Linus Torvalds' Benevolent Dictatorship 419
treebeard77 writes "BusinessWeek has posted Linus Torvalds interview '
The creator of Linux says "I can't be nasty" when leading the open-source movement since it's all built on trust and teamwork' "
I for one welcome our new benevolent overlord (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I for one welcome our new benevolent overlord (Score:4, Informative)
But here's the most expansive article i've read about him online. Really connecting and interesting: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/ [wired.com]
Re:I for one welcome our new benevolent overlord (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I for one welcome our new benevolent overlord (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No offence but (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but suppose it were otherwise? Here [ccel.org], for instance, is an interesting piece of fiction depicting an alternate history, where the Roman Empire ultimately fell to hordes of barbarians.
Re:No offence but (Score:5, Interesting)
The Roman Empire managed to be so large because it used a decentralized system of command. Provincial governors could act within their provinces without any oversight from Rome, but could call on Rome's military and financial power if needed. In return, they sent their profits back to the capital. Furthermore, allotment of governorships was based on the governor's record as seen by what they sent to Rome and what assistance they required in maintaining control. The governor could therefore maintain control of the province with the backing of a huge empire; Rome reaped the profits of the huge empire; but the emperor didn't have to think about the whole empire, because he could trust Spain's governor to deal with Spain or be replaced with someone who could. Furthermore, the senatorial class would manage itself in choosing who got control of what. Also, people from various parts of the government could get noticed by the senate and thereby put into more powerful positions. This system allowed Rome to rule a huge area for centuries, across many emperors and even dynasties.
Linux development is done in much this way. Linus doesn't do particularly much in running the project, relative to its size; most of the work is done by others who do it to show their productivity and merit, and who get rewarded by having their code put into the mainline and by having others contribute work to their subsystems, both of which increase the developer's reputation and ability to affect the design of the kernel.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is much more centralized, and the chain of command is more strict. This limits their size and flexibility and the ability of rising stars to affect direction. The loss of critical Microsoft executives would probably have much the effect that the death of Eva Peron had on Peronist Argentina than the death of Julius Caesar had on Rome.
Chances are, Microsoft won't last more than 50 years, while Linux will be around in 500. Not, of course, that that matters much to people under Microsoft's thumb at the moment.
Re:Hmm ... never stopped Theo :) (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm
Hmm, maybe that's why Linux is so popular, and OpenBSD is a niche OS...
RMS was quoted as saying (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RMS was quoted as saying (Score:3, Funny)
Re:RMS was quoted as saying (Score:5, Funny)
And it shows that OSS really is like communism because it has a dictator.
And also like fascisim, since the Nazis were National Socialists, and we all know socialism is the same as communism.
Re:RMS was quoted as saying (Score:3, Funny)
Chile had a 17 year dictatorship that was Capitalist/conservative/right-wing oriented. So you cant link dictatorship with a political orientation, neither OSS for that matter.
Whoa, boy, you left your sense of humour running all night long, and it has gone flat!
Re:RMS was quoted as saying (Score:3, Insightful)
You can have a democratic communist state and a democratic commercalist state as well, though no ones really pulled off the democratic comunist system, most communist states fain the idea that there democratic but a one party democratic system is a dictatorship.
Re:RMS was quoted as saying (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:RMS was quoted as saying (Score:5, Funny)
Nahhh. It shows that Linux is like Christmas. Some vaguely Nordic person with a pleasant demeanor takes charge of making sure things get done, so that a great set of gifts can be bestowed upon all humanity. He couldn't do it without all his little helpers, though. The best thing is, Linux doesn't only come once a year.
Re:RMS was quoted as saying (Score:5, Funny)
How do you know?
Re:RMS was quoted as saying (Score:3, Funny)
Getting married for sex is like getting your legs amputated to run faster.
Re:RMS was quoted as saying (Score:5, Funny)
That is the question...
Re:RMS was quoted as saying (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, Oracle et al who have democratically elected leaders?
Re:RMS was quoted as saying (Score:3, Funny)
Re:RMS was quoted as saying (Score:5, Informative)
Re:RMS was quoted as saying (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that makes sense.... ignoring the inconvenient little fact that communism does not require that the ruling body be a dictatorship.... in fact, the theory behind communism wouldn't disallow the possibility of a society that elects its leaders to a congressional body.
