8 ms·

Linus: "Microsoft Hatred Is a Disease"

227 points by mlLK 17y ago

l0nwlf 17y ago
Nice Post : However, "There are 'extremists' in the free software world, but that's one major reason why I don't call what I do 'free software' any more. I don't want to be associated with the people for whom it's about exclusion and hatred." -> I find this quote a bit rough. Linus should not care about it. It's like you do not call yourself a hacker because media don't know the difference between hacker and cracker.
- Tarks 17y ago
  Though I agree with you for the most part, depending on how much you care it's sometimes silly to fight a de facto, I don't say I'm "hacking on a project" to someone non-technical unless I'm prepared to spend a few moments explaining my use of the word. Like calling an Add() function that you know from experience returns a product and getting annoyed at the result.
- indiejade 17y ago
  Open-source code is really only "open" to the people who know how to read it and write it and modify it. This excludes about 99.725 percent of the population. Proprietary code people are less rare. So one of the reasons I chose to modify zentu.net's tagline from a "FOSS"-oriented tagline to an "OSS"-oriented one is precisely that . . . I admire Stallman's and Torvalds' benevolences and all, but people cannot work for free. FOSS is too often misclassified (by the MS camp) as being cheap, when in actuality it is just as valuable as proprietary. Anybody who wants to can get into any code base and can contribute value; it's totally binary. So I have to agree with Torvalds here. Although I've never really "hated" Microsoft, I have felt really robbed by its lack of payment or even acknowledgment to me for all of my hours of service on their systems. It excluded the outside "people" factor from its business model, and that is why I think so many people are perturbed by it. OSS at least attempts to give individuals credit for their work.
  - Sandman 17y ago
    So one of the reasons I chose to modify zentu.net's tagline from a "FOSS"-oriented tagline to an "OSS"-oriented one is precisely that . . . I admire Stallman's and Torvalds' benevolences and all, but people cannot work for free. You do realize that "free software" doesn't necessarily mean "free of charge". As Stallman often said, when thinking of free software, think in terms of "free speech", not "free beer". You can, under GPL, charge the people for your software. As long as you give them the right to see and modify your code, that software is free.
    - loup-vaillant 17y ago
      As you said, not necessarily. More often than not, however, "free software" does mean "free of charge". You can sell support, but that's it. The reason is simple: if you try to distribute your software for a fee, someone else will do so for nothing. If nobody does, it probably means you hardly sell any copy.[1] Stallman managed to sell emacs thanks to the lack of global network (imho). One kind of software is unaffected though: custom software. You can even charge more, because the freedom you give to your client may cost you money —compared to the classic proprietary vendor lock-in. [1] Any data on this?
      - bad_user 17y ago
        > One kind of software is unaffected though: custom software. I've worked as a software consultant for years, making turn-key software and modifications to existing infrastructure and support, and all of that. The thing is ... it's not fun. If it's not your product, you don't have the time, the energy, the resources to put much love in the products you're working on. If you're working on custom software, customers only want to pay the minimal price that will get their needs solved. If it's support for an open-source software you're working on, if that software is too good, or is of no interest to companies, then you're not going to get hired. Consulting services really take the fun out of programming, that's why I'm a proponent of a mixed model ... keep your advantages proprietary, open-source the rest.
- mlLK 17y ago
  It might be a bit rough if you're looking in on the issue as an outsider, or if you've never been faced with the dilemma of how to license your product, but you should know that there is an entire spectrum of licenses that could fall under the umbrella of 'free software' i.e. BSD, MIT, and the GPL. When Linus says the 'extremists' of the free software world, I think, he's mainly refering to where the FSF is taking the GPL[v3] and what this new version proibits. For more see this post, http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white....
  - l0nwlf 17y ago
    Agreed !! Thanks for enlightening me.
- chollida1 17y ago
