seems to be its first problem, and one that should be easy to correct in the next month or so. A minor change will bring on a publicity firestorm, so do it right the first time.

        Putting the onus on people who read the same word in multiple contexts to learn more, seems like too much to expect at this point. It's obviously not working, and there are more reasons, but that seems to be a sticking point.

        Overloading can be confusing. We kno

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hitmark ( 640295 )

        Yeah, choice. Like how Wayland depends on logind depends on systemd-as-init.

        Damn it, one screwball in the dependencies chain and Gimp depended on systemd-as-init.

        Hit update at that time and boom your perfectly functional distro install gets a init-ectomy.

        To a init that will refuse to boot if you have a vestigial entry sitting around in fstab, no less.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Mogster ( 459037 )

      So it's really just Emacs in disguise?

    • Init is a misnomer. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tenebrousedge ( 1226584 ) <tenebrousedge AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday July 01, 2015 @07:32PM (#50029709)

      The job of the init system is actually to change the system state, and hopefully to be able to guarantee that it does so. Scripts have some inherent limitations in this regard, which is why even OpenRC relies heavily on C libraries. Understanding why people have been trying to replace SysV init for the last two decades would make a lot of Systemd's design decisions more clear to you, I feel. However, I do feel you are entirely mistaken if you think there is some propaganda movement to label it as 'just' an init system. System initialization is only a subset of the problem at hand, and even the name was chosen to reflect that.

    • EMACS is just a text editor.
      GIMP is just a photo editor.
      Mozilla is just a web browser.

      Having an system for plugins / addons / new extensible functionality doesn't make any of them something they aren't.

      Systemd is an init system where I've installed it. I don't you know where you get the idea that it magically does all the rest of the stuff without someone wanting it to. It's not like there's hidden covert code somewhere in PID1 that will sneak in a DHCP request when no one is looking.

  • Loving Linus (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    """ The whole "Singularity" kind of event? Yeah, it's science fiction, and not very good SciFi at that, in my opinion. Unending exponential growth? What drugs are those people on? I mean, really.. """

    I agree 100%. I've given talks at Singularity U. Heavy drug use is definitely involved! (And I never drank the Kool-aid).

  • Thanks Linus! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I'm happy to see that you don't hate systemd. That was the last shoe to drop. I'll complete the switch to BSD now!

    • I'm happy to see that you don't hate systemd. That was the last shoe to drop. I'll complete the switch to BSD now!

      Dragonfly BSD works quite well on the desktop, as does Funtoo Linux, which is systemd-free. Gentoo also works and still uses OpenRC by default, although there is growing concern some of the devs are quietly preparing to push a systemd agenda (kdbus patches in the kernel, one of the devs commenting he hopes systemd would become the Gentoo default, and a habit of the moderators in the Gentoo for

      • Re:Dragonfly BSD, Funtoo, and (for now) Gentoo (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Demonoid-Penguin ( 1669014 ) on Wednesday July 01, 2015 @07:10PM (#50029569) Homepage

        Linus may not be showing good leadership in this instance, but not everyone has drunk the urine just yet, and there are others stepping up to the plate to maintain or create alternatives.

        Leadership is not just "responding to users" (in your case, with the silent "L"). Stepping up to the plate is a baseball term - it implies doing something. While technically "whining" is doing something, as is taking up space, it's not a useful contribution. Nor does it mean that your "demands" are worth more that those of others (even if they are less demanding).
        But don't let me stop you from indulging yourself in the fantasy that "complaining" == bug reports, and that bug reports somehow equates to "you must serve me" (no matter how crackpot your "needs" i.e. I can haz my init but i demanz all references to systemd be removed, coz, um, eh, end of world scenario).

        And feel free to accuse me of "bullying". Continue spamming, though perhaps, if you find the free time - you could start some sort of "anti-bullying" service as you are such an expert on the subject.

        I'm unique - there are a dozen OS that I don't like. I don't complain about them, I just don't use them. You're like the majority of people. Really.

        • I'm unique - there are a dozen OS that I don't like. I don't complain about them, I just don't use them. You're like the majority of people. Really.

          You are unique. Uniquely stupid and unable to pass basic reading comprehension.

