Is Linus Killing Linux? 273
halbritt writes: "An article over at TechWeb asks the question, 'Is Linus Killing Linux?' The story outlines an interesting perspective with regard to Linus having complete control over the kernel and how that may not be in the best interests of the $2 billion industry looking to exploit Linux for fun and profit. It goes on to describe how a non-profit, industry funded organization should take control of kernel development so that kernel development would better suit the interests of said $2 billion industry." Actually this story amused me, since its essentially the same story that some genius journalist writes every few months. Linus is killing Linux just as horribly as I'm killing Slashdot.
Why does it have to be big vs small? (Score:1)
Well, Taco... (Score:2)
Some might argue that you ARE killing Slashdot.
I don't know if Linus is killing Linux, though. It's a fine operating system, as far as I'm concerned. However, if you look at something like FreeBSD, you find more mature code, with a more unified direction. If might not be a bad idea to have a set of core maintainers, responsible for the kernel AND the base system. It might produce better code.
Of course, that's what FreeBSD is for, isn't it? Linux has its own niche. Let Linus do what he will, it's his kernel.
A new year calls for a new signature.
Re:I agree and I disagree. (Score:1)
Most reasoning people laugh at the article here. I also like to extend, that if there was to be a group of funded people to maintain kernel, there will be subject to financial, as well as political pressures, to make a decisions. Each one having different ideas will pusue their own agendas, and thats where total anarchy in kernel code will be.
It is slippery slope, and it is possible to reap benefits of such transition, but only in case if there would be a set of people that will make some strong rules about donations, people talking one to the other, who has to do what and all that stuff. Making rules now, for such group will be hard, because every company thats linux, will want to get their hands in there...
Point being here, it will be hard for multiple people to control kernel, because for organization, each person has to communicate to all why feature is good or bad, as well as find out for themselves why it is so. The more people you got the slower the process is.
Re:Revolution (Score:1)
Re:Why not? (Score:5)
by kikta on 09:25 AM January 27th, 2001 PDT (#89)
But, that's what Unix did and look what happened to those assholes. That why there's so much talk against proprietary crap - the last thing we want to do is fork the kernel. Unless Linus start taking it down the shitter (and he's not), there's every reason to avoid it. (quoted in whole due to a shithead moderator)
Yeah, but what really doomed UNIX was not kernel forks, it was user space forks and different hardware, dooming binary and even source compatibilty in most cases. Not to mention that admining UNIX meant knowing a different toolchain for each vendor.
Well, now we have the GNU user space and complier emerging as a standard part of even commercial Unix installations (like Solaris), and we have cheap, mostly standard x86 hardware working fine for 90% of the problems out there. And the Linux distributors have already fucked up the admin tool issue, so that will have to solved later anyway.
To k-whore a bit, the unifying part of "Linux" is not the kernel -- it's the free userspace. Commercial vendors are starting to catch on with this with things like AIX-L (runs Linux PPC binaries), and free software vendors know that source compatibility is easy if you can at least make some assumptions about the runtime environ (to a greater degree than you could with commercial UNIX). Once UNIX software vendors have completely standardized on GNU/Gnome/KDE/etc, their really won't be a fractured Unix anymore, and you can mix and match kernels to your hearts content. It's totally likely that we'll see a "Linux-like" OS with a BSD or the Solaris SysV kernel.
--
Re:It sounds like the demacrats (Score:1)
Re:I agree (Score:1)
If you want to see something in the kernal you are free to develop it right? So go ahead and do so... it will be easy to incorporate your work into the standard kernal once your development is relatively complete.
On a side note, supposed someone or some group wanted to make fundamental changes to the kernal ala a 3.0 release. The same rule applies really... form whatever groups you want to, start your work, and spit out an alpha example of what you are doing. Depending upon your success, you make or may not garner the interest and support of other Linux developers, including Linus himself.
Now that I've read the article (Score:2)
They mention in the article that Torvalds's word on when to release kernels is an important one to distribution makers. While certainly true, I think they miss the reason why.
The example in the article is RedHat, who is the only company that opted to offer a distribution based on a test kernel. But now that Torvalds has released 2.4.0, companies all over are planning to deploy distributions based on 2.4.0. They think that 2.4.0 was the first release that Linus was comfortable calling stable.
However, anybody who's run a 2.4.0-test kernel will know differently. I ran test kernels from test8 to test12, and then used 2.4.0 for awhile. It comes as no surprise that 2.4.0 is trivially different than test12... no more different than test8 is from test9. The reason Linus released 2.4.0, as you can tell from his announcement, is that he got tired of people griping at him, and he didn't think the test base would increase at all.
Companies were holding back, not because a test kernel is inferior, but because Linux newcomers would be scared off by a test kernel. It's simply a matter of PR. Maybe Linus isn't the all-knowing Linux God that the article makes him out to be? Think on that for awhile... he's only a man.
A new year calls for a new signature.
The HURD will save us? (Score:2)
I mean, it's the linux macrokernel architecture, and the fact that even minor kernel changes force a recompilation (and possibly a rewrite) of the drivers, which means they have to be submitted to Linus, approved, etc.
The Hurd uses a microkernel, and the concept of translators (instead of kernel drivers), and these translators run in user space, via a stable and well defined interface.
Companies can keep the translators on their website, with no need to submit them for review or kernel patching. I don't think they even need to be recompiled if the kernel changes.
Granted, I think there is a slight hit in performance, but you sure seem to get a lot for this tradeoff.
Re:Is CmdrTaco killing slashdot? (Score:2)
--
Re:Conceptual flaw (Score:2)
You bring up a truly excellent point, but I don't think I totally agree. Two objections immediately come to mind:
In short, I don't buy the argument that if there were anything wrong Linux would inevitably have forked already, and therefore that the absence of a fork proves the absence of a problem. There are just too many other factors and options that might explain why Linux hasn't forked yet.
BTW, if you follow this link [slashdot.org] you'll find the head of a discussion tree from just a couple of months ago on this very topic.
