Linux.com

If CNN told me the sky was blue, I'd run outside to check it for myself. I haven't seen CNN make itself distinct from FOX network for about 5 years, now.

#

I saw this 'article' a few weeks ago on CNN and just laughted when I got to the part about Linus Torvalds. I just sat there stunned that not only would they think this but they would actally allow it to be content on their site. It made me wonder about some of the names on the list I didn't recognize.

It just shows you how out of touch with reality CNN has gotten. I guess the "benevolent dictator of Planet Linux" has been demoted to court jester in the eyes of CNN.

#

Linux is "the most disruptive technology of the past 100 years" ??? The CNN article is more accurate than that!

Seems to me the internet itself is less than 100 years old and without that where would Linux be?. Linux is a free clone of a very old kernel and nothing more. It would be easy to list disruptive technologies in the computer field itself that had at least as much impact. The Apple II and IBM PC for starters. Word processors, spreadsheets, web browsers, etc have revolutionized the way we learn, communicate and conduct business. GCC is arguably more disruptive than Linux as well. Though slightly more than 100 years old, the car and the light bulb were pretty disruptive. As a disruptive technology Linux is a joke.

Linus was simply in the right place at the right time. If BSD hadn't been involved in a lawsuit at the time Linux would not have succeeded and we'd be running BSD happily instead. The existance of the platform was inevitable and the kernel itself is merely a small part.

#

Oh, right. I always agree with BSD bigots. Hell, you have to. Buggers know everything.

#

I have always considered cell phones a far more disruptive technology - maybe they were going for linux based cell phones.

<a href="http://www.coarseblog.blogger.com/" title="blogger.com">me</a blogger.com>

#

I always thought the internal combustion engine was and has been the most disruptive technology. I mean look at all the blacksmiths, leather workers, horse farms that were put out of business.

#

I don't know. With all those annoying new ring tones and people who forget to turn them off during talks and so on, I think it would be hard to get much more disruptive than cell phones...

#

BSD would never have gained the mind share and user base that Linux has. Not because of anything technical. It's true that what started as a little experimental article in Computer Language by Bill Jolts became FreeBSD then NetBSD and OpenBSD. No there's a handful of other BSDs popping up. But the development model that helped make the BSDs initially technically superior is also what makes it move slow and difficult to mutate and replicate. Linux had that random and uncontrolled element that let it grow like a weed. Nothing the BSDs could do to match that.

#

Amen...Linux, BSD or any open operating system isn't even close to the most disruptive technology. Can anyone say television, cell phone, ipod etc. Who actually changed consumption patterns because of linux? Nice, interesting, good platform?...yes; disruptive?...not even close.

#

This was on slashdot on June 26, and the article is from June 22. You only read this yesterday why?

#

Why? I guess I'm a slow reader.

But it does explain why Torvalds was able to come up with such good answers to my probing questions. He's had weeks to think about it!

#

For the starters, the art is almost a month old... man, you're slow.

And when you read it, did you actually understand what it said? "It's a testament to the success of Torvalds's open-source ideas that he's on this list at all." Doesn't it say enough? It does to me. Torvalds is an icon, the fore-father, the man who started it all (well, if you don't count RMS and some others, but let's simplify it to just Linux). And now he's just a tiny-tiny part of the Linux world and 90% of Linux users couldn't care less about him. That's what the list says and I agree completely. Think about it.

PS. Yeah, I was a bit shocked to see Torvalds on the list, but it was only until I read what it was about.

#

Try wearing a "suit" for a while. realize that as long as you have to do everything, then everything depends on you, and if you break down, everything quits. Once you get systems created that keep on working even if you are not there, then you have finally arrived, your goal keeps happening whether you are there or not.

If you think about it, this is exactly the big claim of open source software -- it created a system that could keep software development happening even if the origional developer died, or his company quit working. So Linus has succeded, Linux is not going to go away, and it doesn't matter if the proverbial "truck" runs over Linus.

#

CNN sounds like any of the other newsterntainment companies on tv. They've just been in the game longer.

At the end of the day they are all seeking advertising dollars to keep the lights on in the building.

#

Neither do Fast Company or Red Herring. All fluffy biz-tech publications that try to act too-cool-for-school.

Business 2.0 is like a Dodgers fan -- show up in the 4th inning, leave in the 7th to beat the traffic, etc. The idiot talking on the cell phone in the 2nd row, telling his buddy "look at me, I'm on tv." The fan throwing a beach ball on the field, b/c the game itself isn't interesting enough.

People on staff at Business 2.0 don't actually care about I.T. -- so it's always super-fluffy, dumbed-down-for-business-crowd drivel.

eCompanyNow was pretty good (Business 2.0's predecessor), but that was a very long time ago, and whatever residual quality that might have carried over is now long past.

#

And self-important, and pretty much just plain dim. Trust me, once you leave mom and dad's basement a whole new world will open before you.

#

Torvalds gave the right answers for a bunch of stupid questions. The only question missing was "How cool do you think Linux is?"

#

I agree Torvalds gave the right answers. IMO, hje has a great sense of humor. But I take credit for the subject line of my email which asked them. It read:

Silly questions about a silly story.

#

Amen!

I find the humour in NF's "Humor" section lies more in the responses from people who just don't get it, rather than the (often quite weak) articles themselves.

#

Hey I don't know why people are ragging on this piece. A couple of things really cracked me up... The Balmer joke... priceless!