The other inconvenient little fact is that the open source community is more like a purely benevolent capitalist society where the only people who work to produce things are those who choose to, then they willingly provide the fruits of their labor back to the collective.
Re:RMS was quoted as saying (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RMS was quoted as saying (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RMS was quoted as saying (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RMS was quoted as saying (Score:3, Funny)
Torvalds created a good kernel... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Torvalds created a good kernel... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Torvalds created a good kernel... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Torvalds created a good kernel... (Score:5, Funny)
yep, and we'd all be playing Duke Nukem Forever while watching the original Star Wars cimenatic cuts on DVD.
Re:Torvalds created a good kernel... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Torvalds created a good kernel... (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed that I am taking you completely out of context here BUT "the destruction of SCO's chance to succeed" can be attributed solely to the fact that the CO's of the company have chosen to make millions off the short term gain of the company at the expense of the long term total destruction of the company.
I like Linux, even Linus, but lets not get carried away by giving credit to people that can over giving to people that can not.
Re:Torvalds created a good kernel... (Score:3, Informative)
No. That is the new SCO. The old SCO became Tarantella [tarantella.com] and is still happily producing software, albeit not Unix.
SCO's chance to succeed vanished before The Santa Cruz Operation split into Tarantella and The SCO Group. There is no SCO, it's TSG. It's a shame it's called SCO.
The Unix-producing part of SCO was doomed, and it's likely that this strategy was considered back at the time of the split. Otherwise it would have made more sense to just sell off SCO's Unix assets and either rename the whole rema
might you be referring to... (Score:4, Funny)
the compiler being sold separately?
per-user and per-CPU license costs?
Dang, they were asking to die.
Re:Torvalds created a good kernel... (Score:3, Funny)
While that's undoubtedly true, it's not necessarily something to brag about...
Re:Torvalds created a good kernel... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Torvalds created a good kernel... (Score:5, Insightful)
Projects such as Mozilla, Perl, and many others have adopted the same strategy, but as far as I'm aware, the only other project that MAY have beat Linux to the punch there was gcc, which had a very similar development procedure, but may have been somewhat more committee-oriented by the time it actually had to deal with sub-projects (as opposed to the monolithic development process that existed when Stallman was fully in charge).
The management practices of open source projects have, at the very least, evolved a great deal since Linux was introduced, and in many cases as a result of the success that Linus has had in various modes of management.
Re:Torvalds created a good kernel... (Score:3, Funny)
He wisely left that nonsense to Slashdo^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hthe zealots.
Re:Torvalds created a good kernel... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the fun of Slashdot; where else can you be a zealot? (My students need not answer.)
Seriously, I think Slashdot is valuable but I do not take it too seriously. It gives people a place to blow off steam and allows people from different backgrounds to "discuss" ideas. So I agree with your comment but I see this as a strength.
Zealotry (Score:5, Insightful)
He wisely left that nonsense to the zealots.
I assume you are refering to RMS, Chief GNUsance. Part of his zealotry has been to get copyright releases for code from all GNU contributors. As a result GNU packages have no where near the same legal vulnerablities as the Linux kernel because contributions are traced. RMS anticipated that legal dirty tricks would be used against him and he uses the law to his advantage (as does the GPL). Perhaps Linus should become more zealous in this respect.
Re:Torvalds created a good kernel... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Torvalds created a good kernel... (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS had one too many bad service contracts, so he decided that he never wanted to have software he couldn't fix himself if he needed to. So, he concieved of copyleft, and in a rather tireless manner advocated it and programmed for it and, after LT released the Linux kernal under RMS's license, he had a working, Free-as-in-Speech OS.
This is all well and good, and no one can call anyone names for suggesting that software be editable and fixable by those that use their systems. Heck, they can't even be looked down on for refusing to use "non-free" software.
Unfortunately, there is a limit where advocacy turns to zealotry. If i suggest that you should vote Democratic, and argue any point you would care to discuss in such an end as to point the Democrats in an excellent light, I'm an advocate. When i start saying that you're a bad person if you don't vote for the Democrats, or make unsubstantiated claims about their opponents, I'm a zealot.
GNU/Zealots do NOTHING to advance the purposes of Free Software*; they drive for the splintering of licenses (and thus curtail interopability), and impung the image of copylefted software such that many professional and non-professional computer users simply avoid it, for fear that the touch of "free software" will extend to items that they create of their own (possibly meager) skill.
