Linus Torvalds Reflects In New Interview on Linux's Earliest Days (tag1consulting.com) 51
Linus Torvalds gave a long new email interview to Jeremy Andrews, founding partner/CEO of Tag1 (a global technology consulting firm and the second all-time leading contributor to Drupal). Torvalds discusses everything from the creation of Git, licenses, Apple's ARM64 chips, and Rust drivers, to his own Fedora-based home work environment — and how proud he is of the pathname lookup in Linux's virtual filesystem. ("Nothing else out there comes even close.")
But with all that, early on Torvalds also reflects that Linux began as a personal project at the age of 21, "not out of some big dream to create a new operating system." Instead it "literally grew kind of haphazardly from me initially just trying to learn the in-and-outs of my new PC hardware.
"So when I released the very first version, it was really more of a 'look at what I did', and sure, I was hoping that others would find it interesting, but it wasn't a real serious and usable OS. It was more of a proof of concept, and just a personal project I had worked on for several months at that time..."
This year, in August, Linux will celebrate its 30th anniversary! That's amazing, congratulations! At what point during this journey did you realize what you'd done, that Linux was so much more than "just a hobby"?
Linus Torvalds: This may sound a bit ridiculous, but that actually happened very early. Already by late '91 (and certainly by early '92) Linux had already become much bigger than I had expected.
And yeah, considering that by that point, there were probably just a few hundred users (and even "users" may be too strong — people were tinkering with it), it probably sounds odd considering how Linux then later ended up growing much bigger. But in many ways for me personally, the big inflection point was when I realized that other people are actually using it, and interested in it, and it started to have a life of its own. People started sending patches, and the system was actually starting to do much more than I had initially really envisioned....
That "anybody can maintain their own version" worried some people about the GPLv2, but I really think it's a strength, not a weakness. Somewhat unintuitively, I think it's actually what has caused Linux to avoid fragmenting: everybody can make their own fork of the project, and that's OK. In fact, that was one of the core design principles of "Git" — every clone of the repository is its own little fork, and people (and companies) forking off their own version is how all development really gets done.
So forking isn't a problem, as long as you can then merge back the good parts. And that's where the GPLv2 comes in. The right to fork and do your own thing is important, but the other side of the coin is equally important — the right to then always join back together when a fork was shown to be successful...
I very much don't regret the choice of license, because I really do think the GPLv2 is a huge part of why Linux has been successful.
Money really isn't that great of a motivator. It doesn't pull people together. Having a common project, and really feeling that you really can be a full partner in that project, that motivates people, I think.
But with all that, early on Torvalds also reflects that Linux began as a personal project at the age of 21, "not out of some big dream to create a new operating system." Instead it "literally grew kind of haphazardly from me initially just trying to learn the in-and-outs of my new PC hardware.
"So when I released the very first version, it was really more of a 'look at what I did', and sure, I was hoping that others would find it interesting, but it wasn't a real serious and usable OS. It was more of a proof of concept, and just a personal project I had worked on for several months at that time..."
This year, in August, Linux will celebrate its 30th anniversary! That's amazing, congratulations! At what point during this journey did you realize what you'd done, that Linux was so much more than "just a hobby"?
Linus Torvalds: This may sound a bit ridiculous, but that actually happened very early. Already by late '91 (and certainly by early '92) Linux had already become much bigger than I had expected.
And yeah, considering that by that point, there were probably just a few hundred users (and even "users" may be too strong — people were tinkering with it), it probably sounds odd considering how Linux then later ended up growing much bigger. But in many ways for me personally, the big inflection point was when I realized that other people are actually using it, and interested in it, and it started to have a life of its own. People started sending patches, and the system was actually starting to do much more than I had initially really envisioned....
That "anybody can maintain their own version" worried some people about the GPLv2, but I really think it's a strength, not a weakness. Somewhat unintuitively, I think it's actually what has caused Linux to avoid fragmenting: everybody can make their own fork of the project, and that's OK. In fact, that was one of the core design principles of "Git" — every clone of the repository is its own little fork, and people (and companies) forking off their own version is how all development really gets done.
So forking isn't a problem, as long as you can then merge back the good parts. And that's where the GPLv2 comes in. The right to fork and do your own thing is important, but the other side of the coin is equally important — the right to then always join back together when a fork was shown to be successful...
