Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

BBC Interviews Linus Torvalds 220

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-read dept.
chrisseaton writes "The BBC has an interview with Linus Torvalds. It's a little thin, but good to see something like this in a decent mainstream news source."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BBC Interviews Linus Torvalds More

BBC Interviews Linus Torvalds

Comments Filter:
  • It's nice to see him getting some long-awaited press. No more toiling in the shadows for Mr. Torvalds.
  • Linus Torvalds has revealed he is happy to be the poster boy for the anti-Microsoft campaign but would not know what to say if he met Bill Gates.

    How about...

    You are now under my penguin control [fucksociety.ca]

  • see & hear the interview (Score:4, Informative)

    by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Saturday October 05, 2002 @08:34AM (#4392887) Homepage
    Visit:

    http://www.bbcworld.com/content/template_clickon li ne.asp?pageid=666&co_pageid=3

    realplayer is needed to see this.

  • Quote ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by uq1 ( 59540 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @08:37AM (#4392890)
    "No-one has ever called me a cool dude. I'm somewhere between geek and normal," he said.

    Linus, You're a cool dude.

    • Re:Quote ... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Gerry Gleason ( 609985 )
      Well, I think he's cool too, but I think if you are cool at slashdot, your probably a geek.

      But seriously, the fact that Linus handles himself so well when talking to the 'normals' is a huge plus to the community. Thanks, Linus, keep up the good work.

      • Re:Quote ... (Score:3, Funny)

        by Xpilot ( 117961 )
        Linus handles himself so well when talking to the 'normals'

        I guess you'll only find a sentence like this on slashdot. And, *shudder*, it makes sense too.

        • As long as you are aware of it, it's not a problem. I had to spend three months in Florida to learn that "Car people" was not even recognized as a derogatory term in many places outside Manhattan. I'm still not sure that bit of self awareness was worth it.

    • Re:Quote ... (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Hi!

      Yes, Linus is a cool dude but you should remember that the FSF is full of cool dudes and that GNU Hurd is ready for use! Remember you have a responsibility to yourself and the rest of humanity to choose Free over mere "Open Source" where possible - do the right thing for the future of computing.

      So thanks Linus, for helping to develop GNU/Linux. But please consider GNU Hurd! Futrure generations will thank you.

      Cheers,
      GNU/Wolfgang
    • Weird, searching for "Linus is cool" reveals it has been said 70 to 80 times, as early as 1995.

      The only problem is it is usually said to preface a slam to Linus.

      Like, "don't flame me because I think Linus is cool but, he eats dryer lint when he codes blah blah blah..."

      The same can be said of "Apple is cool".

      Like the people who say it can avoid the steely gaze of the zealots by starting out saying something nice :)

  • i fail to see... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bsDaemon ( 87307 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @08:41AM (#4392901)
    ...how this is vaugly interesting at all? the article really lacks content. it is as if they could have interviewd Paul Alan and went off on a tangent about golf w/ some random quotes about Altair BASIC. Except Paul Alan interests me more for some sick, twisted reason

    • Re:i fail to see... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ninthwave ( 150430 )
      I think the idea of BBC snippets like this is that if you are an average reader, no knowldege of Linux or maybe computers in general, it gives you a brief characterisation on people you might have heard those silly IT guys talking about at work.

      All and all the bbc is a fairly good organisation with its respect to Linux and open software.

      http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/1 17 6/1/
    • Not every interview has to be stellar material to be interesting to the market.

      I for one am glad that Linus has chosen such a bold move and taken some time for himself. Linux is certainly not going to help raise his offspring, and it shouldn't be eating into his most important reason for living: his family.

      The BBC has always held a good feeling in my heart too, for their very even handed coverage of world events.

      An interview like this is trying to show the lighter, more human side of what was traidionally perceived as as the every geeks' "Geek God", and show that Linus can change, just like everyone who grows up to realize that life is more than about just computing.

      There were some very real moments in the article, if you looked closely. Linus is moving away from the world he has helped create, and started down the path of another that is blossoming in his home. Good for him.

      So go ahead, flame me for being sincere, and seeing the other side of Linus, I forgive you.

  • Can you imagine RMS giving the interview? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CresentCityRon ( 2570 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @08:43AM (#4392905)
    I felt that the article was not only about LINUX "growing up" but also that its founder has other things that are important. Nothing unusual but I think it makes nontechies feel more comfortable with Linus. Its nothing crazy or cultish. He even puts himself down a bit at the end.

    The next time RMS rants about why he's not getting the attention that he should this link needs to be forwarded to him to show how it should be done.

    • Re:Can you imagine RMS giving the interview? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sunnan ( 466558 ) <sunnan@handgranat.org> on Saturday October 05, 2002 @09:23AM (#4393014) Homepage Journal
      I don't have to imagine anything. [bbc.co.uk]
      Here is a BBC interview with RMS.

      I thought it was great, but then again, I like RMS.
    • Ya gotta love his understated approach. Deflect any idea that this is competing with MS, but then quitely state that MS has the same fate as IBM in their future. It's a prediction, not an attack.

      The streets were littered with the carcasses of companies that tried to compete head to head with IBM, while the world was quitely changing under them and they didn't even know. It was open systems and high value UNIX servers that did them in, not MS. Until recently, Windows systems only competed with their terminals, and they were happy to sell PCs as terminals (maybe not happy about competing with generic clones of their own product).