I think most experienced leaders would agree (Score:2)
Oh my god! You bastards! ... (Score:2)
Linux is screwed (Score:2)
Sep. 23, 2004
Today, after yesterday's release of a patch for the FreeBSD, Linus claimed that FreeBSD was now a great OS, afterwhich half of the Linux users switched over to BSD and claimed that "The other OS" was crap.
Re:Conceptual flaw (Score:3)
The BSD point you make is excellent. But again, from the perspective of big business, why are they buying into Linux rather than *BSD, when it's the *BSDs that have the supposedly business-friendly licenses? I believe it's because these business interests are only being propelled by the massive geek-centric focus on Linux.
I have often thought that those of us who were the early adopters of Linux, who used it before it was cool, because it was _good_, would probably be the first to migrate in disgust to the *BSDs. It's interesting that a lot of us have stuck around in Linux land though. We don't seem to mind the fact that for a while at least, our interests are in line with some big money, big business interests.
A lot of people are missing the point of OSS... (Score:2)
One of the responses of OSS projects to people demanding new features has always been "You have the source, go code it yourself," which I believe applies here very well.
AFAIK, Linus has considered Linux as a hobby from the beginning, which seems like a sensible attitude, since maintaining GPL'd software was never meant to be a full time job.
Of course he is (Score:2)
As it is Linus has taken pieces from each of these paths, but created something which is uniquely Linux. This is neither bad nor good, you have to judge it on its own merits. But, in the end, he has killed all of those could-have-been Linuxes. Some of those options would have benifited companies like Red Hat or SuSE more than what we have now, but if it's really too much of a burden to go down Linus' path, any one of these organizations can fork.
Hell, a fork can be maintained in a very sane fashion if you really try. We did it at KSR while the company existed (it died for internal reasons, but the OSF/1 development was going strong).
Linus has killed Linux hundreds of times, and here's to hoping he keeps doing so for decades to come!
Re:Ironies abound today... (Score:2)
People give a lot of credence to Linus because they respect him; Conversely, Sun tries to enforce control over Java through lawsuits and threats.
Go ahead! (Score:2)
But, I suspect the reason that no one has taken the time and effort to do so is because there is no agreement from Linus to step down, and without that, no one will use the forked version. I know I probably wouldn't. Heck, we even have the -ac series, and still almost everyone uses the straight stuff.
IMHO, this guy is nuts if he's asking Linus to step down. He's looking at the Linux kernel as if it were run by a corporation who cares about a dollar driven bottom line. He's not looking at it like I suspect Linus looks at it: as a piece of art. In other words, it's something that Linus does as an expression of himself. If other people get something good out of it, then that's great. If not, then who cares. Asking Linus to step down is like telling Mozart that his opera had too many notes. Can't he just cut a few? Or like saying that Mozarts operas could be great if only Mozart weren't the one writing them. Can't we get a non-profit organization involved so that the acts will have the nice punch at the end to tell the audience the show's over?
Re:Forking's great and all (Score:2)
Please explain? (Score:2)
The developers work with linus' version of the tree by choice. What else is there to say?
Anyone doesn't like it, they are free to do their own thing.
Holy Mother of God! (Score:2)
So Linux is 6 feet^H^H^H^Hmiles under, huh?
Shit... and here I was thinking that I had a future as a Linux sysadmin...
--
Sour Apple Bubbletape 0wns j00r (Score:2)
Re:Revolution (Score:3)
Corporate abandonment is a bad thing? (Score:3)
Corporate interest in GUIs lead to Windows 3.x. Corporate interest in the internet lead to demands that the internet be regulated to protect their profit margins and to "protect" the children.
Linux and free software are enigmas to them, they're something that they can't control no matter how much money they spend. How can the principles of free software be upheld if the most visible success thereof is handed over to the controlling interests on the big money tech sector? They can't be. If the suits got frustrated with Linux and turned their backs on it, would that really be such a bad thing?
Is this about getting the best free software available, or is it about making money and putting boxen on desks?
LK
Yes, but not for the reasons you think (Score:2)
Is Linus killing Linux? Yes. Is this because he's not devoted to Linux full-time or because he's overloaded or for the other sorts of reasons the article covers? No. He's killing Linux because part of a leader's job is to set a good example for others and Linus sets a very bad example. Linus has some very weird ideas about things like debuggers, real-time, enterprise systems, and so forth. He doesn't seem to be a strong believer in things like specs and regression tests and controlled releases. He's not very well read about OS theory and his distrust of ideas from the commercial world borders on paranoia, so a lot of inferior reinvented-wheel proposals get his approval.
Because of the extremely high regard in which many hold Linus, and perhaps rightly so, all of his habits both good and bad tend to be emulated by other developers around the world. When that leads to the widespread adoption of his bad habits, that's bad for Linux. I seriously think that Linux would be healthier if opinions contrary to Linus's own could be expressed freely without hordes of his worshippers acting like the Inquisition.
Linus could ameliorate this problem by recognizing the impact of everything he says and trying to ensure that the impact is a good one. He should be open about the limits of his own expertise, and not make such a habit of shouting down experts in areas where he himself is ill informed. He could actively discourage people from supporting technical viewpoints out of blind loyalty, and from treating dissenters as heretics. His failure to do these things, which are all part of a leader's role and responsibility, is what is killing Linux.
I have several essays providing fuller explanations of these views on my website [verizon.net], for those who are interested.
you contradict yourself (Score:2)
Servers vs. small devices (Score:2)
part of the industry that is, i.e. the part of the industry creating large servers, not the part of the industry creating small special purpose devices. Even IBM and Compaq have interests in both sides.
It is always a judgement call whether splitting the development in two is preferable from having a single three with some compile times options.
In any case, I think the improvenemts in 2.4 and 2.4.1 are more server oriented, than small device oriented.
Re:What? (Score:2)
There is a competing version! (Score:2)
There is a competing implementation to the Linus kernel! It's called the Alan Cox kernel!