Anyway, the thing that I found disturbing was the way that they promoted Red Hat and Novell as the true shapers of Linux... What about Debian? Sure Linux has commercial support these days, but I think that the picture the quote paints of commercial control is an over-reach!

#

I think it would be more accurate to say that companies like Red Hat, and to me especially Novell, are the true PUSHERS of Linux. This means two things, firstly RedHat is pushing Linux adoption in the business sector, and second Novell is pushing ahead the development of FLOSS desktops and applications. To say that they are "shaping" Linux wouldn't really make sense, since Linux desktops are all about choice. Microsoft can shape Windows, since users can't revert Vista to be like 98, but with Free Software users can make choices like that, and package managers make it really easy (and different distros have different defaults). Novell has pushed Beagle, Compiz and countless other applications, some of which I use every day, even though I use Debian (since they are Free to be used by anybody), but if Suse or Fedora go down some wildly different path which I don't like, then I am Free to carry on how I am, so Linux has not been shaped by them at all. It is either pushed when development is done in the same direction as everyone else, or broadened/diversified when they change their direction, and both of these things are good.

#

Hey, pipe down!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) They're blissfully ignorant of the significance of Debian. Let them believe commercial interests control Linux, and when they finally realize what's really happening, it will be too late.

But yeah, good point. Some of the other commentors here need to grow a sense of humor.

#

First;The exchange with Linus is humorous indeed.

Second; I read somewhere, that if you want to know how truly bad the quality of the news you are getting is. Read any article about something you know.

That CNN could get the facts so wrong is expected, and has become their, and all of the prevaricators of main stream media's Trademark of late.

But when a respected writer from within the GNU/Linux community, not only doesn't correct CNN's plethora of errors, but actually adds more inacuracies, it's beyond belief.

At what point exactly, was Linus Torvalds involved in any of the conceptual cores (idea-stage) of either Free Software (GNU-GPL), or the Open Source Initiative (OSI). Which is essentially the Free Software concept (idea) after having been stripped of it's moral and ethical underpinnings.

If memory serves, Richard Stallman "alone" conceived of the idea of Free Software. First implementing it with the EMACS-GPL.

The Open Source Initiative's Open Source concept, was co-developed/conceived by a small group of people who successfully pared back (pragmatized) the strict ethical considerations embodied within Mr Stallmans Free Software concept so as to be more acceptable to business.
The initial Board of Directors of OSI included Ian Murdock (Secretary), Russ Nelson, Bruce Perens (Treasurer), Eric S. Raymond (President), Tim Sailer, and Chip Salzenberg.
No, you don't see Linus Torvalds on that list either. Eric Raymond and Bruce Perins are normally thought of as responsible for the core concept, but everyone on this list played important roles.

Linux the Kernel is not revolutionary technology. It is a clean-room clone of Unix/Minix. Nothing more. What is revolutionary is the GNU-GPL Free Software/Open Source licensing model/models that enabled the revolution. By assuring software coders, everywhere, that if they contributed their efforts to so licensed projects, that they could all share in the total, and that no-one such as Microsoft, could take their hard work and proprietize it. This is the core reason why Linux has overtaken BSD. The GNU GPL guarantee. Linus Torvalds had two really good ideas. 1)Cloning Unix, and 2) Choosing to license his clone under the GNU GPL.

If what I have so stated above is in truth accurate. Then there is just a wee tad of room for correction of CNN's useless ramblings. And also with your additional inacuracies, which in total, the two are at best "Revisionist Garbage!"

#

First: I thought the "exchange" with Linus was dumb, but that's not really the main point.

Second: I think the rest of your points were right on. Linus didn't invent either Free Software, or Open Source. What he did was to have the foresight to latch on to what was, at the time, a VERY new movement and release his kernel under the GPL.

However, I think you still underestimate what the Linux kernel did for GNU software. RMS had his heart set on creating a revolutionary new kernel called the HURD. The HURD really was different from pretty much anything else on the market (though its basic concepts were not really all that new from a research or experimental perspective). Unfortunately, for all of RMS's visionary brilliance, or even his skill at application development, he could never bring the kernel together. I won't even attempt to explain why the HURD never solidified. Even today, you can boot a HURD kernel on a box, and sort of run a couple of applications on it, but no one can claim that it is close to being ready for anything other than a curious experiment.

What Linus did was to provide a WORKING kernel for all those great GNU applications that other people were writing to run on top of. Since it really was an offspring of the venerable UNIX tradition, it was trivial to migrate many of the applications that had been running for years on UNIX boxes over to Linux. What this did was to build momentum. Free Software is great, but it does you nothing if you don't have a platform to run it on. Linus' "open" attitude, and GPL license quickly vaulted the Linux kernel past all the various BSD variants (with their in-fighting and elitist attitudes), and put it on track to be the number one alternative to both expensive UNIX licenses, and unreliable and expensive Windows tar-pits.

#

Linux, the most disruptive technology of the past 100 years

I haven't seen such complete crap since I last turned on Fox News. Clue for Mr Barr: humor requires a bit more than just complete nonsense.

#

>> commercial businesses like Red Hat and Novell increasingly steer its future.

That is the worrisome part for me. While these companies will maintain ( at least what is developed by community) open source, what gets into, for e.g., the kernel, will be decided by vested interests. The average person can contribute but has no decision making capability - their contribution may not even be considered for political reasons.

It seems to me that RH, IBM and increasingly Novell, are driving the kernel development and tuning it to their needs, rather than community's. The kernel is GPL but that is of not much help to those who want to use linux rather than modify it.

#