      The next transformation involves the OS retreating into the background from the user's point of view. With MS trying to get a bigger and bigger piece of the revenue pie, they are doomed to fail because there isn't that much value in what they are providing. Eventually they just won't have much of a value proposition to sell, and they are already too bloated to become lean and mean and really compete again. This is the eventual fate of any organization that embraces monopoly practices. Gates will still be rich, just a bit less so, but nobody will care and this will make him very unhappy.

      Ever notice how people who care too much about the attention they are getting aren't very happy, and it doesn't help them get attention either? RMS has contributed too much to the community to quibble about whether he deserves it or not, but he and he alone is responsible for the situation.

    • OT: Re:Can you imagine RMS giving the interview? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chops ( 168851 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @10:22AM (#4393204)
      There's not really a way to say this without making people groan... moderators, do your worst:

      The reason RMS carps endlessly about the GNU project deserving credit it, quite simply, that the FSF did most of the work that resulted in "Linux." Linus originally set out to write a Unix clone from scratch (a small hobbyist one, not "big and professional like gnu" [li.org]), but for a variety of reasons the project scaled back to writing a kernel and a handful of userland kernel-glue (insmod, iptables, etc.), and "Linux" distributions are based on GNU userlands -- the C library, compiler toolchain, shell, basic Unix utilities, and desktop (if Gnome) are all GNU things. They make a fairly coherent whole, provide basic system services such as fopen() and ls, and define the user's interface with the computer (bash or Gnome) -- XFree86 and Linux (the kernel) are as essential as GNU is, but they're smaller and they do less to directly define the operation of the system.

      The GNU/Linux beef is one thing (language is inaccurate; koala bears aren't really bears), but calling Linus "the inventor of the Linux operating system" is about like crediting NT to the team that wrote KERNEL32.DLL. RMS spent more than a decade of his life setting up an organization which still puts out voluminous Free code, and crippled himself with RSI writing code to give away, and I see high-modded posts here that treat him with more contempt than I've ever seen aimed at Jack Valenti or Fritz Hollings.

      You've heard this all before, of course, and you're probably sick of it by now -- it's only the slow and plodding truth, and it has no punchline. Worst of all, it takes itself seriously, just like RMS. I really can't think of a short or funny way, though, to explain how wrong it is to shit on the guy who had the idea for the GPL, who argued with the world for years until the idea of open source software started to take hold, who at the time Linux was started had written a lot of the existing Free code personally, and who is directly responsible for the userland most of you supposedly use -- that's not RMS trying to grab credit for someone else's work, that's simply the way it happened, the truth.

      Not funny, and not sexy like "Finnish teenager writes OS in basement; world stunned." But true.
      • of truth.
      • The threading makes it a little unclear if you were responding to me, but...

        The market is the market, and it responds to all the messages that are put out there. My point is not that RMS doesn't deserve the credit, a lot of credit. It's just that his personality works against him, and this is one of the ways that this happens. He's doing great work, and his initiative has taken off to the point that it has a life of its own. Arguing about who deserves what part of the credit is unseamly, whether or not you are stealing someone else's thunder. If credit is really that important to RMS, and is suspect it isn't, then he should take the feedback and adjust to it. Since he probably doesn't actually care that much about this kind of recognition, he should just bask in the glory of his accomplishments and keep being who he is. The mainstream will always be reluctant to fully accept an RMS type, but it doesn't matter because his fans know how it really is.

        • I think you're right, RMS really doesn't care about fame or recognition...he definitely does not seem the type to worry about stuff like that.

          I seem to remember reading that the real reason RMS is so pedantic on the "GNU/Linux" thing is that he's afraid that Linux might slip away from the high ideals of Free Software to the amoral pragmatism of Open Source. This would be a real tragedy, if it occurred. However, I don't know how likely it is. I really can't imagine a non-GPL fork of the kernel.
          • I really can't imagine a non-GPL fork of the kernel.

            I can imagine it, I just can't see it going anywhere. If you are interested in commercializing a UNIX flavor, BSD is the OS of choice because it is an Open != Free license. Darwin as sold as NeXT and now OSX is an obvious example.

            More likely is that some mergers between the HURD and Linux will occur, which will solidify the Linux kernel in the GPL camp. The point is that only if all of the copyright holders agree can the licensing be shifted. But, the Linux kernel has never been released except under GPL, so maybe it isn't even possible. In the beginning when there was only a handful of participants, maybe the kernel itself could have been released under another copyright (in addition to GPL), and maybe Linus could attempt to do this himself even. But why would he? This kind of action would rightly be seen as divisive, and would destroy the community's trust.

            In other words, even if it was possible, it would not impact much because no one would be interested. If a Linux/Hurd merger occurs, it is no longer possible because at least the Hurd part would have to be removed first.

            A seperate topic, but I think a merger is the most likely outcome because I'm sure there are good an worthy modules in both kernels, and the community is after the best.

      • I think everybody understands that this is a bit like the Panama Canal -- virtually all 6 million cubic yards of earth excavated by the French; then the Americans came in when the project was in collapse and finished up the last 10% of the work, and reaped nearly 100% of the reward.

