Linux.com

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.

#

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

#

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.

#

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.

#

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?

#

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.

#

Yup! I totally agreed. One kernel to rule them All !!

#

Ya.. I totally agree..

#

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.

#

I think you should go, Linus should stay.

#

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.

#

What about Theo?

*ducks*

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

#

just go and don't come back

#

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.

#

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. :-)

#

Wow. After that infantile display of intellect, *please* go and don't come back.

#

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.

#

Who would want his participation in their project? Not me.

#

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

#

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.

#

Yeah and Linux is nooootthing compared to the bsd camp in its arrogance.

#

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.

#

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

#

Oh, I probably know your reason: no life and a small penis.

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

#

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?

#

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.

#

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.

#

bye

#

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.

#

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.

#

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...

#

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. ;)

#

The rag's a tout, the editors all have bad habits learned from vendors that don't play well here.

#

>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.

#

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?

#

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.

#

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.

#

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.

#

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!

#

"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!!! ;)

#

Well said Joe, well said.

#

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.

#

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?

#

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.

#

"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.

#

"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.

#

"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.

#

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.

#

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.

#

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.

#

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.

#

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.

#

And what have you done that trumps what he has?

#

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 start launching a few programs one after the other? Or if on opensuse the updater program runs in background, it kills audio playback

#

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?

#

So you'd rather have the status-quo? Thats just doing an ostrich impression with your head in the sand.

#

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.

#

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*

#

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.

#

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

#

"By the way Joe, youre fat and you are an idiot."

Thanks, Lyle.

#

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.

#

I did. And nobody has replied to me.

#

"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.

#

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

#

Why would Randall Kennedy say "Thanks, Lyle" to me? I'm sorry, your argument just makes no sense.

#

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?

#

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?

#

"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. Ba