(About that asterisk: "Free Software" is a counter-intuitive term. An alternate term, such as "Free Computing", can be much more intuitive and not fall asunder of the 'free as in beer' or 'you get what you pay for' fallacies.)
Re:Please do provide details. (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose that a slightly more appropriate term is "fork", but even that's wrong.
GNU/Zealotry leads to terms like "you must not remove anything from this license" -- the strong copyleft. Unfortunately, this leads to mimicry (how many strong copyleft licenses exist? How many do we have?) and incompatable schism.
If I wanted to take some GPL'd libraries and framework to create a program for Open Gaming, I'd be unable to--as the GPL is likely incompatable with the OGL (see www.opengamingfoundation.org) despite being very compatable in intent and even outlook & purpose. And so, I wind up just using the OGL (or my own license, or someone else's) and when you want to use my code and RMS's code to make something new, you can't.
How, precisely, is interoperability curtailed by the free software movement?
Before Linux, MS actually sold a flavor of UNIX. Had "Free Software" not ran so contrary to their basic business model, we'd probably have MS Office for UNIX now. Rather that throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the collaborative features that MS Office has had for years might actually work with the Free Software OS RMS and LT happily put together.
MS, of course, is a special case, but they do well to illuminate the concept.
Assumptions worth examining. (Score:3, Informative)
What's interesting here is that the onus of responsibility falls on the GPL to allow
nr2? (Score:4, Interesting)
Wouldnt that be nr 1 in server and nr 2 in desktop?
Re:nr2? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no point in arguing about desktop percentages. Max OS X and Linux are both very small and don't even touch MS's 95%+ of the desktop market. However, if you want to be pedantic, I have seen stats that show Linux as the #2 desktop as of December 2003 (it was even on /.), and I also see stats showing Mac OS with a small lead. On the desktop, Linux and Mac OS still have no pull.
On the server however, Linux is a strong #2 and has been the fastest growing server OS for the last 4 years or so. MS does not enjoy the same monopoly on the server as they do on the desktop, though they still have plenty of lock-ins to help push their server numbers up. The server area is the only area where MS is seeing any competition and that only competition is coming from GNU/Linux.
Re:In the same way (Score:4, Informative)
I dunno, I think this [google.ca] might be at least kind of reliable.
Admittedly, this is the zeitgeist for google.ca. The google.com one doesn't show the OS statistics for some reason. Anyway, if you look it over, you find that Linux is about on par with Windows 95, with 1% of the share. Windows NT 4.0 still has twice Linux's share at 2%, and Windows ME and Mac OS are tied at 3% each. Windows 98, 2000, and XP take a whopping 85%, with 51% going to XP alone. All the Windowses combined make up 91% of the share. There's also that 5% other, and who knows what that is (UNIXes and unidentifiable Linuxes, perhaps? Maybe some of the older Mac OSes, too). Either way, while Linux is getting more and more ready for widespread, desktop use, it's clear it's not getting a lot of that currently.
Sentiments from his book (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sentiments from his book (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sentiments from his book (Score:5, Funny)
Chloroform. Three.
Linux #2 in server market? (Score:5, Interesting)
"... That has helped Linux become the No. 2 operating system worldwide for server computers."
Dumb question, I know, but who exactly is number 1, and what constitutes a server, anyway?
Re:Linux #2 in server market? (Score:2)
Re:Linux #2 in server market? (Score:5, Funny)
"... That has helped Linux become the No. 2 operating system worldwide for server computers."
Dumb question, I know, but who exactly is number 1, and what constitutes a server, anyway?
Duh, #1 is "beowulf clusters" of Windows 98 machines being used to send spam
virus ridden machines (Score:5, Funny)
"I can't be nasty".... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"I can't be nasty".... (Score:2, Funny)
No, but 2.7 will.
OpenBSD (Score:5, Insightful)
Importance of Software Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that not thinking about these things will eventually hinder Linux adoption [slashdot.org], as it did in Munich's case.
So what's the long term plan? What kind of ideas are out there? I know there's a solution to be found!
Re:Importance of Software Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Say wing-ding looping and sorting method 'B' is patented and, not knowing anything about it, I create it myself. Should I check my code and all code I write to ensure that it is not already patented? If that's the case you can kiss a great many OSS projects goodbye because they won't have the resources or the patients for this type of thing.