        Can anybody explain in words of one syllable why the crucial closing of the loop, the final cherry on top that made the whole thing work, the kernel itself, eluded the GNU programmers? If they were such amazingly great coders, why was Mr. Torvalds able to do what they didn't? You'd think they'd have done that *first*...
      • The GNU/Linux beef is one thing (language is inaccurate; koala bears aren't really bears), but calling Linus "the inventor of the Linux operating system" is about like crediting NT to the team that wrote KERNEL32.DLL.

        No, calling Linus "the inventor of the Linux operating system" is like calling Bill Gates "the inventor of MS Windows." Linus probably contributed more code to his project than Bill did to his, but their most important contributions were similar in nature.

        In both situations, it is less important who wrote the code than who was the central motivating factor in the creation of the phenomenon. Bill Gates did it through shrewd (amoral?) business practices; Linus did it by motivating people to contribute. However he did it, Linus was the binding glue that has propelled Linux to where it currently is.

        As you said, most of the codebase is there. You imply that the kernel is almost a trivial aspect of the OS... so where is the Gnu OS that exists outside of Linux? Hurd is pretty old... why isn't anybody running it? Why is Linux more popular than BSD? Why is it more popular than any other well designed OS?

        Linus motivates people; he's a cult of personality that encourages cooperation and construction. RMS's cult of personality is of a different, more evangelical sort, which hasn't, and doesn't, encourage people to join in. This is probably because RMS's motivations are morally dogmatic, where as Linus's are practical/hedonistic. You can be a communist and like Linux, but you don't have to.

        So, I believe it is entirely reasonable (if not fair) to credit Linus with the creation of Linux. Even if he hadn't written a single line of code, and yet had otherwise done for Linux what he has, he'd still be able to claim that title. This all by the basic fact that without Linus, there would have been no Linux as we know it, no matter how much code Gnu churned out.

        • "In both situations, it is less important who wrote the code than who was the central motivating factor in the creation of the phenomenon."

          Please, don't bullshit. There are a lot of motivating factors for writing free software, from ESR's cathedral and the bazaar to the freeing of mozilla to just the simple fact on how much Windows sucked at the time. Giving Linus undue credit in this regard is merely dishonest.

          ".... This is probably because RMS's motivations are morally dogmatic, where as Linus's are practical/hedonistic. You can be a communist and like Linux, but you don't have to."

          First, look up dogmatic and see if that is really what you mean.

          Second, read this from here [infonomics.nl]:

          To provide more freedom in software development and to serve as an institution where knowledge can be exchanged are the two most pronounced purposes of the OS/FS community, followed by the provision of more variety of software and by support for innovations, which are very similar items. Thus, we witness a clear coherence with the otherwise mentioned motives and orientations, the strong interest in skill improvements and a strong wish for a large variety of software products, which apparently is considered as a value itself.
          It is noteworthy that all material or hedonistic interests are clearly outplayed by these items.

          Read the rest of the study itself here [infonomics.nl]. What they found is that most people who write free software do it for the "dogmatic" reasons Linus seems to despise so much. Certainly, its not an overwhelming majority--but the point stands: without RMS, free software would not be anywhere near as important or complete, nor have as many developers, as it has today.

          Not that even a majority of these people agree with RMS in every way. But, for a movement to sustain itself, there needs to be something more than a "cult of personality". There needs to be something real to work towards--a lofty goal.

          I suppose I should stop here. The study really should speak for itself. But there is no doubt in my mind, no matter how unpopular it may seem, credit is certainly due.

          • Please, don't bullshit. There are a lot of motivating factors for writing free software,

            No bullshit. There is a conspicuous absence of a popular non-Linux Gnu distribution. This is the only proof I need to show that Linus, not RMS, was the motivating force behind Linux. Furthermore, I believe that even had Gnu never existed, Linux would still have come into being, and would have gained as much popularity as it now has. This is, obviously, pure conjecture on my part, but I think it is an opinion formed from a reasonable extrapolation of the history of Linux.

            First, look up dogmatic and see if that is really what you mean.

            dogÂma

            n. pl. dogÂmas or dogÂmaÂta (-m-t)
            1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
            2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
            3. A principle or belief or a group of them

            Yup. It means exactly what I think it means.

            Linus tends to keep high politics (as opposed to interpersonal politics) out of what he does. RMS does just the opposite; from the GPL to his public statements, everything is shaded in politics, ethics, and dogma. This makes Linus easier to work with, because he isn't preaching at you. Again, you can agree with something, and still not want to have it shoved down your throat. I support PBS, but I treat their fundraisers just like any other telemarketter if I receive unsolicited calls.

            As far as crediting contributors, I agree. The question is: at what point is a contribution considered significant enough to warrent high-level credit? Should we start calling it "Kerningham/Richie/Gnu/Linux"? K&R have made much more of a contribution to Linux than either Gnu or Linus. Maybe Gentoo should be called "Python/Gentoo", because so much of what defines Gentoo is Portage, which is a Python app.

            This message was not run through a spell checker, including my own brain.

            • "No bullshit. There is a conspicuous absence of a popular non-Linux Gnu distribution. This is the only proof I need to show that Linus, not RMS, was the motivating force behind Linux."

              Bullshit. There is a conspicuous absence of popular non-GNU Linux distributions too. There isn't a point either way. That doesn't saying anything about motivating factors, either.

              As far as "dogma," it just means a set of beliefs, any set of beliefs. Unless you want to consider GNU a religion, then you're just being childish.

              "As far as crediting contributors, I agree. The question is: at what point is a contribution considered significant enough to warrent high-level credit?"