  Your analogy has a huge gaping hole in it. In your example your saying you wouldn't use the word hacker because it has a negative connotation for other people, while in Linus' example he's not using the phrase free software because it has a negative connotation for himself. Big and very important difference.
christopherolah 17y ago
For the most part, I agree with Linus. MS shouldn't be excluded, or hated solely because it's MS. But, that doesn't mean they should be welcomed with open arms, either. MS has done some nasty stuff to us (OOXML, FUD campaigns, patent threats, et cetera). I recognize that companies are large and fluid, but they should still be held accountable. MS has recently decreased their evil_count in my books, but they still have a long way to go... With companies I trust, I ``trust, but verify''. With MS, I ``distrust until verified.''
- redcap 17y ago
  Which is the normal job that the code gatekeepers do anyway. For any piece of code that wants to swim upstream to the main repository, it gets checked by the respective maintainers along the way. Linus trusts these people to do their job, which sounds fair enough to me.
- dtf 17y ago
  You (and plenty others) need to stop anthropomorphizing Microsoft and painting them as some kind of single sentient entity. The reason they can be unpredictable is because they're so freaking huge. Even the strategy on their own products doesn't make any sense most of the time.
  - ghshephard 17y ago
    Microsoft has a pretty consistent record of trying to leverage their strength to stay on top. Remember, there are real human beings who do this (Gates, then Ballmer) - It's not anthropomorphizing when it's a _human_ behavior we are talking about. Remember - Linus and Crew's itch is mostly about writing excellent software. Microsoft's itch is about dominating the competition, sometimes by embracing-extending-and-extinguishing standards, and sometimes by engaging in illegal monopolistic behavior: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm "412. Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest. "
teilo 17y ago
I agree with Linus, for the most part. Microsoft hatred has turned into a religion, and like any religion, it has its radicals. However, it should be pointed out that this whole incident has more to do with Microsoft being forced to comply with the GPL to avoid being sued for GPL violation. Yeah, they GPL'd code, and turned it into a PR stunt - but they're not happy about it. In other words - this incident proves that we need to continue to watch Microsoft like a hawk. Trust them like you would trust a trained tiger.
- dtf 17y ago
  All I know about this incident is that Microsoft dropped some driver code into the kernel and chose to license it as GPL (they could easily have chosen BSD instead). Why have they been "forced to comply with the GPL to avoid being sued for GPL violation"? Did I miss something? * edit: I did miss the earlier thing about them mixing GPL with a binary blob in an earlier driver. Though who would be suing them in this case? And is this different from NVIDIA's driver?
  - nailer 17y ago
    NVIDIAs Linux driver is the apparently 90% the same code as their Windows driver, making it not a derived work of the kernel as it doesn't exclusively require Linux.
spkthed 17y ago
This quote is one of my favorite Linus quotes ever. Bashing on Microsoft is such an 'in' thing to do and honestly it's so pointless. Many IT folk are stuck using their products for any of a number of reasons. Many of their products simply are the best fit for specific applications. It's so irritating to hear the constant Microsoft Sucks(tm) from people that either honestly know little about it or that bash unnecessarily. Every OS sucks, none are perfect. The biggest gripe I have with that attitude is that it destroys the FOSS, Apple, and Linux movements. People that are new to the IT world don't have years of backgrounds with projects and are going to be picking up on the attitudes of the people already there as well as struggling through technical problems. If they're instantly exposed to a very negative attitude (towards themselves, others, or really anything) it's going to be a huge turnoff to whatever project it is. The negative/hateful attitude that a lot of people have towards Microsoft actively hurts the same cause that they're trying to help. The other part of that is that with any social interaction someone that is constantly putting something down is perceived (usually rightfully so) as being insecure about their own inadequacies. I don't know about others, but Linux and Apple have both matured to the point that I'm quite comfortable quietly evangelizing and building others up, regardless of the OS choice. It's time to relax guys, we finally have an atmosphere with the freedom to pick your own OS and to be happy with it. This is a GOOD time to be a nerd, and a fantastic time to share that passion and excitement with people from whatever background. Besides, if there's someone to demonize, it's the people that don't take the time to secure their boxes. Those come from all distros/OS's and I'll gladly pass the pitchfork around for them!