Re:Importance of Software Patents (Score:4, Interesting)
The answer is, keep doing what you have been doing and hope for the best. It is the the fact that we are reduced to "hoping for the best" that is the fundamental reason that no matter how impassionedly someone argues for the current system, it is fundamentally flawed; ever Microsoft is reduced to it. That's not justice.
(Don't do a patent search, all you'll do is triple the damages if you get sued. The system punishes diligence.)
Re:Importance of Software Patents (Score:3, Funny)
They can be fought in court, but that costs money. Some small businesses won't be able to afford to develope software and fight these legal battles.
So I recommend we give up now and turn ourselves in and hope they go easy on us.
Kernel Tree Maintainer, not Linux Overlord (Score:5, Informative)
There's a big difference between rule of an OS with an iron fist and maintainership of a kernel for an OS. Linus does a good job maintaining his project (the Linux kernel), so no one directly forks it.
Anyway, the article's a interview that ranges over his opinion on some patent issues.. not that you'd realize it from the post.
Come on Linus, don't go there. (Score:2, Interesting)
A: I disagree. It's an easy argument to make. One reason people make it is that, in open source, they don't see the revolutionary new versions magically appearing. In comparison, look at commercial closed systems. They make a new release every year or three to four years with a huge marketing splash. They make it look very different. But it's a circus to ma
Re:Come on Linus, don't go there. (Score:5, Informative)
No, actually it was as a free replacement for a unix-like system. The "replacement for windows" talk didn't start up for a fair while.
Re:Come on Linus, don't go there. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it was supposed to be a free version of Unix. Nobody wanted Windows! That's why Linus had to write his kernel to replace th MS operating system which he surely got with his fancy new 386.
Never read the click-through licences, have you? They all begin with something like: ``This product comes with no warrenty, including without limitation any warrenty of fitness for any particular purpose.''
It will likely get better but I can't believe he said that it wasn't as bad as I think.
He must know how badly you think?
actually you're wrong on one part of that point... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Come on Linus, don't go there. (Score:3, Informative)
I'm just restoring one compaq for a friend here.. and just for kicks actually scrolled through the license of the os(microsoft provided).
basically the license gives so crappy terms on the product that they have to clash with my rights as a consumer.
anyways, and when the program isn't a 'cheap knock off' of the windows counterpart(from the ui, which is what matters for appearance..) then people complain that th
Re:Come on Linus, don't go there. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then go look for their rack of "Windows Software for only $10." That stuff probably sucks, too. Look in the games section. It's like 10% good, well known games, and then 90% crappy knock-offs.
Most commercial software comes with huge disclaimers that say they aren't responsible when your computer blows up or whatever, just like open source software.
In other words, open source software isn't very different from commercial software, from an average buyer standpoint (I agree, there probably isn't support for some of the big stuff, like CAD). There's some really great stuff, and then there's tons of crap.
The only difference is that with open source, there's no $200 difference in price between the good stuff and the shit.
Re:Come on Linus, don't go there. (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the entire point of Linux in the first place an academic exercise in writing a kernel?
I'd say the shrinkwrap / clickwrap EULA that disclaims all liability for the correct function
Re:Come on Linus, don't go there. (Score:5, Insightful)
But MANY commercial programs aren't innovative, either. Microsoft Money is just a poor clone of Quicken, Norton AV does the same thing as McAfee, EZ CD Creator is a clone of Toast, etc. I don't think it's fair to compare the best, most innovative commercial software, with all of the thousands of mediocre open-source programs out there. Some of the best open-source programs are incredibly innovative: BitTorrent, Python, Subversion - and others, while they superficially act similar to popular commercial programs, have dozens of innovative features: Gimp, OpenOffice, Audacity
Linux was meant to be a Unix-like operating system for PCs. It presents a Unix-like interface because that makes it possible to easily port zillions of programs written for Unix operating systems. Internally, Linux was designed from scratch, and though it uses the basic Unix model (for processes vs threads, file-based devices, etc.), it has very little in common with any other Unix in the way it actually does anything nontrivial. Want to talk about innovation? Linux scales down to little handheld devices with 8 MB of RAM, and all the way up to 1024-CPU supercomputers. All with the same kernel (and different compile-time options). No other operating system can claim to do that. Is that not innovation? (Windows CE is NOT the same kernel as Windows XP, and no version of Windows scales up to supercomputers nearly as well as Linux.)