              This is as much bullshit too. What you are really arguing is for no name whatsoever. You're saying there is no one worthy enough to get to decide the name. Thats bullshit, we need to name the system something.

              Somehow you think that the kernel is significant enough to warrant be the name of the operating system as a whole, while the GNU system isn't. The FSF take the opposite stance: that GNU is a primary contribution to the system and that Linux and all the other applications and services are secondary contributions.

              There are a lot of valid reasons why this makes sense. I think it'd be a waste of time to go into these here, but if you want I'll go through them.

              But I think the larger point is why people don't like GNU. It has nothing to do with logic really, its about how people feel. Some people just really don't like RMS--for both legitemate and illegitemate reasons. Some people are *really* fond of Linus as the posterboy, and believe that he should get the credit for "inventing the operating system" [sic]. In that respect, its simply a popularity contest. But the most important reason, I think, is that they don't understand what RMS is shooting for. Linus does, but has rejected it. Perens groks it, and is trying to get the media to pick up on it. Raymond gets it, but I think he sees it as a challenge to his ego. But all three of these hackers are way ahead of you.

              The Free Software Philosophy is Stallman's, its all his. Not everyone agrees with it but a lot of very talented hackers have picked up on parts of it--but don't take it to the extreme that Stallman does. This is just as well, since taking any philosophy to an extreme is pretty crazy. But saying the philosophy itself isn't important is a severe understatement.

              But if you don't understand it, what people who believe in it do may seem mystical to you. Heck, to Bill Gates opening source code seems mystiscal. So you'll find yourself galloping around calling GNU a religion doctrine. But please, put it in context. If the philosophy is wrong, criticize it. Its funny, after almost two decades of bashing GNU I haven't seen any real critisms on the GNU philosophy itself. All I see is people trumpetting ignorance around.

              Really, y'all can do better than that.
      • RMS is reaping the results of his own decisions. If he was concerned with public perception of the free software movement, he should have made more pragmatic decisions that would have yielded more favorable publicity, but he didn't.

        He could have given his project a catchy and descriptive name that people would naturally associate with a movement about freedom. Instead he chose an obscure name like GNU that no one knows how to pronounce (or really wants to once they do).

        He could have worked on writing a simple yet fully functional monolithic kernel, which would have been a quick way to finish the off a basic GNU system. Instead he chose a design so apparently complicated that it still is not usable even though they had a one-year head start on Linux!

        He could have adopted Linux as part of the GNU system (after all, it's always been GPL even if FSF don't own the copyright). He could have pursued making Debian an official GNU distribution which would have given him the authority to call it a GNU system. However the FSF stopped funding Debian after November 1995 [debian.org].

        He could have found some graceful way to seek credit for his contribution to Linux distributions. Instead he came up with the abomination known as "GNU/Linux" (pronounced guh-noo slash linux -- you're supposed to pronounce the slash!) He continually wonders why no one (except the Debian people) is interested in
        perpetuating this offense against what little dignity is left in American English.

        And now he's upset that he gets no credit, no recognition, no acknowledgement of his ideals in the mainstream media. Well he probably should be upset, but only at himself for his lack of pragmatism.

  • Few thoughts. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cioxx ( 456323 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @08:47AM (#4392914) Homepage
    BBC is the only mainstream outlet with the balls to cover linux in positive manner. CNN did feature few articles, but they never saw the light of day. It was dumbed down on few occasions and made sound like it was an indie/experimental OS. I hope that trend changes really quick, although I have my doubts that MSNBC will ever cover Linux developments in detail. Biased source.. you know the deal.

    And from unrelated rants department, if I ever had the option to hang out with either Bill Gates or Linus Torvalds, I'd choose Gates.

    I wish he was the prophet of linux community. He fits the nerd profile so well. It's heartbreaking that one of us is trying to destroy his kind of people.

    In a perfect world, Bill Gates would fight Linus from the other side of the OS spectrum. Imagine how world would have been different if Gates didn't choose the dark side.

    We can dream, can't we?
    • You watch too much Star Wars.

      But anyway...don't get you're hopes up too much...
      This was a ClickOnline report and therefore is only on BBC World and most 'mainstream' people will no see it.
      • BBC World is seen by more than geeks.

        It has a huge following by people that like to think outside the box, and who care about our planet.

        Mainstream people are not just sheep anymore. They also include people whom are slowly realizing that the world they live in has some serious issues, and are stumbling across sites like BBC World every minute, in MASS numbers.

        It's only a matter of time, patience, effort, and sweat by hard working people, before a lot of the dreams we thought as as fictional become reality, but that won't happen (I admit) for quite some time. Who knows... I do know one thing though, and that is as far as humanity is concerned, we always find a way to bring back the balance we need to survive, no matter what the conditions.

        Reminds me of world war II, but that is a topic for another day.

        And, one last thing.. "Those that ignore history are bound to repeat it."

    • Re:Few thoughts. (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      In a perfect world, Bill Gates would fight Linus from the other side of the OS spectrum. Imagine how world would have been different if Gates didn't choose the dark side.

      Billy didn't chose the dark side. As the son of two lawyers, it's much like he was born into it.

    • Re:Few thoughts. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ceejayoz ( 567949 )
      I hope that trend changes really quick, although I have my doubts that MSNBC will ever cover Linux developments in detail.

