This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Feature: Commentary

Don't fork Linux because of Linus

By Joe Barr on September 18, 2007 (1:00:00 PM)

Share    Print    Comments   

I recently read a blog entry on InfoWorld.com that urged the Linux community to fork the kernel into desktop and server versions because, according to the author, all Linus Torvalds cares about is big iron. Sorry, but that's both wrong and stupid.

Author Randall Kennedy depicts Con Kolivas, touted as the "champion of all things desktop centric," as "the victim of an ideological rift within the Linux community" who has given up on Linux because his scheduler patch has been rejected. Kennedy asserts Torvalds and his "'geekerati' underlings ... are mostly concerned with promoting Linux within the enterprise -- i.e. Projects involving lots of parallel CPUs, massive storage and high-end TPC results."

Luckily, it's easy to see that that depiction doesn't match Torvalds' expressed opinions over the years. In 2003, for example, he told me, "I still use it day-to-day on regular desktops, and that's what I care most about. Obviously my 'regular desktop' tends to be a fairly high-end one, but it's not that high-end. I'm aiming for the high-end desktop, because that will be 'normal' in a few years. And we still do care about low-end machines too, so it's not like we're trying to leave those behind either."

Just this summer, he told OneOpenSource.it, "I personally tend to think most about the desktop, not because it's in any 'the primary niche,' but simply because the desktop tends to have much more varied and complex behaviour than most other areas, so desktop usage shows issues that many other -- more specific usage areas simply won't show."

That sounded pretty close to what he told me four years earlier, but given the gravity of the InfoWorld indictment, I decided to check with Torvalds one more time. Concerning the Con/scheduler controversy, Torvalds said, "Never mind the fact that Ingo's scheduler was better and he's got a proven track record as a maintainer. Yeah, I don't know why people who don't even know what they are speaking about made such a big deal about the scheduler.

"I suspect that the issue is that the scheduler is one of the few things that a lot of people think they understand what it is doing. Schedulers are easy to argue about, and so people get into what the BSD people call 'painting the bikeshed'; there's a lot of discussion about the issue just because everybody feels competent to talk about it.

"The desktop is still what I personally care about most, and actually use."

Given the track record of the Linux kernel, and Torvalds' own history of integrity and straight-talking, the notion of forking the Linux kernel because of Con's wailing and gnashing of teeth makes sense only to those hunkered down in the executive bunkers in Redmond.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 71.243.124.123] on September 18, 2007 01:54 PM
Linus actually has quite a history of shortchanging big iron. He used to say that SMP was too exotic to worry about, then he said the same about NUMA, clusters, etc. He and many of the other senior maintainers have consistently ignored or opposed many requests for big-iron features such as kernel crash dumps, robust tracing, or multipath I/O. Linux's design point is probably best described as something you can buy from Dell, or could have bought within the last few years. Not only does the high end get short shrift except from the vendors themselves (e.g. IBM), but if you have anything but the most vanilla CPU, chipset, video card etc. you'll probably find it hard to get your concerns addressed. Saying that Linus ignores the desktop is very nearly the opposite of the truth.

#

Re: Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: unknown] on September 19, 2007 02:17 AM
I don't know linus. I do know linux. I do know ubuntu that uses linux as kernel.
I find my daily experience to slow down more and more. WHY ? Is it KDE, Linux, Ubuntu ?
So, if anyone can fixe these slowdowns, (P4 3 GHz 2 GB) I would be glad to know.

I don't want a 2nd windoze.

Ace

#

Re(1): Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 68.126.190.109] on September 19, 2007 04:56 AM
It's the number of useless services Ubuntu starts.

Run <code>ps ax | less</code> (or whatever you Ubuntu-tards use GUI-wise) and see what you really need.

You could, alternatively, use Arch Linux, which in my not so humble opinion, does a much better job as a desktop OS.

#

Re(2): Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Jeremy Akers on September 20, 2007 09:14 PM
Oh great, here we go again...



Please, instead of saying "It's the number of useless services Ubuntu starts." Please, name them. Hell, name ONE. And instead of being a fanboy and touting -your- favorite distro as the solution to the problem, try at least being understanding of the fact that not everyone wants to run Arch Linux, or whatever your favorite distro may be.



If you're having performance problems with Ubuntu, go to the Ubuntu forums, and describe your problem in detail. My Ubuntu PCs run for months at a time and I experience absolutely no slow down.

#

Re(3): Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 220.226.151.185] on September 21, 2007 01:56 PM
There of course will be the impression of 'useless' services being started if the user is not given the option to select them during installation. Examples:
1. cupsys
2. hplib
3. bluetooth

But these are not 'useless' services for everyone, just me. Others may find other services to be useless(apport, hotkey-setup). These may affect the boot-up time but I suspect if they hinder the overall performance in a significant way. It's also just a few clicks away from being disabled anyway.

By the way, I don't think there is anything to worry about Linux being forked, what's the fuss all about?

#

Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 65.189.145.148] on September 18, 2007 02:41 PM
Forking Linux would be a huge mistake. One of its biggest benefits is it astounding dynamic range. A developer can bring knowledge of the system from the smallest systems (think Gumstix, or even smaller yet) to the largest supercomputers.


The cost of forking would not be seen until a while down the road. Initially, drivers, application binary interfaces, etc. would be compatible and interoperable. As time progresses, the two disparate groups would begin to diverge and eventually, interbreeding becomes rare if not impossible.



Just not a good long term plan. One kernel, one genetically diverse group, provides for the healthiest ecosystem in the long run.

#

Re: Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 220.255.170.216] on September 18, 2007 05:37 PM
Yup! I totally agreed. One kernel to rule them All !!

#

Re: Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 203.123.182.27] on September 19, 2007 05:30 AM
Ya.. I totally agree..

#

Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 220.146.171.187] on September 18, 2007 02:42 PM
The way I see it I think we need a new leader for the Linux kernel. I think Linus Torvalds is done, to arrogant and no more ideas. If this doesn't have a solution I will begin to migrate to another platform, Open Solaris or FreeBSD.

#

Re: Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Joe Barr on September 18, 2007 02:53 PM
I think you should go, Linus should stay.

#

Re: Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 198.240.213.26] on September 18, 2007 03:01 PM
You're making a logical error. "Linus is too arrogant" - probably true. But it does not follow that he should be replaced. We need one more precondition: a candidate who would be better. I don't know of one.

#

Re(1): Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 208.152.231.254] on September 18, 2007 04:46 PM
What about Theo?

*ducks*

(Heh. The captcha for this comment is "kooky".)

#

Re: Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 80.255.64.197] on September 18, 2007 03:09 PM
just go and don't come back

#

Re(1): Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 220.146.171.187] on September 18, 2007 04:07 PM
hoi just go and dont come back eh, are you a fag?.

See instead to convence me to stay with Linux, the Linux people arrogance pop up. This is the Behavior I'm tired about Linux folks. And if continue like this Linux will still be in a niche.

#

Re(2): Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 70.126.175.210] on September 18, 2007 05:18 PM
See instead to convence me to stay with Linux, the Linux people arrogance pop up. This is the Behavior I'm tired about Linux folks. And if continue like this Linux will still be in a niche.
So what you're saying is that you're allowing trolls to affect your choice of OSes? Do you realize how gratifying that must be for them? Why should anyone convince you to stay with Linux? I think it's great, and I think that using Windows creates security problems for the rest of us, but go nuts, man.

Do you want me to offer you tea? By all means, stay for tea. Fuck my wife, please.

People are douchebags, and geeks are extra special douchebags sometimes, due to the lack of social training. If you want to be turned off Windows and Macs forever as well, check out slashdot.org for a bit. Then you'll be stuck using OS/2 Warp. :-)

#

Re(2): Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 141.157.25.239] on September 18, 2007 05:34 PM
Wow. After that infantile display of intellect, *please* go and don't come back.

#

Re(2): Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Zerias on September 18, 2007 05:50 PM
well. First thing, nobody was vulgar or obscene until you uttered the first obscenity. So, our gut reaction is going to be that we don't want you to begin with. The second portion of your statement that appears to be designed to inflame opposition is to indicate that Linux is a niche OS. Well, lets talk realistic market share for a minute. Both Xandros and Linspire have each surpassed the total number of retail boxes sold as Apple has. Linspire alone sold more Personal Computers through WalMart than Apple did in all of it's retail channels for over 3 years in a row. Dell, Levono, and now HP are all now offering Linux as a Desktop option, for desktop computers. Linux and Apache just don't rule the server market, the domination is total with the nearest competitor almost 40-50% behind. Okay. We don't have a reliable metric to prove that Linux has over 100million desktop users. We know that the figures cited by Distrowatch are meaningless. We, do, however, have some insight into the server sales of IBM and Sun Microsystems, as well as figures from AMD, and Intel. We know that Linux is the majority option in the server market. We also know that Solaris and other BSD's are not the majority options, and haven't been for several years.


So, Linux isn't in a niche. OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Novell Netware, Solaris, and Apple's own Server business, those are niche products.



The final portion that seems designed to inflame is the line that we did not try to convince you to stay with Linux. Here's a clue for you... We Can't. We cannot make you decide anything. The source code is there for you to look at. The mailing lists are there for you to look at. The developers are there for you to talk to. We cannot convince anybody to chose Linux, or any Open Source product. We, however, can give you the choice to use our product. We also then must recognize your choice to not use our product. I, for one, hate Gnome. I think that it's a dead-end project and I'm fairly convinced that the Gnome-Dev team has about as much business designing a desktop interface as I do. However, I will not stop you from using Gnome. I will try to give reasons why you shouldn't, and I will give you the opinion that XFCE is "Gnome Done Right," but that's the extent. If somebody were to tell you that you could not use Gnome... then I would have to take issue with that. It is your choice.