I very much don't regret the choice of license, because I really do think the GPLv2 is a huge part of why Linux has been successful.
Money really isn't that great of a motivator. It doesn't pull people together. Having a common project, and really feeling that you really can be a full partner in that project, that motivates people, I think.
GPL (Score:2, Insightful)
So there you have it, the GPL was integral to the success of Linux. Now who came up with the GPL? Stallman, who done no crime and never even condoned any sort of abuse, yet was rapidly cancelled with zero regard for his societal contributions and achievements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GPL (Score:4, Informative)
Linus barely escaped a canceling himself. No one is safe these days.
Re:GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently so, because he ignored that Linus's only comment about RMS was rather disparaging -- that RMS essentially has a toxic personality that spawns needless flame wars.
Re: GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman is free to work on any open source projects his heart desires. That does not mean he should have a leadership role at the FSF. If he had any self-awareness, he would realize that he is doing more harm than good in a leadership role.
There are a lot of good engineers who would make terrible managers. They, like Stallman, should stick with what they are good at.
Or, put another way, Stallman should focus on being a Karl Rove, not a George W. Bush. You can still shape policy without being the public-facing representative of an organization.
Re:GPL (Score:5, Informative)
So there you have it, the GPL was integral to the success of Linux.
As Linus said multiple times - the GPLv2 was integral to the success of Linux. The fact that he points out the version - on multiple occasions - indicates he's not a fan of the license's later iteration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think I smelled them when I walked past the graveyard a few days ago. Definitely dead from the brain stem upwards. May not have stopped moving yet, might even be able to type.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Also worth mentioning that getting an MBA from Harvard tends to make you a terrible leader.
It makes you a competent manager, sure. But it also turns you into the kind of person that no one would ever follow if they weren't getting paid.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll use their slingshots. It'll give you such a lump!
Re:Rather Linus was kicked than Stallman (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you even been paying attention to Linux development in the last few years? In 2018, some other core Linux developers essentially staged an intervention, making many of the same complaints you did. Linus took a month off as a break, and came back with a much more constructive approach to critiquing other people's work. He has been much more technically focused and less abrasive since then, and he is still very clear about what is or is not acceptable for the kernel. And he continues to delegate and work well with others.
That is fundamentally unlike RMS, whose idea of constructive criticism is more or less "I'm the head of GNU, so what I think is important is what's important for GNU, so stop interfering by making technical arguments about what Emacs should do", and then "I'm back, I'm still the Chief GNUisance, don't expect me to go away this time".
Re:Rather Linus was kicked than Stallman (Score:5, Insightful)
Leadership in technical projects is not limited to people skills, though neglecting those can cause some issues.
If Linus's leadership had been so bad, Linux would not have made it to 2018. And I can understand that when somebody proposes (or in some cases, insists) on pushing patches which either add complexity/reduce consistency/add breakage, the people who decide upon these patches don't have time to waste, and need to make a point that things need to be a lot better before they are ready for integration.
In a single team of small to medium size, not putting people off is essential, but in very large projects, with varied contributors, you can't afford the time to clean up people's patches for them, so being abrasive is probably much less consequential to the project's long term success than accepting low-quality contributions simply avoid hurting people's feelings. Diplomacy is good, but not nearly as essential as justice (abrasive remarks are based on technical points, not on developer's longstanding/newbie/friend/foe favorites, and no one is pursued/picked on). In the enterprise, you can find plenty of nice and diplomatic people who tick all the required boxes but make horrible leaders either because they lack other skills or simply don't care enough.
Stallman is another story. We would not have had the GPL without him, and a lot of his predictions came true, or are on the right track (and reading them 15 years ago it was obvious we were on that track). But though his inflexible nature probably drove him to his achievements, it does not help in having a nice personal life. That may be the price to pay, and he is the one paying it. If it suits him, fine. In any case, he may have his faults, but I certainly would not trust those who try to kick a founder out of the organization he built. And especially not using "cancel" techniques. There are plenty of other organizations promoting free software, created by people who had other approaches and priorities than the FSF, for those who do not like RMS. So why attack the FSF board, unless there are ulterior motives/power plays ?