      That's just a couple of MSNBC's recent articles on Linux. In general, MSNBC's actually one of the most pro-Linux major news sources on the 'net.
    • I wish he was the prophet of linux community. He fits the nerd profile so well. It's heartbreaking that one of us is trying to destroy his kind of people.

      Who exactly to you mean by 'one of us'? You mean RMS? That's just silly. RMS has a point about the economics of propriatary software even if you don't agree with a lot of his positions and tactics. The GPL is the fuel of the Open/Free source movement for good reasons, and it is really a quite brilliant innovation.

      I can't disagree more about who would be a more interesting friend to have. Gates is as boring as all of suburbia, while I'm sure that Linus would have interesting things to say about a lot of topics if you can draw him out.

      Gates is only hurting himself and his company by fighting. I suspect the core dynamics relate to control. I've read that customer focus is really the key to his success, but how does actively fighting off Open/Free source help his customers? Clearly it doesn't, so there must be another motivater (control). I don't really care if they (MS) figure it out or not, and it probably doesn't matter much to the Open/free source community. They are driving people to Apple and Linux to a lesser extent, but it's not that significant for most of us.

      • I've read that customer focus is really the key to his success, but how does actively fighting off Open/Free source help his customers? Clearly it doesn't, so there must be another motivater (control).

        No, the motivater isn't control, it's success. Customer focus may be the key to his success, but that makes customer focus the means, and success (measured in money) the end. If the means - customer focus - started to lead to the end of everyone using Open/Free software, as you suggest, then suddenly those means are leading to failure for Microsoft (as measured in money) not success.

        Therefore, he changes the means to whatever will succeed in bringing him success.
        • Kind of a hollow definition of success, isn't it?

          My claim is that fighting Open/free source will lead to failure, although it may take a long time. The response is driven by fear, which is related to loss of control. If they really had confidence that their products, and more importantly services would continue to have value in the marketplace, they wouldn't react the way they do. Not do overdo the Star Wars analogy, but fear is characteristic of the dark side. They seek to instill fear (FUD) because they are trying to cover up their own fear.

    • Re:Few thoughts. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by InsaneGeek ( 175763 )
      Are you being serious??? That article had hardly any talk of linux in it at all, mainly just a fluffy, candy, human interest story about how a techie likes to spend his time with his kids instead of with other programmers.

      You could take the same article replace Microsoft with Charmin toiletpaper, linux with Cottonelle, and their respective creators and have the exact same article. There was absolutely no technical information about why linux is or is not good. Just an human-interest article that's ironically not good even good enough to use as toiletpaper.

    • Re:Few thoughts. (Score:2, Informative)

      by jgalun ( 8930 )
      This makes no sense. As another poster points out a couple comments down, MSNBC has had plenty of nice coverage of Linux. As you point out, CNN featured a few articles on Linux ("never really saw the light of day" - I'm not sure what that means, since they were on the site). The New York Times recently had a positive editorial about Linux and has covered Linux many times in the business section. Forbes, Fortune, BusinessWeek have covered Linux, often in a positive manner about how it can save the enterprise money.

      Yes, sometimes the articles are not great, but tech journalism is often not up to our standards as Slashdot geeks. But that doesn't mean that the other news outlets don't "have the balls to cover linux in a positive manner."
    • although I have my doubts that MSNBC will ever cover Linux developments in detail. Biased source.. you know the deal.

      MSNBC has done some surprisingly UNbiased articles about Linux. They have done some excellent articles on:

      to name but three. Gary Krakow did all three articles and nobody's muzzled him yet.

      I also remember that "The Site" show on MSNBC was very scrupulous in trying to make sure MacOS and Linux got as much time as possible. The fact that Leo Laporte and Soledad O'Brien were both Mac heads probably helped. If you recall, when "The Site" was pulled (it was getting far less ratings than the wall-to-wall Princess Di coverage) it spawned ZDTV, later to be known as TechTV.

      Alas, Soledad, where have you gone?

      About Gates as geek deity: the Flynn character in "Tron" was kind of modeled after him. It would be cool if in "Tron 2.0" Flynn goes from being a downtrodden geek to being an evil monopolist who revives the MCP to dominate the brave new world of Cyberspace. It would work.

  • Hate to Burst their bubble (Score:3, Informative)

    by Streiff ( 34269 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @08:53AM (#4392926)
    but Linux is not an Operating System. It's a kernel.

    Linux by itself doesn't do much.
    • But the kernel is the OS, the rest is just utilities and tools. Take Windows 3.x, 9[58], etc. vs NT and its follow-ons. They are different OSs, and this has little to do with whether any or all of the other tools are much the same.

      It's not really producting to play semantic games with this anyway, but who would claim that you don't have a new OS when the GNU HURD is ready to compete with Linux? All the rest will change little.

      • Linux by itself handles quite a lot.
        Controls the CPU(s), the main memory, I/O modules and system interconnection and provides an API to userland, but it's still just a kernel.

        To make it a operating system it must IMHO provide some user interface, e.g. bash, or COMMAND.COM or whatever, and some basic filesystem utilities like ls, rm, cd etc.
    • but Linux is not an Operating System. It's a kernel.

      Linux by itself doesn't do much.

      Yes, and not to troll...but this is why Linux won't replace windows on the desktop. For whatever reason, usability doesn't attract open source developers.