Seriously though...Alan does seem to be a rittle less (un)retentive about letting things into his tree. It's nice that he uses his tree to help with getting these things fixed up, tested, and properly fed into Linus tree. This undeniably helps get things into Linus tree that might not otherwise have been accepted.
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
Forking is a huge issue in proprietary systems. With open source systems it isn't that much of an issue. Since the open nature means that nothing worthwhile is lost.
ermm... (Score:2)
Just let the kernel evolve. If it's under Linus's control or otherwise, the kernel is sure to evolve as long as there is a substantial user-base prepared to take advantage of it's features and demand more.
Re:What? (Score:2)
His job at Transmeta could hardly be described as "not Linux related". Transmeta gives Linus an incredible amount of leeway to conduct his Linux business, including frequent travel, on corporate time and expense. I very much doubt that Transmeta cares one bit if Linux ever writes one line of code for them, and I wonder how much he really has done for them that's not Linux-related.
Do you read the man's own posts, or just stuff that's written about him? His own words make it very clear that he has a strong sense of territory wrt Linux.
Sounds like someone misses being oppressed (Score:2)
Did you notice the tone of the article?
Translation: "I hate my freedom! Please, someone take it away from me!"
Kind of like democracy. It's simply not as clear and effecient as dictatorship. I work with proprietary packages every day and have to wait months for a patch or update. I would love it if I could just search and apply my own patches.
This was the tone I got from the article. He's pleading for a return to the old model of a single, proprietary operating system company and everything comes from the Cathedral. They don't like the Marketplace model of open source. They aren't comfortable with it. It's kind of like wishing some benevelant dictator will come to power and order the world.
The thing he forgets is a company, even a non-profit one, becomes a single target for Microsoft to kill. With the current model, Microsoft would have to kill every single Linux user in the world to kill Linux.
He also doesn't get the idea that nothing stops people from forking the Linux kernal into a different direction. As others have posted, the fact that hasn't happened is a market vote of confidence in Linus. IBM had an opportunity to fork the Kernal, but chose not to because they respected Linus's decision.
The other thing he doesn't get is that the "market" of distributed Open Source is permanent. The "cathedral" of a Linux Non-Profit Corporation risks losing permanence because development will become focused into the programmers at the Corp and if the Corp folds, who will support Linux then?
In my nearly 20 years (has it been that long already??) of dealing with computers, I've learned that the "marketplace" model of software development lasts longer and usually is better than the "cathedral" of a single, proprietary company or organization.
I agree and I disagree. (Score:3)
On the other hand, I'm highly skeptical of the ability of a large panel of "experts" to lead a complex development process. Trying to fit all the different opinions and demands under roof can strain the final product, not to mention slow it down with endless talks. Furthermore, even where the group would all benefit, they don't necessarily all know it at the moment it would be proposed. There is a certain value to breaking away from the rest of the flock at times, striking out on your own, and coming back when you have a finished product.
In other words, I feel most current Open Source projects are, or will be, ultimately limited by their leadership and developers. However, the recent events with IBM, et. al, putting in millions of dollars into the Open Source Labs looks like the one shining prospect--sort of hybrid between traditional capitalist methods and the new open source model. 24m can do a lot of good, initially. I just wonder if the economics of Open Source will encourage sustained contribution to the continued development of technology that, in all likelyhood, will not give any company an edge over its competitors.
Re:Linux code is open, but Linux name is closed (Score:2)
So, first, it's unlikely that Linus would try to stop the consortium from calling its project Linux. Second, these very wealthy corporations could go to court and have Linux be declared a generic term very easily, because of Linus's non-enforcement so far.
And third, such a consortium of wealthy corporations has the $$$ to advertise a new name, anyway.
This is 100% true (Score:4)
This is typically argued three ways: Linus is killing Linux by insisting on certain kinds of changes that generally leave out the things the Industry wants. The Industry is killing Linux by forking off and releasing all kinds of weird patches, many of which don't work as advertised (probably why Linus rejected them), and giving Linux a bad name when in fact their products are not Linux any more than any hacker's mangled, broken source tree is Linux. Nobody is killing Linux because the entire process is demonstrating the strengths of the open development model that's so hip today.
To be honest, I consider a fourth argument more accurate: Linus is killing Linux by proxy; he is actually accepting too many patches. The kind of patches that are needed are things like the PCI rewrite and Softnet and Netfilter. To me there is no similar effort more important than analogous rewrites for the block and scsi layers, with a FreeBSD-style VM close behind. Therefore, no major patches should be accepted until that work is done and has been tested. To continue all kinds of unrelated development when much of the core code is in total disarray, a mess of hacks and black magic that break half the time, is simply foolish. The 2.5 series should be dedicated to three major points: Dead code removal, major structural overhauls with substantial and rigorous testing, and a complete and systematic review of all existing code to ensure that it is using the most up-to-date and efficient ways of doing things (ie make sure that drivers aren't using the back-compatibility PCI cruft, then remove the cruft). This would result in a 3.0.0 that contains not one new feature, and probably would have fewer drivers since unmaintained drivers would be dropped completely from the codebase. But the tarball you download would probably be 20-30% smaller, and the entire system would be much more reliable and predictable. The greatest advantage is that 3.x would have a solid foundation to build on, free of back-compatibility cruft, broken code, dead code, unmaintained code, spaghetti code, and all other manner of obnoxiousness. The interfaces specified during the rewrites would be considered fixed (ie minor bugfixes are ok but no rewrites no matter how clever the idea) for the entire major version (as opposed to the current plan to preserve them only within a minor version). This gives some stability to the project and helps industry, as well as independent hackers who have to maintain code.
Re:Let's seriously consider the question. (Score:2)
I don't wonder. They would.
Linus is a technical genius, and there is no better way to waste everyone's time by tying down a technical genius with project-management tasks. Let Linus do what he's good at, and let someone with the proper skills do the things Linus doesn't do so well. Of course, that person would have to have Linus's full and explicit support to be effective, and Linus would have to resist the temptation to override decisions appropriate to the project-management role, and I'm not sure he's the sort of person who would abide by those terms.