Innovation in the KERNEL, stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)
Apart from the points raised by other people on this thread (especially the one about EULAs being disclaimers claiming no warranty), I think what Linus was talking about was innovations from a technological point of view in the kernel, which I think is a valid point. MS comes out with Brand New NTFS(tm) and Brand New ActiveThis(tm) and ActiveThat(tm) every couple of years, as the reasons why you should upgrade to the latest Windows. Linux doesn't - it doesn't even encourage you to upgrade. The point is, rather than putting in *altogether* new features, Linus tries to maintain existing features (the standard Posix stuff) as efficiently and fast as possible. As Linus claims in his article, programs written in 1992 can still be run on the latest kernel. The whole point is that innovation with the kernel is happening behind the scenes, not in the marketing world where MS and other large software companies work.
My two cents on application usage: I think most developers are scared, because they know that if they get One Humongously Big Idea, large software companies will immediately embrace and extend them out of existance. They literally have no-one to hide behind under the open source model.
Oh. My. God. He's in management. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh. My. God. He's in management. (Score:5, Funny)
Dictator! (Score:5, Insightful)
So Ima What? (Score:5, Funny)
So I'm a pussy instead?
OS (Score:4, Funny)
"Yes. i am also not a pussy."
The Nitro Dragster Vs. The Slow Moving Train (Score:5, Insightful)
One reason people make it is that, in open source, they don't see the revolutionary new versions magically appearing. In comparison, look at commercial closed systems. They make a new release every year or three to four years with a huge marketing splash. They make it look very different. But it's a circus to make it look like a sudden innovation.
In open source, you don't have a circus. You don't see a sudden explosion. It's not done that way. All development is very gradual -- whether commercial or open source. Even when you have a big thinker coming along with a new idea, actually getting it working takes a lot of sweat and tears.
Proprietary Vendors are like nitro dragsters, being the first ones off of the line with their brand new product. Trying to wow people and making a huge splash.
Open source is like a mile long freight train. Functional, slower to get started, but when the momentum gets going, its going to be much, much harder to stop than that nitro dragster.
Alchemy not Witchcraft (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Alchemy not Witchcraft (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Witchcraft is a closer fit to magic, which IS secretive. Alchemy is a pseudoscience closer to true science, those like Newton, Boyd and Locke did, however secretly, confer and test each other's theories in a proto-scientific method.
Witchcraft/magic on the other hand totally depends on secrets for its effectiveness. Religion, which has always sought to take witchcraft's place is also secretive.
Consider the response of a scientist and a magician to a theory which has failed: the scientist goes back and gathers more data, tests the working hypothoesis of others and tries again. The magician simpy says "the didn't work, the time wasn't right, and the gods are angry with you".
Not a bad analogy between closed vs open source, is it?
PJ will surely be amused... (Score:4, Informative)
*sigh*
Re:PJ will surely be amused... (Score:3, Informative)
So, we're NOT sending troops to depose him? (Score:4, Funny)
And, obviously, we can't depose him on grounds of WMD, since Microsoft makes those, right?
So -- as long as he doesn't gas a whole room of Mac OS X users, we'll leave him be?
And -- he doesn't have any kids, right? Two boys that might go around killing anyone who doesn't win Linux-based UT2K4 tournaments in Linus' name, right? Or terrorizing anyone who challenges the vision of the kernel?
Finally -- Linus hasn't invested in any bunker construction for his new offices, right?
Just checking. I was concerned that maybe that troop realignment from Europe was in preparation for an attack on Mr. Torvalds.
IronChefMorimoto
Re:So, we're NOT sending troops to depose him? (Score:3, Informative)
And -- he doesn't have any kids, right? Two boys that might go around killing anyone who doesn't win Linux-based UT2K4 tournaments in Linus' name, right? Or terrorizing anyone who challenges the vision of the kernel?
Sorry to be picky with a perfectly funny post, but if you s/kids/sons/ then the story is correct. I can personally attest to that fact.Now if only everyone else would listen (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an excellent example which others should strive for.
Alas, many don't. And it's one reason why I stay away from posting on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. There are just too many people there who think that they build up their reputation capital at the expense of others.
The only positive solution that I can think of is if people made a conscious effort towards adopting Linus' attitude. Perhaps that's wishful thinking.