      There are plenty of people volunteering thier time to improve scheduling routines, journaling filesystems, etc...and these are good features...but almost noone is lining up to do the kind of work that will make Linux useable. It's almost as if there's a mutual exclusivity, the more passionate the OSS developer is...the closer to the hardware the programming is...there are a few rare exceptions like Gnome, or Enlightenment...but who's volunteering to update stuff like that?

      It's too bad there aren't more people out there who like to solve useability problems. But it's as Linus said:

      "Most people don't want to change. They may hate Windows but they run it despite that because, quite frankly, they don't care about computers,"

      Too bad it's equally true that people who care about computers don't care about human useability. It pretty much ensures that Linux will never be a "household" word.

  • Exactly (Score:1, Troll)

    by ekrout ( 139379 )
    "People may hate Windows but they run it despite that because, quite frankly, they don't care about computers." -- Linus Torvalds, speaking to the BBC
    Exactly. Computers aren't the all-consuming hobbies/professions/religions that they are for most Slashdot members.

    The reason that I feel Linus' desktop market share will continue to erode is because it's not the best product out there right now, whether you'd like to believe that or not. The everyday person doesn't even know that software has licenses, so they just use what's on their computer and learn to live with it.

    And, unfortunately for some of you, the Windows family of operating systems are growing increasingly easy to live with now that they're actually stable, well-written, often-updated and improved, pieces of software.

    So you heard it from the horse's mouth: don't push your religion on others, use Linux if you want to.

    Those of you who claim to be so enamored with your machines should take a look in the mirror and figure out where all that anger's coming from. Chances are the root of it stems from trying to turn Linux and the second-rate programs written for it into a desktop OS. Doing such a thing is like when your teenage son puts a fart can and RS stickers on his 1988 Honda Civic -- he may have good intentions, but everyone knows what's under the hood.

    Linux isn't ready for the desktop and may never be. Mac OS X is ready for the desktop, and the amazing software programs and hardware devices that it supports is truly amazing.
    • I have to laugh... Windoze today has more viruses, exploits, and holes in it than ever before, and is surely NOT as stable as say, windows 3.11 for workgroups.

      I remember seeing a machine running WFW3.11 that was on for 4 YEARS. YEARS......

      Not even win2k has that kind of uptime.

      As far as ease of use, that's debatable. The GUI in Windows XP is horrid, and full of many inconsistancies, not to mention just outright garrish in color use.

      I would also like to point out that linux overall is getting better with each release/distro as time goes by, and still has a sizable chunk of the server market, where it's strengths really do lie.

      The desktop market is in for a rude awakening though, in 1-2 years when openBeOS becomes more mainstream. Mark my words. The summer of 2004 will be a VERY good time for all interested in Audio and Video development.

      That is all I wil say for now, have a great day.

      • Re:Exactly (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by ekrout ( 139379 )
        I have to laugh... Windoze today has more viruses, exploits, and holes in it than ever before, and is surely NOT as stable as say, windows 3.11 for workgroups.

        You sound like an idiot. Back up your unsubstantiated claims with some facts, please; that's how research is done, and how reputations are solidified. You're not doing too well for yourself so far.

        I remember seeing a machine running WFW3.11 that was on for 4 YEARS. YEARS......

        See? Windows isn't the anti-Christ that you all make it out to be.

        Not even win2k has that kind of uptime.

        Again, you're wrong, and again, no facts or studies to back your claim up. I think 90% of Slashdotters use Windows 2000 (per recent polls); that that's saying something.

        As far as ease of use, that's debatable. The GUI in Windows XP is horrid, and full of many inconsistancies, not to mention just outright garrish in color use.

        Hehe. At least Microsoft has a team of experts design their GUI rather than some unemployed bearded guy in a flannel shirt. And, for what it's worth, Windows XP is quite smooth and responsive and intuitive, just like all Microsoft products usually are.

        I would also like to point out that linux overall is getting better with each release/distro as time goes by, and still has a sizable chunk of the server market, where it's strengths really do lie.

        My point exactly -- Linux will never be anything on the desktop for 99% of computer users.

        The desktop market is in for a rude awakening though, in 1-2 years when openBeOS becomes more mainstream. Mark my words. The summer of 2004 will be a VERY good time for all interested in Audio and Video development.

        I wish you the best of luck, but I would wager that the same thing was said for Linux back in 1997 or so.
        • You mean this [slashdot.org] poll? The one that says that Win2K is used by 40% and Linux by 33%? If you look at that poll you'll see that the sum of all the Windows systems is just 47%.

          Now, I don't have anything people using windows (hell, I do), but please, stop lying about it. And your condescending tone doesn't impress me at all.

    • Re:Exactly (Score:2, Insightful)

      by vidnet ( 580068 )
      Linux isn't ready for the desktop and may never be.



      Whose desktop?

      On my desktop, it runs like a charm and I love it.



      I didn't like Windows on my desktop, could that mean that Windows isn't perfectly suited either.



      It's all a matter of definition. And don't start a "majority of users" speech before the "majority of users" have tried Linux.