From my point of view, having read the comments stated, it seems to me that you have already decided that Linux is not for you. That's fine. You have expressed your desire to go to another platform. Fine, great. Other platforms offer competition, and if you want to use them, that's your choice.




What you need to ask yourself is this: What keeps you using Linux? Why would you continue to use the product if you don't like the way it is being managed? What do Solaris and the other BSD's lack that have kept you from moving to them to begin with? Why would you indicate that moving to another platform is a threat that we should somehow take seriously, and that if we don't cater to your whims that such a lack of action would be a bad thing? Linux has hundreds of millions of users, and the product is growing on a daily basis. Losing one or two, or even several hundred isn't going to hurt Linux.

The fact is, we don't have any reason to convince you. We don't even know who "you" are. I find myself echoing the sentiments of other posters. Don't let the door hit yourself on the way out.


#

I agree about the vulgar commentor.

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 64.61.71.218] on September 18, 2007 10:00 PM
Who would want his participation in their project? Not me.

#

The Linux Arrogance

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 65.126.216.124] on September 18, 2007 08:04 PM
Linux users' arrogance can be so high, it actually harms the OS
It was discussed here http://www.sibylleandthomas.info/drupal-5.2/node/19

#

Re: The Linux Arrogance

Posted by: Zerias on September 18, 2007 10:19 PM
Linux users' arrogance can be so high, it actually harms the OS


Deary. That is true of all operating systems, not just Linux. I can easily point to rants made by Theo de Raadt where he defines pure arrogance. I can link to posts on Ubuntu forums where the response consisted of "RTFM" or absolutely no response at all. I can point to newsgroup postings and forums and mailing lists for Apple Mac developers that will make your skin crawl with how superior they think "their OS" is. I can point directly at Microsoft's own top executives and how they brush off the continuous assaults made upon them by Open Source supporters, computer security experts, and even national governments. I can easily bring up hundreds of forum postings about common encounters with Best Buy and Circuit City employees who snob down everything that isn't Windows, or the most recent PC World disaster where the local store refuses to fix a hardware problem after being ordered to do so by Corporate.


The fact is this: Users arrogance alone does not directly help or hinder the overall OS. Now, if you want to think that it does, and you want to list a singular source that I quite frankly have never heard of, hey, fine. That's your social circle, and that's your business.


Speaking for myself, I realize that I can't control everybody's opinions. I can't control everybody's actions. Some people are going to the hole in the south end of a north bound donkey. What I can do is this: Ignore them as best I can, and let my own words and my own actions carry their weight.

#

Re(1): The Linux Arrogance

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 68.114.229.62] on September 19, 2007 03:23 AM
Yeah and Linux is nooootthing compared to the bsd camp in its arrogance.

#

Re(2): Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 87.167.92.143] on September 18, 2007 10:22 PM
Open sourced software or free software are both all about choice. You have the choice to use whatever operating system you wish. If Linux isn't meeting your needs, due to the code or due to Linus, you have the choice to use another one.
Whereas the Linus supporters on the forum also have a choice: to respond to your trollbait and try to convince someone who has already declared themselves to be melodramatic (to say the least), or to not care as the door hits you in the ass on the way out. Choice is a wonderful thing.

#

Re(2): Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 68.43.153.170] on September 18, 2007 10:22 PM
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Why would anyone give a shit enough to try to convince you to stay when the only thing we know about who you are is that you insult people and call them names for no reason? Oh, I probably know your reason: no life and a small penis. Oh, I bet that stung, didn't it? That insult totally makes me right and you wrong. Are you a dumbass?

-Sean

#

Re(3): Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 68.126.190.109] on September 19, 2007 05:04 AM
Oh, I probably know your reason: no life and a small penis.

That's really mature.<code></sarcasm></code>

#

Re(2): Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Jeremy Akers on September 19, 2007 12:05 AM
Please offer me an incentive to convince you to stay.



Here's what I don't understand. Why do we have so many trolls who think it is the RESPONSIBILITY of OTHER LINUX USERS to 'convince' them to use Linux? We bear no such responsibility! No more so than a Windows user has to convince you to switch to Windows, or a Mac user to a Mac.



And then, when we don't try to convince you, your retaliation is that "This is the Behavior I'm tired about Linux folks" (Horrible English too, by the way. I would expect better English from a second grade school kid.) I'm sorry, but if you don't like the FREE support you're getting, go pay RedHat or Novell for support. Unless you are contributing to the community somehow, either with code or funds, we have no reason to entice you to stay. So please leave. For me to convince you to continue using Linux would be like a store clerk convincing someone to steal from their store. It makes no logical sense. You clearly have no desire to give back to the community. Why should the community give a rats behind about you?

#

Re: Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 204.228.152.219] on September 18, 2007 04:58 PM
Here's another idea: Instead of replacing Linus just go ahead and fork the kernel, call it something else, and make the changes youd like to see, release it to the public and see what they think. Why replace Linus? If it weren't for the code he wrote to start with who knows where GPL based distros would be by now.

#

Re: Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 86.130.196.52] on September 18, 2007 05:30 PM
I suggest OpenBSD, I hear its leader is really reasonable and not arrogant at all.


Seriously though, I think this is mostly a lost-in-translation thing. Linus is a huge geek (of course), very pragmatic, Finns in general tend to be pretty matter of fact, and although he's fluent in English it isn't his first language. These factors combine to make him a bit tactless at times. E.g. concerning the scheduler flamewar, Linus simply saw the technical merits and maintainer histories and made a choice based on those without really considering the politics of the situation. Sure, if he'd been more conciliatory, and ideally added pluggable scheduler support as suggested, then maybe this whole dramafest could have been avoided. That doesn't mean he isn't open to ideas or that there's some sort of kernel old boy's network keeping out outsiders. For what it's worth I'm running Ingo's CFS currently and it's definitely an improvement over the stock scheduler for desktop stuff.

#

Re: Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 24.117.5.196] on September 18, 2007 08:41 PM
bye

#

well, just do it

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 82.193.101.212] on September 18, 2007 11:14 PM
Go migrate, I bet you don't have any real proposal (yourself? brouhaha) as well. I'd also predict you'll migrate back to Linux, or to Windows, or to OSX quite soon -- or, well, still might fight with the newly chosen platform just of stupid pride.

#

There are lots os forks of Linux

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 131.238.49.41] on September 18, 2007 03:30 PM
Lots of forks of Linux exist. Just about every linux distribution maintains its own fork. SUSE has a fork. Red Hat has a fork for each version. Then theres the 2.4 and 2.6 version. I could probably come up with more.

Forking in Linux is OK because the kernel is GPL. Good parts of the forked code can be put back into the mainline Kernel and that happens. The forks serve their purpose and then die once the mainline moves on.

If somebody wants to fork the Kernel and put the SD scheduler in there as the default. Wonderful! Good luck maintaining it, but wonderful! Maybe it will work better and maybe it won't.

#

Why don't more people get this?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 61.8.12.133] on September 20, 2007 11:58 AM
I'm stunned to see how often the silly bogeyman comes up, "Oh no, don't fork the linux kernel" even places like linux.com where surely folks would have better sense.


If Con Kolivas wants to keep going with kernel code (who knows what he might do after a bit of a break and a few deep breaths) but finds that Linus' team doesn't have the focus that suits him then there are plenty of distro-specific kernel teams out there. Consider Linspire for example -- they have 100% desktop focus and they are fully commited to this. If Con's help can get Linspire a reputation for sharp desktop snappiness the the line will be drawn in the sand for all the other distros to catch up with that.


Free software is about choice and about competition too. Forks are part of that and have been since... well since the very start. Another fork would be no big deal...



#

Re: Why don't more people RTFA?

Posted by: Jeremy Akers on September 21, 2007 05:59 AM
Joe is not saying there is anything wrong with fork's in general. He is responding to a SPECIFIC issue which caused someone who doesn't have a clue about what they are talking about to go "Oh, we should just fork the kernel and it will solve all our problems." This is WRONG. And that's exactly what the article says.



If you want to fork the kernel, go ahead, there is NOTHING stopping you. BUT, don't expect anyone to give a damn about it because it's a pointless fork. If you're going to fork the kernel (or ANY codebase for that matter), you better make damn sure that someone will want to use it, otherwise, what is the point of maintaining the fork? This is what irritates me about you non-coder's who propose this solution. When you maintain a fork, you have to do ALL the maintenance required for the original codebase. So every patch that Linus adds to his kernel, you'd need to decide if you wanted to add it to yours. And as your codebase starts to differ from Linus', you find the patches he accepts don't quite work with yours, and need tweaking. It's A LOT of work.



You brought up Linspire. Why don't you do a diff between the Linspire kernel source tree and the vanilla kernel of the same version? You'll be surprised at how few differences there are. Yeah, there are a few, but they don't want to have to maintain that monster, so they only make small tweaks, and rarely make major architectural changes to the code. Why? Cause then someone would have to maintain that code. This, technically is NOT a fork. Lookup the definition of a fork, the key part of being a fork is: "takes code from a project and starts to develop independently of the rest." (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_fork and http://www.linfo.org/project_fork.html). Linspire's, as well as most other distributions kernel development is NOT independent of what is developed by the kernel.org team. it is 'downstream', which means they take the kernel.org kernel, maybe make some small tweaks, and package it with their system. They are still dependent on the kernel.org team for most maintenance of the code.



Now back to the issue at hand... Linus made a decision to use someone elses scheduler because: 1.) It was a better scheduler. 2.) It was written by a better programmer (Con admitted in his interview that he wasn't that great of a coder and that he taught himself how to code while writing the scheduler.) and 3.) It was written by a coder who has a good track record for maintaining code after it's been accepted into the kernel. Only an idiot would have picked Con's scheduler given that scenario.