- Create 17y ago
  The issue was not exclusion, nor bashing. The code has been accepted by a driver maintainer, and there were surprisingly few critical undertone mails on lkml, however legitimate (namely, adherence to the Linux coding conventions). What is not pointless is honesty, and not even Linus[1] can say, that the code drop was honest. Microsoft should have said: somebody found us in violation of the license we think is important [the licensing legalese itself, not the GPL], and this is how we fixed it. Sorry for our mistake, we do our best. This is not what happened: instead it was sold as an act of benevolence. Voleurs. You cannot blame people for hating dishonest legal persons. [1] should take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves why they are being so hypocritical.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
scscsc 17y ago
I think Linus is right in that there is a priori no reason to not accept the code. However, I think he'll change his mind once he actually sees it. If any of you had actually looked at the code, you would have seen that it's crap. Even though they removed the weird Win32 coding conventions with lots of CAPS LOCK, UINT32 #define's and stuff, the functions are large and they are simply poorly written. If you look at "native" code, it is much more clean and written in an organized fashion. The MS code looks to be written in a haste, without properly thinking about the problem being solved (in this case, the writing of a driver). That isn't to say that the code will not be useful, it could be rewritten to be obviously correct instead of it having no obvious bugs.
- jpierce420 17y ago
  Have you ever seen 'organized and cleanly written' driver code? Have you seen all the crazy #defines in the kernel itself, all the optimized bit hacks and so forth? Its running on the hardware, its low level..it has no choice but to be dirty..its the nitty gritty :P
- rbanffy 17y ago
  Is there somewhere I can download the code to take a peek into it? I also remember that coding in C++ for Windows CE was not a pleasant experience. Beauty is good and writing beautiful Windows code is next to impossible. C++ code is pretty. C++ code that runs in Windows is, most definitely, not.
StrawberryFrog 17y ago
Linus' words are spot-on as usual. But hatred of any large group of people is usually a disease.
lispm 17y ago
Microsoft is a disease. Their products are buggy, ill-designed and over-priced.
- glass66 17y ago
  I'm sorry, but I'm going to disagree with you about their products being buggy and ill-designed. Compare Microsoft Office to Open Office. My experience with Microsoft Office is that it is fast, well designed, and I've never experienced a bug while using it. Period. From the little time I've spent using Open Office, it was far slower, and had an inferior user interface. My linux friends even admit that Microsoft Office is far better than Open Office.
  - thenduks 17y ago
    IMO they are both pretty terrible.
  - lispm 17y ago
    Ever tried to write more than a few pages of text/graphics with Word? It falls over pretty soon. Yes, I do own a copy of Microsoft Office. Excel is okay. Powerpoint so so. Word is terrible. Entourage has good and bad sides - but has lots of problems when there are non-trivial amounts of data. There is no excuse for the buggyness of MS Word.
rbanffy 17y ago
Just one question: Is the code licensed under GPLv2 or "GPLv2 or subsequent versions". This question is all-important because GPLv3 has patent provisions GPLv2 lacks that can make Microsoft's threats against Linux (and FLOSS) toothless. If Microsoft licensed them under GPLv2+, it's good. If it's not, I am much more suspicious on their intentions.
lehmannro 17y ago
What happens if they reject the patchset? I could imagine an outcry of Microsoft zealots slamming the open source community because they refused to cooperate with Microsoft.
youngian 17y ago
Does anyone else find it ironic that an article about Linus saying some level-headed and pragmatic things carefully selects a quote out of context to serve as an inflammatory headline? I know you gotta have a hook, but jeez.
Akram 17y ago
Totally agree... If MS has contributed a lot to bring computer to the household...
thenduks 17y ago
Maybe I don't read enough flame wars but I feel like hatred is a bit of a strong word. I'm thoroughly unimpressed with almost all of Microsoft's software, but I really don't see the point of any 'hate'. Perhaps this is Linus' point :)