    • Have to agree with the others here, Linux (read GNU/Linux) is plain fantastic on my desktop. I'm using KDE 3.1 (nothing against GNOME) and couldn't be happier. As for easy to live with, it depends on what you're referring to. It's certainly easy to work on but I do admittedly still have to do configuration and upgrades for friends and family. Hopefully, the LSB will help lay the groundwork for developing common configuration tools for the "point-and-click" user set. As for me, vi and a bash shell are all the configuration tools I need.
    • I'll admit that Windows is getting better as time goes on (though Win2000 is much better than WinXP), however that is not Microsoft's problem. Their problem is that they are continuing to treat their users like cash cows, not customers. Their recent change in business licenses is causing a lot of businesses to scramble for alternatives. I don't use Windows XP because even for five or six desktops, because the licensing is both expensive and a pain. Even if I own enough XP licenses for all the computers, I have to use a different serial number for each one, and register them individually as well. I have five or six Win98 licenses, but I still use the same serial number for convenience.

  • In other news... (Score:4, Funny)

    by echophase ( 601838 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @08:56AM (#4392937)
    Linus Torvalds, the man behind the creation of Linux, which is used by millions of computers around the globe, has went to use the bathroom, possibly to take a leak. Full coverage can be seen on Slashdot (http://www.slashdot.org) Another article with no fluff.
    • Linus Torvalds, the man behind the creation of Linux, which is used by millions of computers around the globe, has went to use the bathroom, possibly to take a leak. Full coverage can be seen on Slashdot (http://www.slashdot.org) Another article with no fluff.
      No fluff? No buff???

  • Tux (Score:5, Funny)

    by BorgDrone ( 64343 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @08:59AM (#4392946) Homepage
    Is it just me or did Tux [bbc.co.uk] gain weight ?

  • GNU / LINUX (Score:2, Funny)

    by wiZd0m ( 192990 )

    "Mr Torvalds enjoys the notoriety he has achieved as the man that challenged the Microsoft empire with his open source alternative operating system."

    Stallman will certainly enjoy this one :)
  • The HitchHikers Guide to Linux!

  • Much longer video interview (Score:5, Informative)

    by seldolivaw ( 179178 ) <me@NOsPaM.seldo.com> on Saturday October 05, 2002 @09:11AM (#4392975) Homepage
    This article is just excerpts from a much more substantial video interview [bbcworld.com] on BBC world [bbcworld.com]. Ironically, the video interview is only available in Windows media, and the page doesn't display properly in Mozilla :-)
    • Anyway you can see it under linux if you have avifile [sourceforge.net] and Win32 codec binaries [sourceforge.net] installed in your system
      On RedHat you can install pre-build binaries from www.freshrpms.net [freshrpms.net]

      Can somebody tell me is there is anyway to record it?
    • You can watch it with mplayer and win32 codec libraries:

      mplayer -cache 100 'http://STREAM.SERVSTREAM.COM/ViewWeb/BBCWorld/Fil e/worl_Click031002_interview_isdn.asx?Media=7067'

      (for ISDN first part). These are the rest of the links:

      First part:

      56k
      http://STREAM.SERVSTREAM.COM/ViewWeb/BBCWor ld/File /worl_Click031002_interview_56.asx?Media=7065

      isdn
      http://STREAM.SERVSTREAM.COM/ViewWeb/BBCWo rld/File /worl_Click031002_interview_isdn.asx?Media=7067

      cable
      http://STREAM.SERVSTREAM.COM/ViewWeb/BBCW orld/File /worl_Click031002_interview_cable.asx?Media=7066

      Second part:

      56k
      http://STREAM.SERVSTREAM.COM/ViewWeb/BBCWor ld/File /worl_Click031002_interview2_56.asx?Media=7062

      isdn
      http://STREAM.SERVSTREAM.COM/ViewWeb/BBCWo rld/File /worl_Click031002_interview2_isdn.asx?Media=7064

      cable:
      http://STREAM.SERVSTREAM.COM/ViewWeb/BBC World/File /worl_Click031002_interview2_cable.asx?Media=7063

  • OMG (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Ok, caught the interview on BBCWorld yesterday.

    Linus, come back a.s.a.p. - as if your Leno habit wasn't disturbing enough, you then started sounding like an American and now look like an American. This is not good. You need a steady diet of hernesoppa, kirnupiimä and ruisleipä (some salmiakki for afters, of course) urgently.

  • IBM (Score:2, Interesting)

    by borgesian ( 545392 )

    Instead it is more likely that Microsoft will become like IBM - "still huge but not the dominant force anymore", he said.

    Interesting pararalel. This sentence could be interpreted more than one way but its interesting how by implication he seems to dismiss the importance of IBM's support, something that is given way too much weight and considering the reliability of Corporate alliances, one day could very well backfire. Overall, a pretty dull interview, I could almost hear him yawning.
    • Overall, a pretty dull interview, I could almost hear him yawning.

      That's the way Linus always is in interviews with the press. I don't think this PR stuff really exictes him, especially since people are always asking about MS, something he really doesn't care about. He's told them over and over, he really doesn't care what MS is doing, as long as he can continue to make Linux better than Linux.

      People always tend to ask kernel hackers about the latest desktop environments, or about things they really don't care much about other than as users of said applications.

      It's like, imagine you worked on aircraft engines, even designed a revolutionary engine... and in interviews, people always asked you about the latest wing design and advances in providing high speed internet access to passengers... it's tangential to what you are interested in. You'd sound bored too.
  • On http://www.bbcworld.com/content/template_clickonli ne.asp?pageid=666&co_pageid=3

    They have a link saying "You can read about his new book, 'Just For Fun', at Slashdot". Unfortunately, they've linked to ThinkGeek.com, not Slashdot.