Re:Servers vs. small devices (Score:2)
Most of the industry money are in servers and small devices, however, most of the users are desktop users, in particular the fraction of the users who care about the OS (few people care about what OS their toaster or laundry machine run).
Re:Linus CAN'T kill Linux (Score:2)
Markets and directions. (Score:2)
How many people are affected by whether Linux runs on big mainframes? A few people in a number of large corporations. If Linux eventually becomes adapted to and widely adopted in set top boxes, handhelds/PDAs, cellular phones, etc (yeah it's a few years away at best), it stands to impact a lot more people than if it is made to scale to 256 processor boxes (the latter will surely happen when 256GB, 256-processor boxes are your average desktop).
Linus is going for the bigger potential market in the long run and in 10 to 20 years, if he pulls it off, he will probably be recognized as a major visionary. Those people who claim he is hurting Linux by his focus are just annoyed he doesn't share their own narrow view.
Personally, I wonder if Linux would have been as much of a success if Linus' parents had named him differently. Larsux and Bjornix just don't have quite the same ring, do they ?
Oh yea... (Score:2)
MLK killed human rights.
And errr...Video killed the radio star...
Re:Linus Scares people! (Score:2)
The reason that Torvalds is throwing away patches is that it is his judgement that the state of the 2.4.0 kernel is such that it needs to be tested for a while so that whatever problems it might have become better understood. It's all described in the kernel mailing list, and is a perfectly normaly part of the software development process.
People who think Linus is killing Linux have no understanding of open source. If somebody thinks they can do a better job, they are perfect free to fork Linux are run with it. The fact taht such forks don't exist is a very good indication of how good a job Linus is doing.
Re:Holy Mother of God! (Score:2)
--
Re:Revolution (Score:2)
Re:Pot, kettle, black... (Score:2)
"BSD already does stateful firewalling. Why'd you have to do it a different way?"
Open License (Score:2)
Re: Re:Forking's great and all (Score:2)
Then why GPL the kernel if you won't let people use it as they wish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Freedom is one thing. Success and quality is another. Take your pick. I'd argue that a slight limit in freedom is worth big gains in quality and compatibility. But that's just me
(1) How are the programers creating " proprietory interfaces", IT'S OPEN SOURCE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe prorpietory was the wrong word (though anyone with some sense would have picked up what I meant based on the context of the post.) I meant that they can create interfaces specific to a particular kernel. While this is sometimes necessary, programmers in general do it far more often than they need to.
(2) ALSA or Advanced Linux Sound Arch. is slated to be the replacement to OSS lite in the current kernel. There is NOTHING "proprietory" (there's that word again...) about it, it's developmental and doesn't belong in the stable tree so the author kept it out as a seperate project. BTW- it will probably be merged in 2.5 or so the rumor goes....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do you have any semblence of reading comprehension? I said they could make propriatory interfaces (admitedly the wrong word) , maybe through a custom library like ALSA does. I said that ALSA was custom library (as opposed to a standard one like libc), not that it was a proprietory interface.
Re:Power to the kernel Hackers ... (Score:2)
Why do you see those objectives as mutually exclusive? People that work in corporations have the same goals as those who work in small business, those who work for themselves, or those who don't work at all. Many of those kernel hackers work for said corporations.
They simply want a stable computing environment. If something like, for example, kernel debuggers or a fine-grained permission system [read: ACLs] will help is that goal, and a group of poeple need to fork Linux to do that, more power to them. We`ll all benefit from it. Why would a corproate forked Linux be bad, compared to a non-corporate forked Linux? The same people would still be working on it. The lciensing wouldn't change.
Id like to see if there's reasons here beyond `all corporations are inherintly evil'. Since you didn't qualify your initial post, I honestly doubt there is. But please post back and prove me wrong.
Re:Revolution (Score:2)
Re:The could always LGPL their own software (Score:2)
Ironies abound today... (Score:3)
Slash-ethics seem highly situational.
Re:Corporate abandonment is a bad thing? (Score:2)
That was funny, are you going to call me a buster next?
Put down your "gangsta" rap tape and pick up a book.
LK
DevFS (Score:2)
Indeed - I believe Linux accepted DevFS into the main tree due against his own personal judgement based on consensus from other well known Linux kernel authorities.
This (and similar stories) in perl (Score:5)
@idiots = find_idiots($senseless_yakkers);
foreach $moron (@idiots) {
push(@comments,get_quotes($moron));
}
$story = intersperse_speculation(@comments);
print html_format($story);
}
Why not? (Score:5)
Linus has stated that he cares more about small devices than 'enterprise' features, and the industry really wants the reverse, so that would give everyone something they like.
Better than using SCO.
- - - - -
What? (Score:5)
Linux Trademark (Score:2)
IANAL
Two Linux Forks (Score:2)
rtlinux - A realtime, low latency kernel
uclinux - Designed / designing for microcontrollers
ELKS - For embeded devices
--
Please... (Score:2)
killing slashdot (Score:2)
Re: Re:Forking's great and all (Score:2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You do realize that you can't argue with a statement like that! It's like saying, "I've told you a million times..." It's not scientifically thought out, it's an exaggeration and all you are supposed to get from it is meaning, not detail.
well not just you, i bet MS would too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To each his own. However, "total freedom" is not always best for the user. People who seek complete freedom (anarchy) are just as bad as people who seek no freedom (autocracy) The happy balance lies closer to complete freedom, but some constraints must be imposed to insure quality of product.
Without ALSA lib how are you supposed to use the features of ALSA? Magic?
>>>>>>>>>>
I never said you weren't supposed to use ALSA. I have nothing AGAINST ALSA, or the method it uses. You (in your original post) said that the common API was libc. I said that extensions could be added via libs like ALSA, and that some of these exensions could be specific to particular forks. You can't read ANYTHING else from that aside from what I just said.
How is it "custom",
>>>>>>>>>>
It's not a standard part of the Linux kernel or OS as compared to something like libc. I think you'd get the meaning by now.