227 points by mlLK 17y ago

Nice Post : However, "There are 'extremists' in the free software world, but that's one major reason why I don't call what I do 'free software' any more. I don't want to be associated with the people for whom it's about exclusion and hatred." -> I find this quote a bit rough. Linus should not care about it. It's like you do not call yourself a hacker because media don't know the difference between hacker and cracker.

Tarks 17y ago
Though I agree with you for the most part, depending on how much you care it's sometimes silly to fight a de facto, I don't say I'm "hacking on a project" to someone non-technical unless I'm prepared to spend a few moments explaining my use of the word. Like calling an Add() function that you know from experience returns a product and getting annoyed at the result.
indiejade 17y ago
Open-source code is really only "open" to the people who know how to read it and write it and modify it. This excludes about 99.725 percent of the population. Proprietary code people are less rare. So one of the reasons I chose to modify zentu.net's tagline from a "FOSS"-oriented tagline to an "OSS"-oriented one is precisely that . . . I admire Stallman's and Torvalds' benevolences and all, but people cannot work for free. FOSS is too often misclassified (by the MS camp) as being cheap, when in actuality it is just as valuable as proprietary. Anybody who wants to can get into any code base and can contribute value; it's totally binary. So I have to agree with Torvalds here. Although I've never really "hated" Microsoft, I have felt really robbed by its lack of payment or even acknowledgment to me for all of my hours of service on their systems. It excluded the outside "people" factor from its business model, and that is why I think so many people are perturbed by it. OSS at least attempts to give individuals credit for their work.
- Sandman 17y ago
  So one of the reasons I chose to modify zentu.net's tagline from a "FOSS"-oriented tagline to an "OSS"-oriented one is precisely that . . . I admire Stallman's and Torvalds' benevolences and all, but people cannot work for free. You do realize that "free software" doesn't necessarily mean "free of charge". As Stallman often said, when thinking of free software, think in terms of "free speech", not "free beer". You can, under GPL, charge the people for your software. As long as you give them the right to see and modify your code, that software is free.
  - loup-vaillant 17y ago
    As you said, not necessarily. More often than not, however, "free software" does mean "free of charge". You can sell support, but that's it. The reason is simple: if you try to distribute your software for a fee, someone else will do so for nothing. If nobody does, it probably means you hardly sell any copy.[1] Stallman managed to sell emacs thanks to the lack of global network (imho). One kind of software is unaffected though: custom software. You can even charge more, because the freedom you give to your client may cost you money —compared to the classic proprietary vendor lock-in. [1] Any data on this?
    - bad_user 17y ago
      > One kind of software is unaffected though: custom software. I've worked as a software consultant for years, making turn-key software and modifications to existing infrastructure and support, and all of that. The thing is ... it's not fun. If it's not your product, you don't have the time, the energy, the resources to put much love in the products you're working on. If you're working on custom software, customers only want to pay the minimal price that will get their needs solved. If it's support for an open-source software you're working on, if that software is too good, or is of no interest to companies, then you're not going to get hired. Consulting services really take the fun out of programming, that's why I'm a proponent of a mixed model ... keep your advantages proprietary, open-source the rest.
mlLK 17y ago
It might be a bit rough if you're looking in on the issue as an outsider, or if you've never been faced with the dilemma of how to license your product, but you should know that there is an entire spectrum of licenses that could fall under the umbrella of 'free software' i.e. BSD, MIT, and the GPL. When Linus says the 'extremists' of the free software world, I think, he's mainly refering to where the FSF is taking the GPL[v3] and what this new version proibits. For more see this post, http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white....
- l0nwlf 17y ago
  Agreed !! Thanks for enlightening me.
chollida1 17y ago
Your analogy has a huge gaping hole in it. In your example your saying you wouldn't use the word hacker because it has a negative connotation for other people, while in Linus' example he's not using the phrase free software because it has a negative connotation for himself. Big and very important difference.