The bottom line, is that forks ARE a part of free software. That's what makes it great, but another great part of free software, is we can say "put up, or shut up". If you think a fork is such a great idea, go for it. Maybe then you'll do a little more research before you start giving out your professional opinion. ;)

#

Don't read (dis)InfoWorld

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: unknown] on September 18, 2007 03:50 PM
The rag's a tout, the editors all have bad habits learned from vendors that don't play well here.

#

Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 84.165.76.253] on September 18, 2007 04:43 PM
>I still use it day-to-day on regular desktops, and that's what I care most about.

You should know this saying is without any meaning. What is a 'regular desktop', Audio recording, Video, Office, ...? Get it, 'Desktop' isn't the primary factor in any free operating system.

#

Big iron features are why I use it!

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 172.17.1.9] on September 18, 2007 04:47 PM
I use Linux on the desktop because it has "big iron" features that let me get work done. Lightweight toy OSes don't. Running DB2 & Oracle, 8 virtual desktops, several J2EE and Apache instances, browser windows, Emacs, etc. Try that on a Windows desktop! Who doesn't need power and robustness?

#

Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 169.133.140.5] on September 18, 2007 04:48 PM
As I understand it, the kernel can be changed, the source code recompiled, etc. So, if someone wants to modify the kernel in such a way to better adapt it to the desktop or the server environment, I think they should be more than welcome to do so and then maintain what they've created. That's the whole idea of having that sort of freedom, right? There's no reason why one group of people should have all the fun.

#

Re: Don't fork Linux because of Linus

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 130.207.15.219] on September 18, 2007 06:01 PM
I think people need to be reminded the Linux is an open source product. Therefore, if you do not like something you have alternatives to choose from and you can change the things you do not like yourself.

#

Linus Torvalds must get results or someone else will

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 64.61.71.218] on September 18, 2007 05:30 PM
Torvalds already says he doesn't care about user freedoms, only efficient software.

Does Torvalds even want to end Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop, or is Linus content to just maintain the status quo with GNU/Linux withering on the vine?

For many of us, this is a vote of no confidence in Linus Torvalds' leadership. This is a challenge for Linus to get with the program or get out of the way.

#

Re: Linus Torvalds must get results or someone else will

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 66.64.52.34] on September 18, 2007 05:49 PM
Linus doesn't need your vote of confidence. If you don't like it here, go write your own kernel, genius! Oh wait, you're not smart enough to do that? That's cause you're a dumbass!

#

Re: Linus Torvalds must get results or someone else will

Posted by: Joe Barr on September 18, 2007 05:53 PM
"Torvalds already says he doesn't care about user freedoms."

He does? When did he say that? Why did he choose the GPL for the kernel if that is true?

Oh, wait. You mean because he doesn't like the latest version of the GPL as well as he likes the first? You mean because he doesn't agree with Saint Stallman he is evi?

Yeah, I forgot about that. We must all agree with Stallman or else we are bad people.

Emacs to the people!!! ;)

#

Re(1): Linus Torvalds must get results or someone else will

Posted by: Jeremy Akers on September 18, 2007 06:07 PM
Well said Joe, well said.

#

Re(1): Linus Torvalds must get results or someone else will

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 64.61.71.218] on September 18, 2007 08:59 PM
Linus shows us very frequently that user freedom is not a priority for him. He shows us by seizing on the the "Open Source" slogan and abandoning the original term, Free Software. He shows he doesn't care by using BitKeeper, by embracing DRM, by constantly criticizing Stallman's goals and portraying him as a zealot.

It makes me wonder who is buttering Linus Torvalds' bread.

#

Re(2): Linus Torvalds must get results or someone else will

Posted by: Jeremy Akers on September 18, 2007 11:52 PM
1.) Please show some supporting evidence to sustain your argument that Linus 'seized' the "Open Source" slogan

2.) Please provide evidence to support your claim that using the slogan 'open source' rather than 'free software' is detrimental to a users freedom.

3.) Please show me how using the right tool for the job (Which Bitkeeper was at the time) impacts a users freedom. That was Linus's CHOICE for HIS OWN USE. It had no impact on your freedom whatsoever. Please prove otherwise.

4.) Please show evidence of Linux 'embracing' DRM. His lack of ambition for GPLv3 is not evidence of this. He has expressed his distaste for DRM many times. He simply feels that a software license is not the proper vehicle for battling hardware based DRM. If you think this is 'embracing' DRM, the burdon is on you to prove it is so.

5.) "by constantly criticizing Stallman's" So let me get this straight. Linus is not allowed to criticize Stallman? Is Stallman some kind of God in your eyes? Is Stallman the only human being who can have views on what free software should be like? This kind of thinking is dangerous. At least when Linus criticizes Stallman, he offers explanations and evidence to back up his claims, he doesn't just talk out of his ass as you are doing.

6.) Please show me where Linus ever portrayed Stallman as a zealot.

7.) "It makes me wonder who is buttering Linus Torvalds' bread." Does it now? Why do you care?

#

Re(3): Linus Torvalds must get results or someone else will

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: unknown] on September 19, 2007 02:12 PM
I take issue with some of your points.
3.) Linus has to be aware that he is in a position that his personal choices will affect others. So you might be right it was his choice for his own use. However it affected the choices of the other kernel developers. I would say that his choice for BK was quite shortsighted and people had repeatedly predicted what actually happened while Linus dismissed their predictions. And when the prediction finally became real he didn't make the best figure either attacking Tridgell (?) for what he did etc..
4) I mostly agree with you here, although I disagree with Linus
5 and 6) Now, have you actually read Linus postings on GPLv3 or the FSF and Stallman in general? Linus hardly ever mentions the FSF or Stallman without using the term zealot in the same sentence. I also does not offer explanations and evidence but usually his rambling contain mainly ad hominem attacks against the FSF and or Stallman. Just read up his posts on LKML about GPLv3 or the discussion on Groklaw about GPLv3 (he lost quite a lot of respect I had for him the way he argued there). So a little bit of googling will give you many results where Linus has been personally attacking Stallman or the FSF.
7.) Yeah I agree what did the OP want to say with that? Linus just behaves like he always did.

#

Re(4): Linus Torvalds must get results or someone else will

Posted by: Jeremy Akers on September 20, 2007 03:20 AM
"I would say that his choice for BK was quite shortsighted and people had repeatedly predicted what actually happened while Linus dismissed their predictions"



Whether you think it was right, wrong, shortsighted, or whatever, is completely and totally irrelevent to the discussion. It is his software project, he has the FREEDOM to choose whatever tool he wishes to use. Whether that decision has an impact on others is THEIR fault. It only has an impact on those who choose to work with the Linux source tree. If they don't like Linus's choice of softare repository, they can write their own kernel and use whatever they like. They could even fork Linux to do so. That a FREEDOM granted to them because of how Linus licensed his kernel.

See, the issue I take with trolls here is that you seem to think that it's your way or the highway, and that's not how the world works. For example, what Tridgell did, like it or not, was in violation of the BitKeeper license. Now, maybe you think the BitKeeper license was evil, but that point is irrelevant. What matters is that Larry McVoy has the FREEDOM to release his software under any license he wishes, so long as it's not illegal. His license was legal, and Tridgell's actions were in violation of that license. Therefore, Tridgell was the one behaving immaturely, as his violation of the license terms are what caused McVoy to stop releasing BitKeeper under a license that allowed Linus to use the tool.



In case you're lost, here's a summary:


  • Torvalds was FREE to choose BitKeeper as his source control system. Whether you liked it, hated it, whatever, it was Torvald's choice, not yours.
  • Larry McVoy was FREE to choose whatever license he wanted for his BitKeeper product. It's his software, as a developer he's entitled to choose whatever license he wants, whether you like that or not.
  • Andrew Tridgell VIOLATED that license, and caused Larry McVoy to stop releasing BitKeeper under a license Torvalds could use.



    Explain to me again why Linus calling Andrew out on this was wrong??



    "Now, have you actually read Linus postings on GPLv3 or the FSF and Stallman in general?"



    I've read plenty of Linus' posting on GPLv3, probably all of them, and plenty on the FSF and Stallman. And while it's clear Linus and Stallman do not agree on many points, it's pretty obvious that Stallman -IS- pretty extreme on his views. For example, he refuses to be interviewed unless the interviewer vows to always use the GNU/Linux nomenclature. I'm sorry, but THAT seems rather childish. However I do not recall Linus ever calling Stallman a zealot. He tends to not say much about Stallman at all, actually.



    "a little bit of googling will give you many results where Linus has been personally attacking Stallman or the FSF."



    No, wait, I'm sorry. -I- am not the one making the accusations here. If you're going to accuse someone of something, the burden is on YOUR shoulders to do the googling and bring the evidence to the table, not mine.

    #

  • someone else will

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 24.80.34.124] on September 21, 2007 12:02 AM
    "Torvalds already says he doesn't care about user freedoms."
    In a speech I saw recently RMS used nearly those exact words. Now I know many people criticise RMS for being too fanatical or whatever but I've never heard anyone say RMS lies about Linus. This goes back further than the disagreement on GPL3. You know damn well that Linus has not been a big fan of the FSF or RMS for a long time so don't get all righteous. Now I suppose I should go search out some reference but Stallman's word is good enough for me. Putting the kernel under the GPL is the only thing I know that Linus has done for free software. It's no small thing but it's only one thing which hardly makes St. Linus the patron saint of software freedom.

    #

    Re: someone else will

    Posted by: Jeremy Akers on September 21, 2007 06:28 AM
    "In a speech I saw recently RMS used nearly those exact words."



  • RMS NEVER over-reacts, right? I mean, the man won't even TALK to you if you say the word 'Linux' without shoving GNU in front of it...
  • RMS is not a God, he is not infallible. Stop treating him like he is.
  • You provide no reference to where once might find this speech, therefore the point is moot anyhow.



    "I've never heard anyone say RMS lies about Linus."