    Whoops. And the BBC are waffling on about being techno-literate all the time.

  • Torvalds (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SabberFlapper ( 533942 )
    why doesn't he use his popularity to raise some public money to fund projects? The Gov's will invite him and listen carefully.

  • Yeah, I know a few people who would (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Em Emalb ( 452530 ) <ememalb@gm a i l . com> on Saturday October 05, 2002 @09:29AM (#4393029) Homepage Journal
    "He would not, however, want to become personally involved in the dispute with Microsoft.

    "I've tried to stay out of the Microsoft debate. If you start doing things because you hate others and want to screw them over the end result is bad," he said."

    This just makes good business sense on his part. Never, ever, has he said he wanted to overthrow Microsoft. Why would he? Why bring the wrath of several billion dollars to bear on yourself?

    Let the software speak for itself. Besides, he has enough people arguing for him he can move on to more important things.
  • "It's a little thin..."

    much like this news post

  • quote for /. zealots (Score:4, Insightful)

    by targo ( 409974 ) <[moc.liamtoh] [ta] [t_ograt]> on Saturday October 05, 2002 @09:33AM (#4393045) Homepage
    If you start doing things because you hate others and want to screw them over the end result is bad.

    There are many people here who are trying to be holier than the pope and prove in all ways that they are the true believeres and revolutionaries. And so they try to demonstrate their loyalty to "the cause" on every occasion by lamenting how this or that organization will bring the apocalypse and BillG is the antichrist. Hope this will calm them a bit.

  • Show Some Respect! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Yeah yeah, I think it's great that "Linux" just got some mainstream press exposure, but the more I see Linus Torvalds speak the more I despise him.

    How is it that he rarely if ever mentions GNU's contribution to "Linux". Sorry folks but you need to all recognize that Linux is a kernel and not an operating system.

    Also, let's all be real and admit that Linux would not be where it is today without the countless amazing free tools that GNU has provided.

    Linus has the responsibility to say something about GNU, especially in a high profile interview such as this. I don't care if the interviewer is ignorant and doesn't know to ask anything about GNU.

    Linus should be man enough to pay his respects where they are due. Now, thanks to this interview, the truth has been thwarted once more and GNU's vision of FREE (NOT as in beer) software is steadily going out the window.

    Boy this makes me really look forward to the GNU kernel Hurd. I think Linux is about to go onto the long list of things I am boycotting out of principle.

    "In a way it is fun. I'm pleased to be a poster boy. It gives me some self-importance." Linus, please give us a break. Let me go out back and cry for your under-appreciated ego.

    Don't super-programmers aspire to anything greater than the shrine of the blasted machine?!

    • Re:Show Some Respect! (Score:4, Funny)

      by TheKey ( 465831 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @10:12AM (#4393176) Journal
      Come on, RMS. Posting as AC again?

  • Only available in WMP ... but the site links don't bring up the streams in Mozilla + Crossover Plugin + WMP 6.4, so here's the direct links to the two parts. Interesting interview ... very candid:

    Part one [servstream.com]
    Part two [servstream.com]

  • you can use mplayer to play the interview

    mplayer http://STREAM.SERVSTREAM.COM/ViewWeb/BBCWorld/File /worl_Click031002_interview_cable.asx?Media=7066

  • He revealed that he is more likely to have childrens' parties with bouncy castle and candyfloss than to have a bunch of programmers round.

    OK, I'm not British... or Finnish.. what the heck does this mean? Bouncy Castle? Candyfloss? Someone wanna explain what Linus is doing with his time?
    • A bouncy castle is an inflatable "building" for kids to jump up and down on. A Google image search turns up some examples. Candyfloss is known as "cotton candy" in the US, I believe.

    • A bouncy castle [burtonbradstock.org.uk] is an inflatable castle that children have at parties. There are normally three walls and a floor, which you can bounce on and against.

      Candyfloss [planet.org.nz] is spun sugar, usually coloured pink, on a stick eaten at parties and fairs et cetera.
    • Well, I'm not british of finnish either, but a bouncy castle is probably an inflatable castle that kids like to jump around in. Americans call candy floss "cotton candy".

  • All ideology - no technology. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    No questions about how Linux, GNU/Linux and/or open source has a business value in a market economy that's close to nil? So this is just another mainstream media interview where clueless ideologues toss fluffy questions to open source media posterchildren?

    Great! First Slashdot, then CNet [worldtechtribune.com] and now the Beeb...

  • Because of MS? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by noz ( 253073 ) on Saturday October 05, 2002 @10:58AM (#4393341)
    The main reason he developed Linux in the first place had as much to do with wanting a challenge as being fed up with an operating system that would not do what he wanted it to.

    The article implies through context that this is a Microsoft product and neglects to mention that Linus was disappointed with proprietary UNIXes whilst studying computers.
  • How fat is that penguin in the BBC article?

    Must be all that sitting down, and hacking away, with nothing but pizza to eat!

    C'mon Tux - start dieting and exercising - you've got to get back to your sexy self again.
  • They showed Click Online this morning (at about 5am). It's on BBC News 24 so I assume it's repeated several times. The whole program was basically dedicated to Linux, the Linus interview was just part of it. Probably about 20 minutes in all.

    If I didn't have a nasty stomach bug at the moment I would have missed it...

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (1) Gee, I wish we hadn't backed down on 'noalias'.

Close