Linus's middle name (Score:5, Funny)
Pirate King (Score:5, Insightful)
The classroom is not a democracy. We have very different roles here. But neither is it a tyranny -- if I get tyrannical, students will simply leave.
The classroom is best described as a pirate ship: I have power to the extent that the crew accepts me as their leader.
So too with Linus and linux. If people believe in him, he leads them; if people don't believe in him, he's just a mortal man again, everybody goes their own way. (I'm assuming he's not the type to incite mutinous plank-walking behaviors.)
-kgj
Re:Pirate King (Score:5, Interesting)
Word got out that you took part in a mutiny, no matter what an asshole Captain Blythe was, you'd never serve on a ship again in your life. Hell, you'd be lucky to pay for passage on one.
In fact, many of the Bounty mutineers wound up living out their lives on some pacific island, partly because noone would go and pick them up.
Re:Pirate King (Score:5, Funny)
"Wrrrrokk! http://slashdot.org, pass it on. Tweet!"
Respect for Microsoft ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting paragraph, seems to imply honour on microsofts part. Isn't there some kind of link between SCO and MS ?
Re:Respect for Microsoft ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Respect for Microsoft ? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure being convicted by the highest court in their own country, and then by the EU, count as 'overcame'. More they thumbed their nose at the US government because they knew they were far more powerful, which isn't the same thing. In fact I don't remember them
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
"I'd like to start by thanking the brave and strong Americans at home and abroad who have stood by our troops and supported our efforts in the War on Terror. Today I bring news of an even greater threat. Our intellegence shows that a New Dictator has gained power and established a large network of terrorist computer cells in homes and offices around the country. This New Dictator is Linus Torvolds and I can assure you he hates America, he hates Capitolism and he hates Freedom. Today we begin our war with another terrorist, a terrorist that is bent on destroying Corporate America and our way of life. Already he has duped many of our citizens and corporations to convert to "Linux" a terrorist organization no less dangerous than Al Qaeda or the brutal Dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. We must band together and stamp out this threat to our liberties and safety. Today I have appointed Steve Balmer as Special Consultant for the creation of the Desktop Security Agency which shall be a part of the Homeland Security Agency. Together with Tom Ridge and Donald Rumsfeld, Mr. Balmer shall create a roadmap of shock and awe to root out and destroy this new threat before it is too late."
RMS and Linus seeing eye to eye (Score:5, Insightful)
We have random people in random countries working on random things, and they don't have 1,000 patent lawyers. So I'm not worried about one patent in particular, but the whole system. It's not a problem today. But it's a thing I can't control, unlike the technical side, where I can actually do something."
It is refreshing to hear Linus state what RMS has been saying for the past five years. Software patents are evil, evil, evil. Yet Linus seems to stir less controversy when he says these things. I think both of them have a great deal of admiration for each other and both of them do very important if parallel work.
For all the talk about the Hurd, RMS doesn't use the Hurd.
Re:RMS and Linus seeing eye to eye (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't call using Linux (or whatever he uses) pragmatic, as I'm sure it is software as RMS likes it to be: free. One of the freedoms is that if you don't like the programmer (or, as in this case, some of his opinions), you can still use it because he can't use the software to "oppress" you.
I think the Hurd is a very good idea. Using a microkernel and doing everything in userspace is great. They say the current implementation (on mach) sucks performance-wise, and I believe them without checking (I r
Linus is like Washington (Score:3, Interesting)
I see him more like a Benjamin Franklin, or perhaps George Washington.
Or maybe more like a Martin Luther.
None of these would I call dictators.
And all the people who I can think of as dictators I can't say that I like.
Linus is more like a George Washington. He is leading the army. He starts the country. He is the general in charge, not a dictator but a natural leader.
OT: what happens if Linus were to suddenly die? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:maybe theo de radt should take a note from him. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wasn't that how Jobs originally built Apple? I think he's been downgraded to "serious pain in the ass". While I don't agree with the pressure he put on the original Mac developers, there is something to be said for someone who can be a bit more forceful. I can almost guarantee that the iPod wouldn't have succeeded so well if Jobs hadn't been such a PITA about all the minor details.
It's not that we don't have slight disagreements (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Best quote of the article IMO (Score:3, Interesting)
Everything else, that gets into communism, which is basically a discounting of human nature. Great idea, impossible to pull off.
Re:poor analogy by Linus (Score:3, Insightful)
If you would like to use an alternate definition to avoid a term such as "died out"