OSS is on the way out and ALSA the way in so ALSA has OSS support, ALSA lib is the way of the future. I have no idea what the hell your trying to say with the interface/lib thing...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
ESL classes failing you? How clear do I have to make it? I'm not making a comment about ALSA, I just used it as an example of a library that can be used to add an API to the kernel without going through libc.
Power to the kernel Hackers ... (Score:3)
Linux is about its users, not some mega-money sucking corperation
Did all those kernel and code hackers spend their time into something that coperate America will just suck up in the end?
NO!! They did it for themselves, and other Linux users. Its stupid how slashdot always tries to force Linux into main stream corporate America. I'm prefectly happy by the way the kernel is shaping to be. And IMHO Linus is doing a great job too.
The day Linux turns out to be an OS for the corporations and not for the people, is the day that the kernel hackers either fork the source and continue with what they wish, or they start making a whole new OS altogether.
Re:Corporate abandonment is a bad thing? (Score:2)
I vote primarily on the issues of gun control and abortion. Given the choices, Bush was the only alternative that I had.
LK
Linus CAN'T kill Linux (Score:4)
It just ain't true.
Just because Linus has headed kernel development up until now doesn't mean he always will. IBM (or anyone) could suddenly split off from the main tree and begin development on their own. And provided they remain true to the GPL, there is no reason this couldn't happen (and frankly, I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet).
I think that fact that Linus still heads development is just a testament to his phenomenal abilities as a project manager. But it doesn't have to be that way.
Re:Two Linux Forks (Score:2)
Revolution (Score:5)
What the fuck do we give a shit if "$2 billion industry looking to exploit Linux for fun and profit" Fuck dollars - fuck industry!!!!! Why should Linus be accused of leading Linux poorly? Because he is not some TransNational Board of Directors looking to homoginize something for the mass market? It makes me sick to think that people are so caught up in 'market economics' and the like that they DO NOT EXIST OUTSIDE OF THEIR MARKET FUNCTIONS ! People everywhere adopting the word 'Consumer' in place of 'Citizen' or 'Person' is a telling example of the transformation of everything we do to being a 'Business Function'.
I dont give a damn what 'industry' thinks of GNU/Linux - they can goto fucking hell. Im interested in Linux because of the possibility that it will change people and society by freeing them from a future of proprietary IP controlled by those who would seek to exploit them... if 'industry' thinks that the success of Linux should be 'co-opted' for their ends, and not for this liberation of users I say 'Fuck them'.
This makes me absolutely irate - when did "Person" and "Society" get replaced with "Consumer" and "Market"?!?! And when did it become necessary to measure everything by a 'dollar yardstick'?!?
for the sake of getting things done (Score:3)
Re:What? (Score:2)
IBM is free to take the Linux kernel base and roll in whatever they want, do whatever they feel they want to do with it under an industry consortium. They can release it and call it "Foonix" as long as it follows the GPL. Linus, Alan Cox and others will still continue to work on the kernel *they* want to work on. And we, the users, can use whichever kernel we want.
And IBM can release their Foonix distro, and nobody will be unhappy about it. If they sufficiently break compatibility with Linux, well, nobody might want to use it, but that's IBM's fault. If Foonix is significantly better than Linux, we'll all probably start using something based on Foonix soon enough, or Foonix will get rolled into Linux.
This all seems fairly self-regulating to me. I don't get the issues people make over it. I feel no pain or anguish about the current Linux kernel. If I did, and I was IBM, I'd go get my 10 billion dollar industry consortium together and fork it and write some code instead of whining.
Re:They're free to go make their own. (Score:2)
Excellent points.
There is still plenty of opportunity to make lots of money on this. Aside from wanting to see certain changes in the kernel, like support for certain devices and certain processors, what the industry wants is to bypass competition. As you say, they want to lock it in their way. Ironically, everyone, including they, benefit from from the competition and openness, because they cannot be locked out by someone else.
The other thing business likes, but is bad, is pushing things to be delivered before it's ready. Linux's great advantage in my mind is that Linus won't release it as official until it's ready. Now I was running 2.4.0-test10 on several machines before 2.4.0 came out. But business seems to want to have it now, but doesn't want to call it anything but the final release. If Linus had released it early, you might have 2.4.0-test10 or some other earlier version. It wouldn't be any better if it were called 2.4.0. But it would be a lie if the developer-in-chief didn't think it was ready. I trust Linus far more than software marketing types. Their schedules and deadlines (which is what runs business now) are for the birds. And I'm glad Linux works the way it does.
Re:uh, yeah sure. (Score:2)
On the 3rd rock around a small star in a small galaxy nearby is a lifeless spot called Redmond.
Re:huh? (Score:2)
linus is prepared for the inevitable. (Score:4)
from a zdnet interview [zdnet.com] with linus. he goes on to say:
hope that in another few years, people will still remember me, but they'll also consider me more of a traditional 'technical lead' person and 'senior architect,' rather than 'Mr Linux.'
THAT's what I'm aiming for. The ability to be 'just' the technical guy some day. I'm in no real hurry, and I'm convinced it will happen, so I'm not worrying. You'll just have to find the next quotable wünder-kid to spice up your stories
so linus realizes that linux is growing, and it will be to big for him (or any other singular person) some day. the community will deal with it. hell redhat/ibm/compaq all employ kernel hackers, and i think linus listens to them when he makes decisions. at some point a decision has to be made and currently i think those decisions are best made by linus.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
my knee-jerk reactions (Score:2)
Apart from points mentioned elsewhere, like:
- should we really care about a million dollar Industry, if they want a piece of Linux it should be the other way round
- Linus' success in handling kernel development is demonstrated by the fact that there are no major forks
... theres also the fact that Linus' handling of the development process resulted in very fast decisions and rapid development. Also one of the major strengths of Linux lies in it's independence on industrial corporations. Had Linux been developped by something like Redhat then Microsoft would have bought it long ago.