    Therefore it must be true, right? Wow, I never thought of that before. By the way, if you hold RMS on such a pedestal, even if someone DID tell you that RMS lies about Linus, would it matter? You wouldn't believe them because you're too busy bowing to RMS.



    "You know damn well that Linus has not been a big fan of the FSF or RMS for a long time"



    Actually, anyone capable of reading would most likely come to the opposite conclusion. It is RMS who does not like Linus, and RMS with his constant nagging and bickering that has caused Linus to reciprocate the bad feelings. Had RMS left Linus alone, and not tried to meddle in things, such at the BitKeeper issue, Linus would have no beef with RMS. It's the fact that RMS's behavior tends to strike one as being "I am the only one who can decide what is and is not free software, and you must do exactly as I say if you wish to be considered 'free'". I'm sorry, but having someone think they can dictate my actions to that extent gives me the impression he is concerned less about freedom, and more about controlling others, which is quite the opposite of freedom. Now, maybe you interpret his behavior differently... You can read alot into someone's actions. However, Linus rarely says anything at all about RMS. Linus does not go around and give speeches and try to convince anyone that his way is the best. He simply does his job, period. And you have somehow managed to turn that into "Linus hates RMS and therefore Linus is evil."



    I digress... This whole discussion is pointless because you're essentially saying "Linus doesn't care about my freedom because someone else said so." That's a very intelligent and mature stance, and I'm glad you can think for yourself. ;)



    "Putting the kernel under the GPL is the only thing I know that Linus has done for free software. It's no small thing but it's only one thing which hardly makes St. Linus the patron saint of software freedom."



    You should know this, but maybe you don't... We can sit here and argue over the value of Linus' contributions vs Stallman's contributions all day long. At the end of the day, there is no winner. Why? Because the value of their work is subjective. You could argue that Linus would not be where it is today without the GPL. Or you could argue Linus would have used another similar license or wrote his own, and that the GNU project would not be where it is today without Linux. It's a sort of chicken and egg problem, and instead of trying to take sides, you should instead try to realize that they both need each other, and should work together. Rather, you are trying to paint Linus and his project as something bad and evil, when it is his kernel that has helped GNU gain the acceptance it has. And that has been reciprocated to Linux as well, it would not be where it is today without GNU.



    Oh, and by the way, please show me where anyone has claimed Linus is the "patron saint of software freedom." It's not like Linus goes around giving speeches trying to act like some 'patron saint of software freedom', and then refuses to do so if the people receiving the speech don't promise to always use GNU/Linux rather than Linux...



    So grow up, learn to think on your own, stop being a drone that does whatever RMS says and get a life. ;) We will all be happier, including yourself.

    #

  • Re(1): someone else will

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 24.80.34.124] on September 23, 2007 12:32 AM
    Well I just have to bow in awe to your entirely reasoned and rational argument.:-)

    My life is not dependent on you believing me or beating you in an argument. As such I see no point in addressing any of your issues. Have a nice life buddy. I hope you don't burst a blood vessel too early in life but I'm afraid that's where you're headed.

    #

    Re: Linus Torvalds must get results or someone else will

    Posted by: Zerias on September 18, 2007 06:27 PM
    Torvalds already says he doesn't care about user freedoms, only efficient software.


    Hmm... I'm really not sure where to start with this. My first reaction to is point to the numerous comments Linus has made during the GPL3 development process. As I read it, Linus seemed to be concerned about the freedom of the software itself. Specifically in an interview with Forbes Linux stated that he didn't like the GPL3 because it placed limits on what could be done with the software. For example, the GPLv2 in no way limits your use of the software. If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. That certainly sounds like Linus "cares" about user freedoms.


    Does Torvalds even want to end Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop,

    I'm not really sure where Microsoft enters into this discussion. Linus said this in an interview with LinuxWorld : I don't actually see it as a battle. I do my thing because I think it's interesting and worth doing, and I'm not in it because of any anti-MS issues. I've used a few MS products over the years, but I've never had a strong antipathy against them. Microsoft simply isn't interesting to me. The thing is, Linus just doesn't care about Microsoft, as do many of other open source developers. They don't aim for Microsoft because Microsoft isn't a benchmark. Lets be honest, anybody involved in Open Source Communities probably has the opinion that Microsoft writes sloppy and buggy code. Focusing on Microsoft as a target? Well, quite frankly, that would be like aiming for an open sewer pipe if you wanted to go swimming. Speaking for myself, I'm glad that Linus doesn't find Microsoft interesting.

    This isn't to say that many of us don't have an interest in breaking Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop, but that battle is actually going to fall to KDE, XFCE, and other quality desktop environments in providing user friendly desktops. That battle is going to fall to the X.org development teams to provide functional dual desktop support and better graphics support. That battle is going to fall to Compiz and Red Hat's AIGLX developers, and it's going to fall on the Samba team, and it's going to fall on individual distributions.

    Saying that Linus alone is responsible for the battle against Microsoft is like trying to pin Economy or Gas prices on the sitting President. Reality doesn't work like that. Congress is the target.

    The Kernel team has their job, yes, but they are only a small portion of the overall scheme. That, however, doesn't address the real issue of Microsoft's Monopoly. Keep in mind that many business's have a saying, nobody got fired for buying Microsoft. Keep in mind that you, personally, vote with your wallet. I don't expect Linus to speak up for me. I speak up for myself, and the fact is, more Linux users are speaking up. More people are beginning to ask Independent Software Vendors just how independent they are. That is what is changing the landscape, not the work of just one person.


    or is Linus content to just maintain the status quo with GNU/Linux withering on the vine?


    Um. I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what in the world you are talking about here. Last time I checked Linux usage was up in the Cell Phone market, was up in the embedded device market, and was up in the retail PC market. I've seen hundreds of headlines, stories, and editorials about Ubuntu Linux going on Dell system; about Novell Suse going on Levono systems; Levono looking for an alternative Linux supplier; and HP entering the Linux desktop market. There has been the RadeonHD driver, an official Open-Sourced driver from AMD, and the code dump from Intel for their graphics drivers. I don't know where you get the idea that Linux is withering, the only market that it appears to have decreased in is the web-server market. Even that decrease is not a real decrease as the number of servers not using Linux+Apache, but moving to other services like lighttpd, and the google web hosting service.

    For many of us, this is a vote of no confidence in Linus Torvalds' leadership. This is a challenge for Linus to get with the program or get out of the way.

    Um. Okay. Get with what program? Do you really want Linus to start targeting Microsoft? I'm also failing to see how this is a vote of No Confidence. Last time I checked, Linux was getting results. OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Solaris, Novell Netware... and so on... I see those products loosing results. Theo De Raadt's latest outrage against the Atheros driver only served to turn several users off from even looking at BSD. It's one thing to be in the right. It's another thing to rant and spew after the problem has been addressed promptly and politely. Now, I couldn't tell you who on earth runs NetBSD or FreeBSD. I could tell you that Jonathon Swartz helps with Solaris over at Sun, but even Sun has found profit in selling Linux servers. I can, however, recognize Alan Cox, Linus T, Andrew Morton, and Ingo Molnar. The only reason I know a guy who used to do Linux driver development by the name of Con K. is because he was a media attention seeker who, in my view, threw a baby's fit when he didn't get his way.


    Now, if you have somebody else in mind who would be good enough to lead and manage the Linux Kernel... by all means, speak up. But keep in mind that such a person would have to deal with the existing kernel driver team. I know that many of the Kernel Lieutenants have expressed that they do not want Linus's job. Nobody really wants to try to manage the kernel project. Reminds me of a line from the Sean Connery film,
    First Knight. Once in a lifetime, you meet a man so fearless. No man can touch him. While you're waiting for him, you can practice on me. - Lancelot. Sure. Linus may not be what you want, but he's what we have. And like it or not, there is nobody else waiting in the wings.

    #

    Re(1): Linus Torvalds must get results or someone else will

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 64.61.71.218] on September 18, 2007 09:24 PM
    I don't have time for a lengthy reply right now, but I can see how you have over-simplify things and that you worship at the altar of Linus Torvalds by comparing him to Lancelot.

    Linus was a kid in a dorm in Scandinavia who was swept up from obscurity by choosing the best license available for his hobby project. Now he's got corporate backing and he swaggers around like a big brat with no respect for his elders. He's got some growing up to do.

    #

    Re(2): Linus Torvalds must get results or someone else will

    Posted by: Zerias on September 18, 2007 09:29 PM
    I don't have time for a lengthy reply right now


    Then I don't have time to read the rest of whatever it is you said. Here's a hint: If you are going to respond, read the entire posts.

    #

    Re(3): Linus Torvalds must get results or someone else will

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 64.61.71.218] on September 18, 2007 09:55 PM
    I read your post and it there was a lot of stuff to refute. Maybe I'll get to it after work. I feel no sense of urgency because the same misinformation has been the conventional wisdom of the "Open Source Movement" for years now. It's tiresome, but I'm not unwilling to refute your arguments. I'm just a bit unenthusiastic about the tedious the task.

    #

    Re(2): Linus Torvalds must get results or someone else will

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 206.40.114.228] on September 19, 2007 04:06 AM
    And what have you done that trumps what he has?

    #

    Re(3): Linus Torvalds must get results or someone else will

    Posted by: Zerias on September 19, 2007 08:51 AM
    And what have you done that trumps what he has?


    hmm? I'm sorry, but I think this comment is even more out in left field than somebody who won't take the time to file a proper response. What exactly are you referring to?

    #

    If the current scheduler is so good then why is Audio so pants

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 62.189.169.182] on September 18, 2007 06:02 PM
    if start launching a few programs one after the other? Or if on opensuse the updater program runs in background, it kills audio playback

    #

    Re: If the current scheduler is so good then why is Audio so pants

    Posted by: Joe Barr on September 18, 2007 06:05 PM
    Sorry, I don't see where anyone has claimed that the current scheduler is perfect. Can you point out where/who/when that was said?