But as to why Linus seems more "popular", there is probably a mix of many factors. Timing, being in the right place in the right time, and focusing on technical aspects whereas RMS focuses more on fundamentals and tells many people what they do not want to hear. In any case, Linux would not be where it is today without the GPL, and GNU tools would not be as ubuquitious without Linux. HURD may have been nice on paper, but is one case where RMS's intransigeance was a disadvantage.
Re: (Score:2)
> If Linus's leadership had been so bad, Linux would not have made it to 2018
That's not correct. Bad leadership is endemic to organizations across history and time, yet they endure just the same.
Re: (Score:1)
You say "endure". Sure, there are plenty of examples of bad leadership in *existing* organizations.
But Linux is more of a project than a single organization.Its reason to exist is not that of an organization.
And an organization / a project does not grow from scratch (or almost) instead of simply enduring for 30 years if the leadership is that terrible, especially when competing projects exist. That does not mean it can't be improved, but it certainly delivers on some essential aspects, where many others do
Re: (Score:1)
Simply trying to be a bit more precise than the first time. Probably not that useful...
Re: (Score:1)
Leadership in technical projects is not limited to people skills,
Wrong. In fact that is egregiously wrong. Leadership in anything is 100% people skills. That's the definition of leadership. You are confusing project management, which can occur in a vacuum and doesn't require interacting, with leadership, which requires, you know, people to lead. Linus can to a certain extent make some technical decisions. He is incapable of leading.
If Linus's leadership had been so bad, Linux would not have made it to 2018.
Also wrong and essentially sophistry. To say that Linux's success is a metric to gauge Linus' leadership ability is an extremely simpl
Re: (Score:1)
I agree 100% that Linux is only one of many components in the whole system, and that the work of many people was involved to get where we are today. That was not the point. Linus's role for the kernel the first 10 years was probably more essential than today.
I disagree with the comparison with Weinstein. Being opinionated and abrasive (even if it goes so far as to threaten the project) is not on the same level as abuse of power and rape. Even if it can put a project at risk, and if it goes all the way to fa
Re: (Score:3)
That is somewhat true, but basic kinds of respect are critical to being a good leader, and RMS seems to fall far short on those.
Perhaps the best critique of the FSF and RMS that I have read this year was by David Malcolm on the gcc ML [gnu.org]. Malcolm criticizes RMS, and the FSF more generally, primarily on tech leadership grounds -- although he does mention a number of social and organizational problems
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for the link.
I agree that the FSF's tech leadership might not be the best around. Although RMS's initial work on tools such as gcc was invaluable in that it laid the groundwork for a free software ecosystem, I was also aware and concerned making it less modular than it should have been on political grounds is probably what led to the rise of LLVM, whereas a less extreme position might have led to much earlier improvements in gcc, and possibly even avoided having a non-LGPL competitor (The competitio
Re: (Score:3)
Wait until they find out about Theo.
Re:Rather Linus was kicked than Stallman (Score:4, Insightful)
Theo didn't make the mistake of taking the king's schilling, so he can do and say as he pleases. He is one of the few people in open source who still can.
Linus and Stallman are at the mercy of corporate funded foundations for their funding and their positions, which is why they can't just tell their tormentors to fuck the hell off.
Re: (Score:2)
Theo's main conflicts seem to have been with other nerds - mainly Linux developers. He pisses off a lot of people here because he openly disparages the One True Religion of the GPL.
Re: (Score:1)
FUD much?
"direct corporate support accounted for less than 3% of FSF revenue [fsf.org]"
As far as telling the corporations to fuck off and die, I think they did that when the FSF brought back Stallman.
Re: (Score:1)
Funny, I must have clicked post anonymously by accident myself there.
Re: (Score:1)
Wow. Didn't know it was that bad.
In any case, even if that had not been Linus, most people who are to used to working with saner people would be too surprised in the sort of situation to react in time. So patting the guy in the shoulder and making him know he is not alone is probably the second best you can do, even if you wish you had done better.
Chocolate bunnies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The role of Git (Score:4, Interesting)
The role of git in making committers equal in power is really interesting. I wonder if any of the BSD projects will ever talk about whether they agree that the "commit bit" was bad for their projects? Maybe the people that work on those projects are people who don't see it as a problem?
Demand (Score:1)