The next thing is the philosophy behind it. When i read stuff like:
"In the early stages of open source, it was more of a charitable affair and developers didn't attach a fee," said George Weiss, an analyst at Gartner. "But the vendors are in it for financial success, and they'll think twice about being charitable while answering to their stockholders."
i see some conflicts with the meaning of the GPL here. If they want to develop Linux we want them to do that under the GPL, meaning that anyone who wants can take all that work and fork it whereever he wants. if he finds enough people thinking he's doing a good thing and helping then what? Will all the stockholders ask them to please stop? Will some lawyers look for loopholes in the GPL?
I'm sorry, but i think if the Industry wants to take part in Linux i prefer them doing it at Linus' terms. If they want part in an OS controlled by a big corporation and saying in TV and newspapers all over the world "We're gonna stay forever" they can turn to Microsoft Windows. If they want part in Linux, they can take influence on the development, by setting some developpers to work and submit patches that plainly can't be ignored (and stop calling that "charitable", if intel sets some developpers to work on a kernel working better with their P4 it's surely not because they like Linus Thorwalds so much). But they should not just say "wow, that Linux is a fine thing, let's take it and make it ours".
The techweb story is just a troll for hits... (Score:3)
If an industry consortium wanted to take over linux, they can go right ahead and do it under the license. They can release their own LinuxByTheMan(tm) version, with their own kernal based on the linux kernal, forking it is perfectly legal.
Moreover, the premise is damaged. Just because a bunch of companies have invested in supporting MS products, does that mean the author believes windows should be controlled by an industry consortium.
Don't feed the techweb troll, this article is obvious bait.
Conceptual flaw (Score:5)
Past experience and observation would indicate that Open Source projects of high general interest, in the condition of massive disagreement between factions will result in project forking. In other words, if enough smart people think Linus is screwing things up, or not directing kernel development in the right way, or refusing to merge in important patches, then dammit, they can and will fork and make their own kernel fork. This hasn't happened to any significant extent. Therefore things are probably doing okay. Hell, if they look like they have _MY_ interests better in hand, then I'll support a forked effort too. I just doubt that a megacorp consortium will in any way have my interests at heart.
Corporate control is the LAST thing Linux needs (Score:2)
The way I see it, the minute Linux is regulated by any person, company, or consortium that is in any way shape or form subject to commercial considerations, the game is up. We do NOT need an entity who's mind is in any way dwelling upon "what is the best for the stockholders?".
Why do you think MS produces as crappy a series of OSes as it does? Simply because Bill Gates was and still is in it for the money. Linus ISN'T, and IMO, that's what makes it great.
The Linux kernels constantly come out better and more stable than their counterparts. Why? Because the man who controls the kernel says "it will be released when it's ready".
I wouldn't have it any other way.
Akardam Out
Not understanding Open Source (Score:2)
Essentially, the writer of the story is saying "I'm not understanding Open Source, because I haven't learnt about it in business school".
The truth is: as soon as Linus would try to kill of Linux, he will be put aside and someone else would take the lead in Linux development. While offcourse that would be a shocking event in Linux-land, it would still ensure the continuing excistence of Linux in the future.
And did I mention 'fork' yet?
Well, you have to blink sometimes... (Score:2)
Well, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. It occurs to me that these nonprofit organisations might end up causing more division then they're worth...what if, heaven's forbid, Compaq disagrees with Dell and, shock, horror, one threatens to pull funding. What you're looking at is the potential sanction of seperate forked versions of the kernel...including a lame assed version released for use under the GPL, with more and more lawyer workarounds for proprietory(sp-?) versions.
"Despite Torvalds' technical reign over Linux, IBM and Compaq have quickly become the industry's de facto Linux leaders, and tensions over the kernel's direction will heighten as market forces intensify, experts say..."
These damned, physcic, unamed experts again. Would that be the expert working for Microsoft, or the 20 year old college student skipping all his classes to hack code? (HACK, not crack 8)...and when they say industry, do they mean the Hardware industry? Last time I checked there were a few other companies that held popular LINUX distros/solutions(mind you, I did blink yesterday to moisten my eyeballs...maybe everything changed then).
I think that covers it. Put that puppy to rest...won't stop me writing the same article in a few weeks time, but it satisfied by Linux frenzy for the moment.
8)
They're free to go make their own. (Score:3)
They're free to go make their own. That's what true free and open software is all about. If Microsoft or some other company wanted to make their own distribution, or fork the kernel their own way, they are certainly free to do so, under the openness requirements of GPL. That allows us to go pick and choose what they develop to include, or not include, in our version.
Re:Linus CAN'T kill Linux (Score:3)
Re:What? (Score:5)
Linux is a hobby to Linus and nothing more. I can't speak for him (no one can) but from what I've read that he's written he doesn't care if people want to start an orginization that will control kernel devel because all it would control is their kernel, not the Linus kernel which is all he's interested in. He chose not to have a Linux related job because of this. He just wants it to be a hobby. I don't even think he thinks of himself as the "leader" of the linux kernel. He's only the leader of his linux kernel.
The other important thing is the word "grow" that the article mentions. What do you mean grow??? If you want the kernel to have a certain feature then DO IT! It's not Linus's responsibility to ensure that what other people want in the kernel is there. It's everyone's own responsibility to ensure that what they want in the kernel is there. The kernel will grow as much as it's user's want it to. And I really don't think anyone cares if a few companies lose some money because the kernel didn't "grow" in the direction that would have been profitable for them.
Linux has always been about what it's user's want and that will never change unless by some wierd twilightzone effect Linus gives up the trademark and all of the code that he has written (because everyone else's code would still be GPL) to some big company so they can make money off of it.
--
Garett
Unix International and Open Software Foundation (Score:5)
I suspect some of the players (IBM, SGI) actually remember this period, and are happy to have a independent benevolant dictator running Linux, instead of a consortium.
Parallel to downfall of Hitler/Germany (Score:2)
I read this and a thought popped into my head. Hitler was THE authority when it came to making a decision for the German army. All decisions had to be made by him. By doing so he crippled his army by not allowing them to quickly make important decisions.
While I wouldn't go nearly to that extent with Linus' control over Linux, I certainly think there is some similarity. I know I'm going to get flamed out the wazoo for comparing Linus to Hitler, but my comparison isn't like that.
