4 ms·

I disagree with you here, and I think you've understood his answer differently than I have. To me, it seems that Linus is talking about this "one large idea," i

I disagree with you here, and I think you've understood his answer differently than I have. To me, it seems that Linus is talking about this "one large idea," it's an ideology that's set a priori. In the case of Newton, he was observing physics, and then created a model around what he observed. He invented calculus to solve a problem. He wasn't trying to espouse an ideology--he was simply trying to understand the world around him. He happened to be brilliant, so he ended up doing a lot of seminal work. To Linus's point, "reality is complicated." Complex things cannot be abstracted away into incredibly simple things. At some point, you need to solve the complex problem. Regardless of where that problem may be. And that's what I took away from his answer. I honestly don't understand why you brought up Newton and physics as an antithesis of this idea. Physics (and microprocessors) are immensely complex things that have not been simplified as time has gone on. We've built upon works of our past and improved our understanding and abilities, but it's still remarkably complex.

wissler 14y ago
I would agree with Linus that we should not have an a priori ideology, but I think his argument carves off quite a bit more than that, he's against unified architectures per se, not only ones derived a priori.
derleth 14y ago
> At some point, you need to solve the complex problem. This is a good point that I see ignored many, many times by people trying to push a simple system. One of the worst examples are the people who think files are bad, and that all state needs to be preserved all the time. They claim that the problem of determining what to save is not worth solving because it doesn't exist in their systems. Needless to say, they are wrong. I will not redesign my workflow to fit their tools, and they're amazingly presumptuous to even consider asking anyone to. Just because they cannot solve a problem doesn't mean it isn't actually a problem, and the fact they consider differences of opinions to be technical problems is diagnostic of their whole worldview.

wissler 14y ago

I would agree with Linus that we should not have an a priori ideology, but I think his argument carves off quite a bit more than that, he's against unified architectures per se, not only ones derived a priori.

derleth 14y ago

> At some point, you need to solve the complex problem. This is a good point that I see ignored many, many times by people trying to push a simple system. One of the worst examples are the people who think files are bad, and that all state needs to be preserved all the time. They claim that the problem of determining what to save is not worth solving because it doesn't exist in their systems. Needless to say, they are wrong. I will not redesign my workflow to fit their tools, and they're amazingly presumptuous to even consider asking anyone to. Just because they cannot solve a problem doesn't mean it isn't actually a problem, and the fact they consider differences of opinions to be technical problems is diagnostic of their whole worldview.