    #

    Re(1): If the current scheduler is so good then why is Audio so pants

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 81.86.169.147] on September 19, 2007 09:56 PM
    So you'd rather have the status-quo? Thats just doing an ostrich impression with your head in the sand.

    #

    Re(2): If the current scheduler is so good then why is Audio so pants

    Posted by: Jeremy Akers on September 20, 2007 03:24 AM
    Where did he say that? Or anyone? Please show me where someone is advocating 'status-quo'. Just because Linus chooses a better scheduler, written by a better programmer, with a better track record for maintaining code once it's in the kernel... I fail to see how that is 'status-quo'. You really need to explain your stance more for anyone to take you seriously.

    #

    Re(2): If the current scheduler is so good then why is Audio so pants

    Posted by: Zerias on September 20, 2007 06:44 AM
    So you'd rather have the status-quo? Thats just doing an ostrich impression with your head in the sand.


    <a>http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Additional_CFS_Benchmarks</a> :: <a>http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Benchmarking_CFS</a> :: <a>http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/CFS_Digressions</a> :: <a>http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/CFS_Focusing_on_Simplification_and_Performance</a> :: <a>http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/CFS_Focusing_on_Simplification_and_Performance</a> :: <a>http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Defining_Scheduler_Task_Groups</a> :: <a>http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/The_Really_Simple_Really_Fair_Scheduler</a> :: <a>http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/DeskOpt_Completely_Unfair_Scheduling</a> :: <a>http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Discussing_the_Really_Fair_Scheduler</a> :: <a>http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/The_Really_Fair_Scheduler</a> :: <a>http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/CFS_Updates_v20</a> :: <a>http://kerneltrap.org/node/14159</a>


    Okay. What I just did was open up <a>http://www.kerneltrap.org</a> and simply hit every single post that had anything to do with a scheduler and I went all the way back to August 6th. That, my friend, is the status quo. 11 different reports going through Kerneltrap talking about some kind of scheduler. Multiple reports on code cleanup and re-write. Feedback on what was working, and what didn't work, as well as an exploration into stuff that would most certainly not work.


    Sorry buddy, but if anybody has their head in the sand, it's quite clear it isn't Igno or anyone else working on the current scheduler. It's actually very clear that it's Con K. who is distributing F.U.D. against the current code contributers. Now, if you want my opinion, I'm going to say that Con K. is probably getting paid a handsome sum by Microsoft to continue to whine and complain, and it's my opinion that the static, such as your post, are derived from people working for Microsoft paychecks.


    So... here's how you can break that presumption on our parts. Don't post as Anonymous. Don't issue posts that are outright insulting. Don't issue posts that have no proof in them. And pull your head out of your *this part was censored*

    #

    Re: If the current scheduler is so good then why is Audio so pants

    Posted by: Zerias on September 18, 2007 06:39 PM
    Audio, in general, is an issue with Linux. Yes, lots of sound cards are supported. But, exactly what is the audio standard? I can tell you that OpenGL is the standard for rendering in 3D, but I'm not aware of any consensus on the default Audio Input. As I see it Linux has two primary audio systems, ALSA and OSS. I also have seen libraries relating to SDL and OpenAL, and I'm aware of Gstreamer, Xine, and I'm fairly certain there is another engine out there.


    If you don't get the point, trying to pin the performance of a single application such as Audio playback on a single point of the kernel isn't something that can be done. Yes, the scheduler is going to have an impact on it, but quite frankly, if you are rapidly opening programs? That's more likely to cause a run-in with your RAM access and your hard-drive access.


    A quick experiment you can try is to have Microsoft Windows boot up and launch 10 programs at once. Have the 7th program be an audio sound.


    Since I know you won't do the experiment as you are no doubt a loyal Linux user without Windows installed on any computers... so I'll go ahead and spoil the story for you. Windows Slows down too.


    Now, I know for a fact that if I run Synaptic and have it update my system, I don't get any audio playback loss on my systems. Does it mean that I have more knowledge than you and that I know how to work my systems? Perhaps it does... but Perhaps it doesn't. Each package management system runs differently. Now, I know that OpenSuse's package manager is a system resource hog. I've learned the hardway that when it runs, turn everything off.

    Now... if I, somebody who only has OpenSuse on one machine and Mepis on all the others can figure that out... I'm really surprised that it isn't common knowledge.

    #

    No talk of optimization for desktop, just a D- report by some junior high student.

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 216.239.74.146] on September 18, 2007 06:06 PM
    Is the kernel group filled with straight talking (code for lack of manners and social skills) cliques?
    Yes.

    Is it hard to get any traction on a project is Linus is against it?
    Yes

    Would I like to work with people like Linus, Theo and others of the same ilk.
    No.

    Is Linux concerned more and more with the enterprise?
    Yes. Given the heavy input, manpower and money IBM, Google and others are putting in, to deny this is being a hypocrite.

    Is forking the kernel a solution?
    No.

    Linux is gretting bloated. Anyone disagree?
    But Im not sure there would be any changes that could be made in a different fork that couldnt be achieved later in terms of fine tuning for the server or desktop. Im sure there could be some but not enough to justify the manpower and problems it would cause down the line.

    Personally, i worry a lot more about the dependance we have on benevolent dictators like Linus or Shuttleworth. In a group dynamic, this will often lead to trouble.
    Most discussions are still born because people like you always fall back with "Linus said."
    Boom! End of discussion.

    A real writer would have put out the merits and the failures of such a proposition and detailed them.
    Of course, its just easier too get someone to confirm your beliefs so you can fill up your 3 paragraphs.

    People are wrong, even Linus (especially on non-tech issues) but if the bottom line is always he cant be wrong, it becomes a very sterile environment. Extend that invicibility to his trusted lieutenants and you have problems.

    A developer friend compares Con to the football player who reads on a plane. He is an outsider. There seems to be a mix of condescendence when other developers talk about him: like he's not a real coder because his real job is being a doctor.
    I dont blame Con, if I had his lfe, I would have done the same thing. You might like what you do but there is only so much grief one needs in his life.

    We all knew how this was going to play out 'disgruntled employee cant work in group environment....blah,blah." followed by the prerequisite bad mouthing. The 'press' has the same weaknesses whether they cover international news or tech.
    And we will totally avoid a real problem that will fester because its so much easier to put our heads in the sand.


    By the way Joe, youre fat and you are an idiot.
    Do these statements make my argument better? No.
    They prove that childish name calling like you, Linus and others use is built in. Maybe its a mechanism used by people who have trouble communicating.

    But when a 'writer' can not find words other than stupid to describe someone's beliefs they disagree with, then that writer might be a little stupid as well and probably wont grasp anything I said but the insults I threw in haphazardly

    Got forbid we should evaluate ideas for what they are worth


    Lyle Howard Seave

    #

    Re: No talk of optimization for desktop, just a D- report by some junior high student.

    Posted by: Joe Barr on September 18, 2007 06:25 PM
    "By the way Joe, youre fat and you are an idiot."

    Thanks, Lyle.

    #

    "Thanks, Lyle."

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 64.61.71.218] on September 18, 2007 09:11 PM
    Randall Kennedy could say the same to you, Joe.

    By ignoring the content of Lyle's entire comment and fixating on his rhetorical barb (which was a comment on your own harsh language directed toward Randall Kennedy) you make a cheap appeal to emotion rather than reason.

    Rather than circling the wagons around Linus Torvalds' cult of personality, why don't you Linus kernel patriots try engaging your critics like adults? Maybe we could find some common ground and make some headway.

    #

    Re: "Thanks, Lyle."

    Posted by: Zerias on September 18, 2007 09:16 PM
    I did. And nobody has replied to me.

    #

    Re: "Thanks, Lyle."

    Posted by: Jeremy Akers on September 18, 2007 10:36 PM
    "why don't you Linus kernel patriots try engaging your critics like adults?"



    Please, feel free to show us where a 'critic' who posed valid points, sustained with evidence to back them up, was not engaged as an adult.

    #

    Re(1): "Thanks, Lyle."

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 222.125.34.250] on January 22, 2008 03:32 PM
    I can agree with you in 100%, a lot of patriots use Linux only to show what they love it, but when they need to do something they are coming back to our windows system, there is not much things you can do under linux..
    thanks, Snukos.EU

    #

    Re: "Thanks, Lyle."

    Posted by: Joe Barr on September 18, 2007 10:49 PM
    Why would Randall Kennedy say "Thanks, Lyle" to me? I'm sorry, your argument just makes no sense.

    #

    Re(1): "Thanks, Lyle."

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 64.61.71.218] on September 19, 2007 03:04 PM
    Kennedy could give you a passive aggressive, sarcastic thank you while dismissing the content of your whole argument. In that case he'd reference your "stupid and wrong" comment, ignore everything else and then finish by saying "Thanks, Joe".

    Like this:

    "Wrong and stupid". Thanks Joe.

    Do you get it now?

    #

    Re(2): "Thanks, Lyle."

    Posted by: Joe Barr on September 19, 2007 04:05 PM
    Those are really amazing glasses you're wearing. Do they give you other super powers, or are you limited to mind-reading and psychoanalysis over the IntarWeave?

    #

    Re: No talk of optimization for desktop, just a D- report by some junior high student.

    Posted by: Jeremy Akers on September 18, 2007 06:28 PM
    "Is the kernel group filled with straight talking (code for lack of manners and social skills) cliques? Yes."



    Please explain why this is bad.



    "Is it hard to get any traction on a project is Linus is against it? Yes"



    Prove it. You're leaving out one small detail. Projects that Linus are against are usually bad ideas. If you disagree, please prove otherwise.



    "Would I like to work with people like Linus, Theo and others of the same ilk. No."



    This is your personal opinion. Based on the fact that you are an anonymous user and offer no proven track record nor do you bring any credibility to the table. Personal opinions are only valuable as your credentials allow them to be.