          The GP felt dismayed that Linus has drunk the systemd coolaid, and wants to switch to FreeBSD. I pointed out that not everyone has been taken in by the systemd nonsense, and that their are distros available that remain untainted, that if he wants to switch to *BSD I've found Dragonf

          • I'm unique - there are a dozen OS that I don't like. I don't complain about them, I just don't use them. You're like the majority of people. Really.

            You are unique. Uniquely stupid and unable to pass basic reading comprehension.

            The GP felt dismayed that Linus has drunk the systemd coolaid, and wants to switch to FreeBSD. I pointed out that not everyone has been taken in by the systemd nonsense, and that their are distros available that remain untainted, that if he wants to switch to *BSD I've found Dragonfly to be quite nice, but that there are a number of Linux choices he has available if he doesn't want to switch.

            But go ahead and label that whining, [--rant---rabid froth--bullshit--]

            Bully for you. I quoted what I was responding to. And yes, you're still whining.
            You seem to feel the need to lug the goal posts around while clutching at straws to build your strawman... meh, you probably need the exercise anyway.

            I have no problems with people who don't want to use systemd, I don't use it for production machines myself (but apparently I'm a piss and kool-aid drinker). I don't like people who demand that choice be removed - and when the anti-systemd crowd complain it's not because they can't

  • Hi! I'm the guy who asked the question on functional languages. Mr. Torvalds answered my question beautifully and correctly, but I just want to make a small clarification to my original's tone (just for the record). If you read it, it kind of reads as though I have a negative slant against functional languages. I don't actually think that; I rephrased my question several times, and unfortunately I muddled it up in doing so. (The eye and the mind see different things, so the saying goes)

    I think both low l

  • Linus mentioned a Swedish phrase: "Bränt barn luktar illa"
    I got curious and ran it through Google Translate.

    "Bränt barn luktar illa" in Swedish = "Burned child smells bad" in English.

    What the hell?
    Is that a bad translation or is that actually right? If that's right, that seems pretty grim to me. Would a native Swedish speaker on this thread be willing to explain that the origin of that phrase?

    • Linus mentioned a Swedish phrase: "Bränt barn luktar illa" I got curious and ran it through Google Translate.

      "Bränt barn luktar illa" in Swedish = "Burned child smells bad" in English.

      What the hell? Is that a bad translation or is that actually right? If that's right, that seems pretty grim to me. Would a native Swedish speaker on this thread be willing to explain that the origin of that phrase?

      I'm not a native Swedish speaker, but I think I know the origin of this particular phrase. The original phrase is, I believe: "[A] burned child fears fire". It's the Swedish equivalent to "Fool me once, shame on you: fool me twice, shame on me" - once you've been bitten by a mistake, you become reluctant to do it again.

      The joke here is that rather than being translated as "A burned child", it literally means "burned child", so you can interpret it literally and get a completely different meaning. Welcome

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by vux984 ( 928602 )

        It's the Swedish equivalent to "Fool me once, shame on you: fool me twice, shame on me" - once you've been bitten by a mistake, you become reluctant to do it again.

        There's a better english equivalent than that.

        "Once bitten, twice shy."

      • Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Xest ( 935314 )

      Don't tell me, you think "There is more than one way to skin a cat" is really used in reference to skinning cats, "Holy shit" is really a reference to the Pope's turd, and "Fucking hell" is really a reference to having sex with the underworld?

      Believe it or not, other cultures have terms whose actual meanings don't tie up to their literal interpretations as well.

      I don't think Linus is really comparing portable device drivers to the aftermath of an ISIS style execution of a small child or something.

  • Linus:

    "It's like Moore's law - yeah, it's very impressive when something can (almost) be plotted on an exponential curve for a long time. Very impressive indeed when it's over many decades. But it's _still_ just the beginning of the "S curve". Anybody who thinks any different is just deluding themselves. There are no unending exponentials."

    Cromwell's Rule [wikipedia.org]:

    "If the prior probability assigned to a hypothesis is 0 or 1, then, by Bayes' theorem, the posterior probability (probability of the hypothesis, given the

Slashdot Top Deals

What sin has not been committed in the name of efficiency?

Close