christopherolah 17y ago

For the most part, I agree with Linus. MS shouldn't be excluded, or hated solely because it's MS. But, that doesn't mean they should be welcomed with open arms, either. MS has done some nasty stuff to us (OOXML, FUD campaigns, patent threats, et cetera). I recognize that companies are large and fluid, but they should still be held accountable. MS has recently decreased their evil_count in my books, but they still have a long way to go... With companies I trust, I ``trust, but verify''. With MS, I ``distrust until verified.''

redcap 17y ago
Which is the normal job that the code gatekeepers do anyway. For any piece of code that wants to swim upstream to the main repository, it gets checked by the respective maintainers along the way. Linus trusts these people to do their job, which sounds fair enough to me.
dtf 17y ago
You (and plenty others) need to stop anthropomorphizing Microsoft and painting them as some kind of single sentient entity. The reason they can be unpredictable is because they're so freaking huge. Even the strategy on their own products doesn't make any sense most of the time.
- ghshephard 17y ago
  Microsoft has a pretty consistent record of trying to leverage their strength to stay on top. Remember, there are real human beings who do this (Gates, then Ballmer) - It's not anthropomorphizing when it's a _human_ behavior we are talking about. Remember - Linus and Crew's itch is mostly about writing excellent software. Microsoft's itch is about dominating the competition, sometimes by embracing-extending-and-extinguishing standards, and sometimes by engaging in illegal monopolistic behavior: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm "412. Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest. "

teilo 17y ago

I agree with Linus, for the most part. Microsoft hatred has turned into a religion, and like any religion, it has its radicals. However, it should be pointed out that this whole incident has more to do with Microsoft being forced to comply with the GPL to avoid being sued for GPL violation. Yeah, they GPL'd code, and turned it into a PR stunt - but they're not happy about it. In other words - this incident proves that we need to continue to watch Microsoft like a hawk. Trust them like you would trust a trained tiger.

dtf 17y ago
All I know about this incident is that Microsoft dropped some driver code into the kernel and chose to license it as GPL (they could easily have chosen BSD instead). Why have they been "forced to comply with the GPL to avoid being sued for GPL violation"? Did I miss something? * edit: I did miss the earlier thing about them mixing GPL with a binary blob in an earlier driver. Though who would be suing them in this case? And is this different from NVIDIA's driver?
- nailer 17y ago
  NVIDIAs Linux driver is the apparently 90% the same code as their Windows driver, making it not a derived work of the kernel as it doesn't exclusively require Linux.

spkthed 17y ago

This quote is one of my favorite Linus quotes ever. Bashing on Microsoft is such an 'in' thing to do and honestly it's so pointless. Many IT folk are stuck using their products for any of a number of reasons. Many of their products simply are the best fit for specific applications. It's so irritating to hear the constant Microsoft Sucks(tm) from people that either honestly know little about it or that bash unnecessarily. Every OS sucks, none are perfect. The biggest gripe I have with that attitude is that it destroys the FOSS, Apple, and Linux movements. People that are new to the IT world don't have years of backgrounds with projects and are going to be picking up on the attitudes of the people already there as well as struggling through technical problems. If they're instantly exposed to a very negative attitude (towards themselves, others, or really anything) it's going to be a huge turnoff to whatever project it is. The negative/hateful attitude that a lot of people have towards Microsoft actively hurts the same cause that they're trying to help. The other part of that is that with any social interaction someone that is constantly putting something down is perceived (usually rightfully so) as being insecure about their own inadequacies. I don't know about others, but Linux and Apple have both matured to the point that I'm quite comfortable quietly evangelizing and building others up, regardless of the OS choice. It's time to relax guys, we finally have an atmosphere with the freedom to pick your own OS and to be happy with it. This is a GOOD time to be a nerd, and a fantastic time to share that passion and excitement with people from whatever background. Besides, if there's someone to demonize, it's the people that don't take the time to secure their boxes. Those come from all distros/OS's and I'll gladly pass the pitchfork around for them!