    "Is Linux concerned more and more with the enterprise? Yes. Given the heavy input, manpower and money IBM, Google and others are putting in, to deny this is being a hypocrite."


    Really? So because Linus allows people to make improvements to his kernel, he's focusing on the enterprise? Please explain this. Unless you can prove that Google, IBM and 'others' are making changes detrimental to desktop performance, your argument is completely invalid. Please cite specific cases.



    "Linux is gretting bloated."



    Again, please offer some supporting evidence.



    "Personally, i worry a lot more about the dependance we have on benevolent dictators like Linus or Shuttleworth."



    The description 'benevolent dictator' is a rather negative accusation, for which you provide NO supporting evidence. it's starting to appear that you are talking out of your ass.



    "People are wrong, even Linus (especially on non-tech issues)"



    Please show where someone has denied this. Oh, and the issue at hand is a TECH issue, not a non-tech issue, so even here you are doing nothing to validate your argument.



    "They prove that childish name calling like you, Linus and others use is built in."


    Please show me an example of Joe or Linus reverting to 'childish name calling'. Referring to the idea of forking the kernel as a stupid idea is not childish, nor is it name calling. When an idea lacks any intelligent (IE, based on FACTS, not on someone's opinion) reasons, it's a stupid idea. the term stupid refers to the lack of intelligence behind the idea. Perhaps you should look 'stupid' up in the dictionary.



    "Got forbid we should evaluate ideas for what they are worth"



    Finally a statement I can agree with, however, this does not match anything you've said up to this point.



    I would also like to add, that your grammar, spelling, and ability to format a message speaks a lot to your credibility, especially if you are starting out from none to begin with.

    #

    Re(1): No talk of optimization for desktop, just a D- report by some junior high student.

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 24.67.137.192] on September 19, 2007 04:10 AM
    ""Personally, i worry a lot more about the dependance we have on benevolent dictators like Linus or Shuttleworth."



    The description 'benevolent dictator' is a rather negative accusation, for which you provide NO supporting evidence. it's starting to appear that you are talking out of your ass."



    Dude, do a google search for "linus torvalds benevolent dictator" and you'll find all the many times Linus himself has said that is what he is. Where have you been the past 10 years?

    #

    Re(2): No talk of optimization for desktop, just a D- report by some junior high student.

    Posted by: Jeremy Akers on September 19, 2007 05:28 AM
    Yes, and they all seem to lead to the same single quote: Maybe you should read it in context:



    http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/linux/2004/08/18/linus-torvalds-benevolent-dictatorship/



    “I am a dictator, but it’s the right kind of dictatorship. I can’t really do anything that screws people over. The benevolence is built in. I can’t be nasty. If my baser instincts took hold, they wouldn’t trust me, and they wouldn’t work with me anymore. I’m not so much a leader, I’m more of a shepherd. Now all the kernel developers will read that and say, ‘He’s comparing us to sheep.’ It’s more like herding cats.’”



    A dictatorship by choice of the people who work with you doesn't seem like much of a dictatorship to me. The truth is, we don't have that much dependence on him. Any of the other top kernel developers could take over for him if necessary. We should be happy that we have someone who can do the job and do it well. That means sometimes patches are not accepted. Get over it already.

    #

    Re: No talk of optimization for desktop, just a D- report by some junior high student.

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 203.97.201.89] on September 18, 2007 09:52 PM
    "Is Linux concerned more and more with the enterprise? Yes. Given the heavy input, manpower and money IBM, Google and others are putting in, to deny this is being a hypocrite."

    I don't see what you mean here? IBM has just put huge amounts of man power into Open Office. Which is commonly used for desktop and workstations.
    Google has released Google earth and other software to linux, along with plans to port other of their applications to the desktop. They aren't putting any more effort into Enterprise than they are desktop.
    Do you even read the news? Or do you only frequent Linux.com. Try www.desktoplinux.com and read it every week at least once a week then tell me where Linux is headed more.

    #

    Re: No talk of optimization for desktop, just a D- report by some junior high student.

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 84.90.182.83] on September 19, 2007 10:36 AM
    "Linux is gretting bloated. Anyone disagree?" |

    Yes, I disagree. Your statement is very vague. "Linux" isn't getting bloated, its the *distributions* that are.
    Some mainstream distros (like Fedora or SUSE for example), have almost every service imaginable turned on by default.
    Its just a matter of tuning the distribution to fit your needs (do all home users really need Avahi, NFS, RPC, SSHD, Sendmail, and keycard daemons running?...).

    Why not try a distro like VectorLinux or Zenwalk, which aim at being more lightweight and try to be as complete as possible at the same time. None of them change the kernel's code, only the kernel configuration (which you can do too, its not rocket science).
    The performance gains these distributions have come from carefully selecting basic services that users need, and chosing alternative means to reach the same end in larger distros. For example VectorLinux does not use HAL to automount flash-drives, instead it uses udev-rules associated with mount/unmount scripts that integrate into Xfce/KDE. This means that the automounting does not consume resources at all (except for executing the mount/unmount), so there is no idle daemon running in th background. Neat eh?

    Unfortunately this topic seems to involve too much armchair conversation. Software doesn't fall out of the sky, and is not always as easy to create as it is portrayed in the media (don't get me started on DieHard 4...).

    #

    Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 71.131.218.62] on September 18, 2007 07:53 PM
    Here's the bottom line. Once you get a rep as an "alpha male", you get chimpanzees wanting to tear you down. Standard primate behavior.

    Happened to Bill Gates - who BTW deserves it because he acts like an alpha male despite being a (pseudo)-geek - and now it's happening to Linus (who undoubtedly couldn't care less, as he's often said he's only interested in the technology, not the politics.)

    Big surprise. And totally ignorable since it isn't going to happen - unless Alan Cox or somebody starts to think he's bigger than Linus and manages to convince all the other primary kernel maintainers...

    Email me when this happens.

    #

    Linus has a rep as an "alpha male"?

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 64.61.71.218] on September 18, 2007 09:49 PM
    That's news to me. Bill Gates and Richard Stallman are the principle ideologues in this battle of ideology. Linus is working the middle ground cleverly and profiting handsomely. But Linus is not as rich as Bill Gates and he doesn't command respect as a defender of freedom like Richard Stallman.

    Who really looks to Linus Torvalds for leadership? Some angst-filled teens? Some other fence-sitting guys who know on which side their bread is buttered?

    As far as I can tell, Linus has not established himself as an "alpha male". Setting aside the issue of hierarchical social status (which is only relevant if you buy into it), we're not chimpanzees. Let's have a democracy instead of chimpanzee politics.

    #

    Glad you brought the Gates analogy here

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 66.166.120.11] on September 19, 2007 04:17 AM
    ... I tend to remember Gates when I read about Linus lately. I guess their start was at least similar. And I tend to believe that the "crowd" who used to call Gates an "alpha male" in the past is now turning to Linus with the same adoration. The only difference is that while one (Gates) gets kicked, the other gets the pedestal....I will not be surprised that in some years there will be a new "star" raising while Linus will get the boot. That ofcourse, when Linus will become a CEO of some megacompany, which I do believe will happen soon(er or later).
    Many "open source" and even "free software" volunteers found the need to feed their families and one way or another at some point in time moved on by accepting a good job at some company.
    Linus it is already stating his dislike about GPLv3 (the new GPL version who enforces the common sense on those wanting to take GPL software and refusing to give back - mostly commercial, proprietary vendors).
    It seems that Linus sees himself one day in a position in which GPLv3 will highly inconvenience his interests. Otherwise why being so hostile towards those who want to protect the freedom of the software?
    Lately the Linux Foundation ridiculously asked the community to respect Microsoft.
    Those kind of "news" makes ME think about Linus as a new Gates. yeah, that "alpha male" for now.

    #

    Re: Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 206.40.114.228] on September 19, 2007 04:19 AM
    A change of control or a fork that has enough momentum to survive on its own will only happen when Linus refuses changes which others who are qualified feel are important and needed. There is no evidence that this is the case here. If the alternate scheduler was better then the author should have been able to show it is. Marginally better doesn't trump unmaintainable by the way. And a few vocal people who say the choice he made with the scheduler was wrong are not automatically qualified just because they say they are.

    That's the beautiful thing about science. Saying you are right doesn't get you accepted no matter how loudly or often you say it. Proving you are right, on the other hand will get you the kind of attention you want for your little scheduler project.

    #

    Re: Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 84.90.182.83] on September 21, 2007 09:35 PM
    Alpha male??
    He didn't look like an alpha male when he was being raped by the DOJ in 1998:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1960403143809172490

    Yeah, maybe somewhat autistic, but he shows absolutely no back-bone in that interrogation.

    #

    Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 190.52.146.3] on September 18, 2007 08:35 PM
    don't fork it, im tired of forks, this will just produce complexity in the end and a lot of duplication... just make a great scheduler that works great into one kernel

    #

    Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 190.52.146.3] on September 18, 2007 08:40 PM
    some people here are so stupid

    #

    Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 80.108.103.172] on September 18, 2007 09:29 PM
    Yes Linus talks and talks but lets face it - he is THE kind of leader.
    What he says is law (thats a bit harsh, but you know what I mean)

    He could push a much bigger influence and already did so, when he bitched against Gnome.

    So if he can bitch against Gnome, why not do something on the Kernel level and
    RECOMMEND a line which others *should* adopt.

    This standard could be aimed for DESKTOP Graphical User Interfaces, like a Domain Specific Language for the GUI elements, without the need to plugin the huge Xserver at all and interface with it or a toolkit set.

    People could then, with a short DSL,write glue application and use gtk or qt or whatever to interprete this data. and eet voila Linux
    would have a LOT of NICE GUI apps very quickly. Then even "silly" users could profit from this!


    Think about it!