I'm just saying that Linux might advance a little more quickly if Linus delegated authority to different people over different areas of the Kernel. I don't know how these divisions would be drawn up, since I haven't done much kernel development.
I'm not sure how much a committe would really help matters. Think of a bunch of kernel hackers in a big group debating and voting on changes to the kernel, when their time could be spent better coding. I could imagine meetings lasting into the wee hours of the morning with little getting accomplished.
In the end, I think that Kernel development should be structured like a good army. Find good divisions with well-defined tasks, and give those divisions a lot of authority. Linus should act like the General to assure that all of the divisions are working well together, while still having relative autonomy to do their job. Well, that's my historical take anyway.
Market Pressure is the enemy (Score:2)
Here's a thought: (Score:2)
But let's, for a moment, consider what the author is suggesting.
Would anyone here trust IBM, Compaq, and other heavyweights with the development of the kernel? Would you trust them to be honest and open? Would you trust them to keep other people's needs in mind, as well as their own?
Most importantly, do you honestly believe they'd make a compromise (in kernel functionality, or anything else) that would cost them money?
I didn't think so.
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Re:Revolution (Score:2)
Seriously, though, I'd be careful about saying stuff like that. Industry is the whole reason fucks like you can sit on their computers and whine about it. Industry is the backbone of this country (and most of the developed world) and without it, you guys wouldn't have homes, much less computers. THere are dozens of countries out there that are having major growing pains trying to build industries own. They have to deal with pollution, worker-abuse, monetary drains, etc. And you know what? It's worth it. Because eventually, industry will allow countries like that to not only gain wealth and feed its citizens, but will allow them to become more environmentally responsible and more socially free. (Surprise surprise! Got to have money before you can worry about the environment!)
A SERIOUS comment about Linux (Score:2)
Just take a look at 2.4 if you don't believe me ;-)
Same old song and dance (Score:2)
Having seen Linux develop since the days before before the 1.0 kernel, it is amusing to see it morph from a "computer hobbyists toy" OS to an "industrial strength" OS. Or at least that's what the mainstream IT press would have you believe. I don't buy it. To me, Linux has always been my choice and passion. They just can't accept the fact that Linux is what is
I think what frustrates the IT press thinks that the "Johnny Come Latelys", aka IBM, Oracle, HP, et.al. are not in control. Linus is. Believe me I appreciate the corporate support, but not having it around at the start didn't hurt Linux one bit. Nor if they "packed their toys up" and left, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Linux would keep on being developed.
As far as accountability goes, does anyone else see the statement:
as just good old fashioned FUD, or maybe just innacurate. People thought DEC would be around forever, or maybe that Montgomery Ward would be around forever, or maybe "insert your your favorite company that isn't in business anymore" here. Linus said very clearly when asked how Linux would survive if he were hit by a bus that "I would wouldn't care, as I would be dead." Simply put Linux is more than Linus. More than Alan Cox. More than anyone else. Dare I say it - Linux just is. That's more than any corporation can promise.-dan
P.S. Since when has corporate backing == accountability? Has anyone ever won an IT related lawsuit related to suitability to task. If so, please let me know me I've got a few companies in mind.
It's the industry, stupid (Score:3)
--
Patrick Doyle
Forking's great and all (Score:5)
Let's seriously consider the question. (Score:3)
Obviously, it's his project, and his perogative. But if you follow the 'Kernel Traffic' website to see what's going on in the list, you'll see a lot of prevaricating on Linus' part. We all know that he's a brilliant developer. But his management skills seem to be less than ideal. He lets deadlines slip, which by itself is no big deal for an open source project, but it happens because he often doesn't stick to his guns when it comes to drawing the line on feature creep for production kernels. Entire interfaces and huge subsystems were changing, very late into the 2.4.0 development process.
I wonder if Linus and the core kernel developers could benefit from the help of a Project Manager. Not to make important development decisions for them, but rather to keep it coordinated and moving in the right direction, and prevent the tangential stuff from turning kernel development into a big mess.
--
Ahhh poo..... (Score:2)
Re:Corporate control is the LAST thing Linux needs (Score:2)
The decision making processes in a corporation are rather chaotic at best. First, there are politics. But most of it is CYA2KYJ politics. Profit drives most of the rest. Decisions are often delayed by management, then finally made a couple days after arbitrary deadlines imposed on the budget limited small staff of underpaid people to work miracles of quickly pulling code out of their .......
Is CmdrTaco killing slashdot? (Score:5)
The 24-year-old CmdrTaco, a leisure-class hero to lazy developers who prefer web surfing to work, is the inventor and guardian of a technology website that reports unsubstantiated rumors about a $2 billion industry, one whose rapid rise is unnerving executives at Microsoft Corp. (stock: MSFT).
Yet some solution providers, vendors, and industry observers are beginning to question how long one man can steer the evolution of slashdot, and whether CmdrTaco's sole oversight of the site, now at version 1.0.9, is slowing its corporate adoption.
While he's not driven by aesthetic motives, CmdrTaco has significant power over the look of the website.
Kuro5hin, in contrast, is the trademark of Rusty Foster.
They note CmdrTaco lacks both color vision and good taste for web design, and as an inept but persistent amateur guitarist, has considerable professional obligations outside his slashdot activities.
What's more, industry titans such as IBM Corp. (stock: IBM); Compaq Computer Corp. (stock: CPQ); Intel Corp. (stock: INTC); Hewlett-Packard Corp. (stock: HWP); and Oracle Corp. (stock: ORCL) are losing billions of dollars in developer time as their employees spend the entire day reading the site and those developers to exert more influence on the development of a less garish color scheme, not based on a bad acid trip.
"We need a designer that understands why the BSD section shouldn't be a combination of teal and fire engine red. Employees at IBM, Compaq, and Dell and the [Linux] distributors have taken to wearing welding masks while viewing some portions of the site," said Hal Davison, owner and president of Davison Consulting, Sarasota, Fla.