Create 17y ago
The issue was not exclusion, nor bashing. The code has been accepted by a driver maintainer, and there were surprisingly few critical undertone mails on lkml, however legitimate (namely, adherence to the Linux coding conventions). What is not pointless is honesty, and not even Linus[1] can say, that the code drop was honest. Microsoft should have said: somebody found us in violation of the license we think is important [the licensing legalese itself, not the GPL], and this is how we fixed it. Sorry for our mistake, we do our best. This is not what happened: instead it was sold as an act of benevolence. Voleurs. You cannot blame people for hating dishonest legal persons. [1] should take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves why they are being so hypocritical.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

scscsc 17y ago

I think Linus is right in that there is a priori no reason to not accept the code. However, I think he'll change his mind once he actually sees it. If any of you had actually looked at the code, you would have seen that it's crap. Even though they removed the weird Win32 coding conventions with lots of CAPS LOCK, UINT32 #define's and stuff, the functions are large and they are simply poorly written. If you look at "native" code, it is much more clean and written in an organized fashion. The MS code looks to be written in a haste, without properly thinking about the problem being solved (in this case, the writing of a driver). That isn't to say that the code will not be useful, it could be rewritten to be obviously correct instead of it having no obvious bugs.

jpierce420 17y ago
Have you ever seen 'organized and cleanly written' driver code? Have you seen all the crazy #defines in the kernel itself, all the optimized bit hacks and so forth? Its running on the hardware, its low level..it has no choice but to be dirty..its the nitty gritty :P
rbanffy 17y ago
Is there somewhere I can download the code to take a peek into it? I also remember that coding in C++ for Windows CE was not a pleasant experience. Beauty is good and writing beautiful Windows code is next to impossible. C++ code is pretty. C++ code that runs in Windows is, most definitely, not.

StrawberryFrog 17y ago

Linus' words are spot-on as usual. But hatred of any large group of people is usually a disease.

lispm 17y ago

Microsoft is a disease. Their products are buggy, ill-designed and over-priced.

glass66 17y ago
I'm sorry, but I'm going to disagree with you about their products being buggy and ill-designed. Compare Microsoft Office to Open Office. My experience with Microsoft Office is that it is fast, well designed, and I've never experienced a bug while using it. Period. From the little time I've spent using Open Office, it was far slower, and had an inferior user interface. My linux friends even admit that Microsoft Office is far better than Open Office.
- thenduks 17y ago
  IMO they are both pretty terrible.
- lispm 17y ago
  Ever tried to write more than a few pages of text/graphics with Word? It falls over pretty soon. Yes, I do own a copy of Microsoft Office. Excel is okay. Powerpoint so so. Word is terrible. Entourage has good and bad sides - but has lots of problems when there are non-trivial amounts of data. There is no excuse for the buggyness of MS Word.

rbanffy 17y ago

Just one question: Is the code licensed under GPLv2 or "GPLv2 or subsequent versions". This question is all-important because GPLv3 has patent provisions GPLv2 lacks that can make Microsoft's threats against Linux (and FLOSS) toothless. If Microsoft licensed them under GPLv2+, it's good. If it's not, I am much more suspicious on their intentions.

lehmannro 17y ago

What happens if they reject the patchset? I could imagine an outcry of Microsoft zealots slamming the open source community because they refused to cooperate with Microsoft.

youngian 17y ago

Does anyone else find it ironic that an article about Linus saying some level-headed and pragmatic things carefully selects a quote out of context to serve as an inflammatory headline? I know you gotta have a hook, but jeez.

Akram 17y ago

Totally agree... If MS has contributed a lot to bring computer to the household...

thenduks 17y ago

Maybe I don't read enough flame wars but I feel like hatred is a bit of a strong word. I'm thoroughly unimpressed with almost all of Microsoft's software, but I really don't see the point of any 'hate'. Perhaps this is Linus' point :)