    #

    Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 59.190.138.2] on September 19, 2007 02:17 AM
    If Linux were all about the big irons, there would be nothing valuable regarding to the desktop side. Why don't you people startup a whole new project which is real desktop centric then? I appreciate people who are aggressive and innovative at the same time and I hate copycats and people who abuse the phrase "do not re-invent the wheel".

    #

    Too many geeks

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 68.147.154.104] on September 19, 2007 04:25 AM
    The problem with linux is that it's owned by geeks. Apple came up with a great installer for their freebsd hybrid and years later, there's still nothing comparable in linux. Why? Apple and Windows both have fairly polished interfaces but gnome/kde still trail. For one thing, there's no central vision which is not surprising given the structure of the open source movement. Secondly, no one is getting paid to do this work so we're really not in a position to complain. It takes a long time for new tools to arrive on linux because all those coders still have to make a living while they fiddle with the code on the side and then actually agree on it. Linux will remain strong in the enterprise where it isn't a niche because those things don't matter as much. Who needs a polished interface or a handy installer when you're running a server and know how to use the command line.
    Linux will probably never establish itself on the desktop because the geeks don't care too much about what the average consumer wants and needs but we shouldn't mistake Linuxs' niche status for irrelevance. Linux, freebsd or whatever has a major influence on the direction of computing. Just look at OS X.

    #

    Re: Too many geeks

    Posted by: Jeremy Akers on September 19, 2007 04:57 AM
    "Apple came up with a great installer for their freebsd hybrid and years later, there's still nothing comparable in linux"



    There isn't? You obviously have not used any mainstream Linux distribution in a LONG time. Linux has been easier to install than Windows for years. Hell, even Gentoo is now easier to install than Windows. Please don't make claims if you can't provide evidence. if you think the Linux installers are not up to par, please name specific examples.



    "Apple and Windows both have fairly polished interfaces but gnome/kde still trail."



    Says who? Again, you cite no specific examples of how they trail. I'm guessing you've not used either recently.



    "For one thing, there's no central vision which is not surprising given the structure of the open source movement"



    Alright, so tell me what Microsoft's central vision is?



    "Secondly, no one is getting paid to do this work so we're really not in a position to complain."



    Can you seriously be THAT ignorant of the subject? Do you have any idea how many PAID programmers are working on open source software? Employed by companies such as RedHat, Novell, Google, IBM, Intel, etc etc.

    #

    Re: Too many geeks

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 60.234.227.74] on September 20, 2007 07:34 AM
    "It takes a long time for new tools to arrive on linux because all those coders still have to make a living while they fiddle with the code on the side and then actually agree on it."
    Now I have no idea how this popped into your mind. How long did it take MS to release Vista from XP? Oh lets see.... some 5 years. Now what is the release date for the typical GNU/Linux distro? Take Ubuntu for example every 6 months they release a new version with tons more features. Maybe MS had 3 times the amount of new features in Vista than Ubuntu gets over 6 months but it took them 5 friggen years.

    #

    Don't fork Linux because of Linus : why not?

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 66.166.120.11] on September 19, 2007 04:28 AM
    What could be SO bad about forking linux? Let the standing Linux go commercial as it seems to tend , with Linus's blessing, and let's have some of the free Operating Systems out there have a linux fork for others who already don't want to keep using proprietary software no more. Let's have a little something for everyone.

    #

    Re: Don't fork Linux because of Linus : why not?

    Posted by: Jeremy Akers on September 19, 2007 05:03 AM
    Go ahead and fork it then. ;) Joe's not saying there's anything wrong with forking in general, but the idea that we need to fork Linux because of this specific incident is stupid. This guys scheduler was NOT better, and he was barely a coder. He admitted that he wasn't that great of a coder, and even admitted that he taught himself to code in the process of writing his scheduler. Linus made the right decision by choosing the better code by the better coder. Big deal, get over it.



    The truth is, you are free to fork Linux, no-one is stopping you, please, knock yourself out. You'll soon realize just how much work maintaining a fork is, and how silly it is to do so when your fork offers no benefits over the vanilla kernel and no-one uses it because there's no point. ;)

    #

    Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 172.31.144.78] on September 19, 2007 04:43 AM
    Man-o-man ... I can't believe I'm reading this crap on Linux.com!
    Linux is and should ALWAYS be about choice. Choice of distribution, choice of desktop manager, choice of kernel
    Take a look at distrowatch.com and all the choices of wonderful distributions available. Some even designed specifically for you to create your own distribution. Its brilliant.
    Forked Kernel or not its anybodies choice if they wish to write the code and publish it.
    If you want a shiny looking desktop, go with OSX or Vista. (Personally, I think beryl is the best looking UI since the GUI was invented.) Cant settle for any 1 distro, use them all in a virtual space ... the bottom line is ITS YOUR CHOICE!

    #

    Re: Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Jeremy Akers on September 19, 2007 05:09 AM
    And I can't believe you didn't read the article. ;) I challenge you to show me where Joe says it's not about choice, or where Joe advocates less choice. Joe is simply saying that forking Linux over this silly incident is a dumb idea. If you want to do it, go ahead. But don't come back crying about how much work it is and whining that no-one uses your fork because it's really no better than the vanilla kernel. You're getting wrapped up in the -politics- of the situation, not not thinking about the code. The scheduler Linus chose was a better scheduler, written by a better programmer who has a better track record for maintaining code. Tell me why that was a bad decision, and tell me who would fork the kernel, who would maintain it, and what would be anyone's incentive to do all that extra work? Please, examine the code for the schedulers in question, and tell me why you think one would be better and why it would be worth maintaining a fork for.

    #

    Fork Linux because of the market

    Posted by: Ghodmode on September 19, 2007 06:27 AM

    I've read the long interview with Con Kolivas and the blog entry by Randall Kennedy. I don't agree with Randall's perspective, but I think the idea of forking the kernel should get some consideration.

    I am not qualified to discuss what should or should not be done in the kernel, but I have been using Linux exclusively on my own desktop for years. I have my fair share of problems and frustrations, but I could argue that they are fewer than I previously had on that other operating system. At least with Linux, I've never felt like giving up and just accepting how it works as immutable.

    The time and effort that people put into developing open source software is amazing, but people still need to pay their bills and feed their families. If a code change is proposed that would benefit performance on enterprise servers at the expense of performance on desktop computers, the developers must favor their only source of income.

    Like I said, I'm not qualified to comment on kernel development, but this decision must come up sometimes. And I wouldn't fault Linus or the other kernel developers for making it.

    The Linux desktop is a different market with a different focus. A different kernel with a different leadership would be a good thing. This wouldn't be a slight against Linus. On the contrary, it would be another accolade to say that his original creation has completely outgrown his influence.

    ——————————

    --

    -- Ghodmode

    #

    Re: Fork Linux because of the market

    Posted by: Zerias on September 19, 2007 09:03 AM
    The time and effort that people put into developing open source software is amazing, but people still need to pay their bills and feed their families. If a code change is proposed that would benefit performance on enterprise servers at the expense of performance on desktop computers, the developers must favor their only source of income.


    Performance is performance is performance. Several years ago Intel said 64bit was meaningless on the desktop and continued right on with making 32bit Pentium4 chips while AMD was pushing Athlon64 out the door. Years before that hard-drive vendors said RAID was meaningless on the desktop and finding a hardware RAID card could run into thousands of dollars... now, both Radeon Xpress and Nvidia Nforce are doing RAID on chip in motherboards under $60(US).


    The idea that changes made to increase performance in the server market is going to decrease performance on desktop computers is... ludicrous. Performance is performance is performance. Okay, granted, home computers are only now getting the ability to handle 4 threads at once in the Athlon64 Quad-Core Barcelona. Big deal. You could get Servers with 32, 64, and 128 processors. However, all of the work making the applications SMP aware for those massive systems has a direct impact on improving performance on the small systems. Users can take advantage, today, of AMD Barcelona Quad-Core, instead of waiting for software to be made SMP aware.


    There is a trickle down effect. Technology developed for the server market will eventually make it to the home market. Maybe not today, but it will get here. The work done by Evans and Sutherland on their massive R300 Based GPU boxes with 64 GPU's is coming right back and is being used in CrossFire management and setup.


    I think the idea that Server performance was hurting Desktop performance was started by Con K. What I don't know is if Con K. was out to distribute F.U.D. because he didn't get his way or if he actually thought he had a legitimate point. I personally agree with Linus. 3D gaming isn't the only performance metric out there. I care a lot about hard-drive efficiency, memory usage, and processor efficiency. I'd rather have a kernel that is built to handle any situation I can throw at it in a decent manner, than have a kernel that can handle one situation really well, while having a hard-time at others. This isn't to say I don't care about 3D performance. But, I know enough that 3D performance comes more from the graphics drivers than the kernel itself. If OpenGL is setup correctly in the drivers, the kernel itself shouldn't have that much impact on the final frame rate and response.
    [Modified by: Zerias on September 19, 2007 09:13 AM]

    #

    Re: Fork Linux because of the market

    Posted by: Jeremy Akers on September 19, 2007 04:48 PM
    I'll agree with you that IF forking the kernel was beneficial, it should be considered.



    However, it would not be beneficial. Very very very few Linux users have any problems with the current scheduler. I run Linux on machines ranging from Pentium 100Mhz, to Pentium3 800Mhz, up to Dual and Quad cores. No problems on any of those machines. Why spend twice the effort maintaining two versions of the kernel (The vanilla and the fork), when the one kernel handles any situation just fine.



    Also, if there was such a disparity with how the scheduler handled low end and high end machines, it would be A LOT EASIER to add logic to the scheduler so that it could be dynamically configured, (IE: Use sysctl to pass a parameter to change how the scheduler prioritizes tasks) than to maintain a fork of the whole kernel. The problem here is we have people who don't code, don't know how to code, and don't have a clue about what they are talking about, advocating a CODE SOLUTION. Well, is it any surprise it's wrong?