Some overweight, bearded, slovenly Linux users view the unpleasant site design as proof that CmdrTaco isn't gay, Davison said.
"Linux wookies reluctant to see the site change because they have channeled their sexual frustrations into homophobia. They don't want to see a Maurice or Antoine saying, 'Pastels would be nice,'" he said.
Torvalds opposes the notion of aesthetic principles controlling the look and feel of the slashdot website.
However, experts say he'll face pressure from big OEM VA Linux which is attempting to bankroll the transformation of the inaccurate technology reporting into a lucrative industry.
The slashdot user base stands to double this year to 600,000 accounts, according to Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, a Wall Street investment firm. Users are hopeful but leery about Taco's casual indifference to usability and readability.
Shoeboy's recent pledge to spend $1 to advance slashdot usability in 2001 comes with a no-strings-attached promise today, but observers say that won't last if Taco doesn't pick up steam in the form of making the site less shitty.
For example, at the LinuxWorld conference in New York, a passing marketer cried out in horror after viewning the apache section. She is currently in therapy working to resolve her new found aversion to the color purple.
"In the early stages of slashdot, it was more of an amateur affair and developers didn't have high expectations," said George Weiss, an analyst at Gartner. "But CmdrTaco has acheived financial success, and they think he should maybe fix the fucking site already."
Publicly, blue-chip posters recognize Taco as the lead slashdot user, but note that they aren't beholden to his final nod to carry out their posting plans, as they are with other websites.
Still, insiders say Taco's casual e-mail flip-offs of the user base carry tremendous weight in the user community - down the food chain from Karma Whores to Trolls, slashbots, and first posters.
For instance, when Taco declared Microsofts web outage unimportant several days ago, many posters opted to call him a "fucking shithead."
"[Taco's] decisions are ones he quickly pulls out his ass," said Signal 11, senior director of database marketing at Oracle, Redwood Shores, Calif., who contributed to the decline of slashdot.
"After he's had a few too many, that's when he's ready to check the submission queue. He flames users, reposts old stories and then vomits. He makes CowboyNeal lap it up," Signal 11 said. "Having a little bit of alcohol is a good thing, but Taco takes it to far."
Despite Taco's technical reign over slashdot, Timothy and Michael have quickly become the sites de facto editors, and tensions over the sites direction will heighten as they continue to post pointless articles, experts say.
"I don't believe open submission queus work well for commercial sites because they can't control submissions," said Michael Cusumano, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management who sits on the board of solution provider NetNumina Solutions. "This leaves them open to accidentally posting links to the Amsterdam hooters and shit."
The choice is his (Score:3)
If he wants to change the mainstream development model--well, that isn't up for discussion. It's Linus's kernel, and everyone else can take it or leave it. If you haven't heard, Linus has made it clear that he doesn't care about the financial interests surrounding Linux.
Asking Linus to change his development principles is like requesting the repeal of those quantum phenomena that (the nerve!) prevent us from making our transistors smaller.
Re:Revolution (Score:2)
Not all industries are bad, certainly. Your points are well taken.
But the complaint here, as I see it, is that everything these days is viewed from the perspective of "How much money will it make me?" I'm not bothered about folks wanting to living well, but when that's all they think about- when they can't see that something has merit even if it doesn't have financial value-then that's a very one-dimensional (and unhealthy) view.
I read an article awhile back in some financial magazine about how expensive it was to have a kid, and how people were opting out because of cost. I just shook my head- they just don't get it.
- Cliff, father of a beautiful 3.5 yr boy
What a bunch of tards (Score:2)
"We need a full-time leader and a nonprofit organization that can be funded by IBM, Compaq, and Dell and the [Linux] distributors," said Hal Davison, owner and president of Davison Consulting, Sarasota, Fla.
Let's see, http://www.davison.com. Oops, wrong company, thats some web design outfit in maryland. Surely then there's http://www.davisonconsulting.com? Hmm. Nope, no such site. Nothing against this poor guy personally, I've read some of his posts on some mailing lists and I'm sure he's done a fine job being a consultant. But he hardly qualifies as a headline-grabbing clairvoyant worthy of pulling the industry's needle off the proverbial record with his opinions.
Here, I can play that game too:
Phil DeBecker, of DeBecker Consulting, owner and president of DeBecker Consulting, says "We are really concerned about the sources that TechWeb uses. When we can't locate any actual company owned by a quoted source, that source's status as industry spokesperson is placed into serious doubt."
Oh, and then there's
"I don't believe open source works well for commercial companies because they can't control schedules," said Michael Cusumano, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management who sits on the board of solution provider NetNumina Solutions. "Software companies try to have regular development cycles. That's how you build a rhythm for a company."
Umm yeah. Because we all know that companies that operate on schedules and release products on time, like Apple Computer, IBM Corporation, and Microsoft, just to name a few, release far superior products that completely meet the needs of their target markets and are met with rave reviews by everyone who tries them.
Oh my god, they're right! We have to stop this open source insanity NOW! We absolutely must give control of these open source products back where it belongs, in the hands of the companies whose products are so good, so infallible, so well managed... that they prompted the creation of open source alternatives in the first place!
Reports of Linux's death are greatly exaggerated (Score:4)
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/linux-
Once you have that, you are the master of your own kernel, and you can start a non-profit based on the direction of that kernel.
I think that at this point, the big vendors are scared of forking the kernel because of the old Unix wars and the ammunition it would give to the MSFT FUD machine. They needn't be worried, though; I think most people (outside of industry) agree that an amicable fork would be in the best interest of many people. IBM could take some of that $1B they were planning to invest and pay someone to oversee development of their forked version. And since both projects would be GPL, they could learn and borrow from each other. If Linus should happen to make a bad design decision, for example, he may reconsider if it's shown that the other kernel, using the decision he rejected, performs better.
As other people have pointed out, Linux is a hobby for Linus. He just wants something that will run well for him; if people submit patches for something that he'll never use, he'll include it in "his" kernel if it's good code and doesn't adversely affect other systems.
sigh...
--
Uhm, duh... (Score:2)