    The bottom line here is that the Linus hater trolls are trying to use this as a way to bash Linus, for something he didn't even do wrong. I don't understand why people seem to think it's their job to go around spouting hateful things about other people whom they've never met and do not even know.

    #

    Re(1): Fork Linux because of the market

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 99.243.233.242] on September 20, 2007 05:44 AM
    Yeah, tell that to Bill Gates.

    #

    Re(2): Fork Linux because of the market

    Posted by: Jeremy Akers on September 20, 2007 09:20 PM
    Tell what to Bill Gates?

    #

    Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Zerias on September 19, 2007 08:42 AM
    *gah* This was supposed to be a reply to the troll on about ReiserFS. Mis-clicked. If Joe or another admin wants to hit the trash button, this can go*
    [Modified by: Zerias on September 19, 2007 08:46 AM]

    #

    But for Linus Torvalds . . .

    Posted by: Bill on September 19, 2007 05:15 PM
    But for Linus Torvalds, no one would be discussing open source software.

    But for him, Unix still would run only on 'big-iron' and BSD would interest only academics. (GNU, of course, would have remained a flop with no kernel.)

    No one else has appeared in the open source arena with the temperament, intelligence, insight, persistence, and will necessary to allow people to believe they can rely on an open source software to do real work, now and in the future. To suggest forking Linux to escape Mr. Torvalds is vacuous.

    Bill

    #

    Kernel bloated for enterprise

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 198.151.12.8] on September 19, 2007 08:58 PM
    Can anyone provide a comment with information about how the kernel is becoming more and more bloated for enterprise?

    #

    Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 61.95.20.161] on September 20, 2007 06:34 AM
    No, I don't believe forking Linux into desktop and server would help or be practical. For starters, Linux is the heart of the computer, but has nothing to do with the interface which is where the main desktop fight is. But to fork Linux, I think would really benefit Linux, if it was forked into the different archs instead. This way we get smaller updates, and bugs won't really affect the different archs.

    #

    Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 58.110.184.19] on September 20, 2007 01:15 PM
    I'm not a kernel developer or anything, but couldn't there be a .config/menuconfig option to switch between server/workstation scheduler/modes? Or another alternative would be to pass in a server/workstation parameter when loading the kernel. This is under the assumption that one scheduler is better for one purpose than the other - which may or may not be the case.

    Windows has the ability to change this post installation - which is handy because I develop on Win2k3. Being able to give higher priority to non-background processes is neat.

    I don't have a political bone in my body - however this probably will not be the last time this type of scenario will come up. Maybe some thought could be put into how it can be dealt with better (or avoided entirely) next time.

    Like I said, I'm not a kernel developer - so my comment might not make any sense.

    Kind Regards,

    Mike Skinner

    #

    Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Joe Barr on September 21, 2007 04:01 AM
    "It's no small thing but it's only one thing which hardly makes St. Linus the patron saint of software freedom."

    That's exactly the point, he doesn't want to be. He wants his software to be free, he also wants his mind to be free of the shackles and chains of blind adherence to those who feel they are the patron saint of free software.

    #

    #

    Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 128.187.0.178] on September 22, 2007 11:46 AM
    Ok, so if we shouldn't fork Linux, what should we fork? It seems like a lot of people are dissatisfied with something, or they wouldn't be suggesting a fork. Should we try to slim down the Desktop Environments? I don't even think that's a question. I'm not a coder (yet - I do aspire to be one one day) but it would seem that the logical solution would be to slim down everything from top to bottom.

    I'm not sure how KDE 4 is going to be in this regard, but I highly doubt that it is super-efficient.

    But we should slim down everything, starting with applications. Once applications are more efficient, we can work on Tool Kits (I'm told GTK could use a lot of work, but QT seems to prefer to be left alone) and the Desktop, and get rid of the unnecessary drivers and all that, then slim down the kernel or make it more modular (major project, maybe a 3 or 4 release). It's easy to point blame at the kernel, since it's the core, but the kernel is a lot smaller than KDE or GNOME. And the entire package, plus applications, is smaller than, say, Windows Vista, and looks a lot better.

    I don't think we should resort to personal attacks (in other words - I won't do it in this post, since that's all I can do). Yes, there is quite a bit of room for improvement. No, we aren't perfect. There is no St. Linus, patron saint of software freedom, but I don't think that's what we need him to be. What we need is someone to write the program and consent to release it under a Free Software license. The political aspect shouldn't be blown out of proportion, as long as we all agree that the code does its job reasonably well, and is licensed acceptably.

    I personally believe that having a few slightly more specialized, fine-tuned kernels could be better in some cases, but a lot of it depends on how much of the OS functionality is actually in the kernel. Unfortunately, even I can tell that when I get into this area, I'm probably not talking out of my mouth. I would have to learn a lot more about the specifics of it, and, as a college student majoring in Computer Science, I intend to do so.

    I don't need to tell you to feel free to rip this apart, but it makes me feel better to do it.

    - KDC

    #

    Re: Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Jeremy Akers on September 22, 2007 10:13 PM
    We're not the one's advocating anyone fork anything, so if you think something should be forked, it's up to you to name what and why. ;)



    The root cause of the problem here is twofold: 1.) Too many people who 'think' they know what they are talking about are offering solutions to problems they don't know anything about. And most of the people offering solutions obviously don't know a thing about the kernel or the C language in general. And 2.) There are certain people who bow to RMS and obey his every command. (Remember the Borg from Star Trek? Very similiar). They are using this incident to try to portray Linus as this bad guy who treated Con horribly because he rejected his scheduler. You will notice that there are actually very few people dissatisfied with the current scheduler, and the few issues it does have should be addressed by Ingo's CFS. And so far no-one that I am aware of (Feel free to prove me wrong if you can provide a link to a reputable source) has come forward with any -technical- details showing that Con's scheduler is better than Ingo's and that Linus' decision was wrong. It has turned into a political mess and for some reason everyone has their own two cents to throw in even though they have no idea what they are talking about.



    First off: Ingo has already re-written the current scheduler with a new one called the 'Completely Fair Scheduler', or CFS for short. Linus picked Ingo's scheduler over Con's because it's a better scheduler that works well in almost all circumstances and because Ingo is a better coder who has a better track record for maintaining code after it's been accepted into the kernel.



    Then as far as slimming things down as you suggest, that's not going to happen in the way you're suggesting, because the slimmed down versions already exist. Slimmed down versions of various desktops already exist (Come on, have you even LOOKED? There are so many different desktop environments it's almost as bad as all the different distro's we have.) Slimmed down kernels already exist (They are the same kernel released from kernel.org with minor tweaks, mostly made in the .config file. The kernel actually comes with a GUI tool you can use to enable/disable features that you want or don't want. So ANYONE who understands basic computer architecture can generally tune their kernel to eliminate features they don't need.) The drivers are ALREADY modules. (Have you not used modprobe before?).



    There is no need to offer 'specialized' kernels. A little experience with C will tell you that there are ways of making one kernel handle multiple situations much better than having multiple kernels (All of which are already in use by the Linux kernel TODAY). There are pre-processor compiler directives that enable/disable chipset specific features at compile time, there is a .config file that allows you to manually enable/disable nearly any and all features of the kernel, allowing any user to fine tune their kernel as much as they like without touching any code. You just run the GUI configure tool, select or deselect the options you want and then run the make command to rebuild the kernel. Then, there is the entire sysctl system that allows certain kernel parameters and tuning to take place at RUNTIME. Why does everyone think we need to have different kernels with all this stuff hard coded when we have one kernel that is flexible enough to be tuned however we see fit, today?



    I mean, think about it. Linux runs on everything from Linksys routers, cell phones, to supercomputers. it's the same kernel people, it's just configured differently. There is no -technical- problem that would be solved by a fork. The only thing a fork would do is put someone besides Linus in charge of a second, Linux-like, kernel. As far as I'm concerned, if anyone wants that job, they should step right up and do it. Just don't be surprised when no-one uses the fork because it's no better than what Linus releases. ;)



    A little less talk and a little more action. OR: Put up or shut up. Whichever you prefer. :)

    #

    Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 89.229.67.83] on September 24, 2007 05:45 PM
    Those of you that believe in what Linus says have yet to see, that he says a lot of things and sometimes does entirely another. I don't really see Linus' interest in desktops. He uses Linux as desktop, true, doesn't mean he puts much effort in that area. Those of you that say, that his lack of interest in SMP few years ago is a proff for care for desktops mistake his lack of interest in including in kernel things that don't affect him personaly for a good will to develop better desktop. I read LMKL for years, I read every English interview with Linus and I can see that he is simply not interested in what people know and think besides few kernel fellows. So yeah, he appears cool and nice guy, but when you track back his flames with de Raadt, Tanenbaum, Colivas and others, you can see that there is a more nasty side of Linus. And more unfair.

    #

    Re: Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Joe Barr on September 24, 2007 09:46 PM
    Can you substantiate any of that at all? I've been following his words and actions for years, too, and in my experience he is nothing like you describe. Nothing at all. You've made a personal attack on the man without a shred of evidence. Two questions. Why the ad hominem, and where is the evidence for your claims? Based on your comments, I would bet ten dollars you've never actually read his debate with Tanenbaum. Why? Because it was a model in how to disagree on technical issues without sinking to the sort of personal attack you've made here.

    #

    Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 66.26.91.67] on October 13, 2007 08:37 PM
    You dont want it forked because you know it will prove that Open Source does indeed lead to forking.

    #

    Re: Don't fork Linux because of Linus

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 66.26.91.67] on October 13, 2007 08:39 PM
    Good old Joe Barr, everything a conspiracy theories from a second rate wannabe journalist. Great ending Joe. Just proves my point.

    #

    This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



     
    Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya