7 ms·

DebConf 2014's QA with Linus Torvalds [video]

109 points by caio1982 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
_RPM 12y ago
The man at 18.00 minutes with the question about the mailing list tone. He kind of called Mr. Torvalds out on the way he talks to people on the mailing list. What grounds does he have to say something like that to Torvalds?
- meddlepal 12y ago
  Why not? First, I thought the response was perfectly reasonable, but second, I think the way Linus behaves publicly entitles any person with or without credentials to legitimately question if that is the best approach. Linus, by making his criticisms both public and humiliating at times must expect to be criticized by anyone, especially someone willing to come out from behind a keyboard and ask him in person!
  - blutoot 12y ago
    The fact that Linus didn't take offense to the criticism of his abrasive nature shows that he expects it to be a two-way street. He really does have a thick skin.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      Or maybe he senses the hypocrisy of complaining about the same sort of treatment he dishes out. I think he's too smart to make that mistake.
      - Crito 12y ago
        Is it really so hard to believe that a man who is abrasive has no problem dealing with other people who are abrasive? There do exist different cultural attitudes and standards for abrasiveness, tact, manners, and respect. The standards currently used in corporate America are not universal; some people have stronger standards, others have looser.
        lutusp 12y ago
        > Is it really so hard to believe that a man who is abrasive has no problem dealing with other people who are abrasive? That would be a classic symptom of narcissism. I'm not saying Linus is a narcissist, if anything I'm saying the opposite -- if he accepts the same treatment from others that he puts out, that argues against narcissism. Now Steve Jobs, on the other hand ... I couldn't stand working with Steve because of his obvious and unbearable narcissism. He is why I never worked directly at Apple for more than a few weeks during many years of professional association on a number of software projects.
    - dan00 12y ago
      Linus told a story about a guy, that wrote something for the kernel and Linus thought in the first place that it was more or less bullshit, but didn't told it directly to the guy, so when the guy was finished and wanted to get his stuff merged, Linus had to tell him that he will never merge this. I don't know how mucher later, but this guy killed himself afterwards. Linus told that he doesn't feel guilty about this or thinks that he was the main cause for the killing, but well, I don't think that such an experience has no effect on your behaviour, but I can't tell if Linus' behaviour was different before this event. I think that Linus told this story in the talk where he showed nvidia the finger.
      - conistonwater 12y ago
        This is the part of that talk, I believe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShbP3OpASA#t=2111 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShbP3OpASA#t=2111 I actually find his reasons quite convincing, I think he's got a point.
        buovjaga 12y ago
        He said the developer's friends told him "he is suicidal", not that he killed himself.
        dan00 12y ago
        Oh, thanks, I just heard it again and yes, Linus says "suicidal", at the time I might just heard "suicided".
      - dan00 12y ago
        Like buovjaga rightly points out, Linus says "suicidal" and not "suicided". Sorry for that, I seem to have misheard it.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  A kid? I didn't see a kid. I saw man. Yeah he called Señor Torvalds out and so what? (using "Señor" here because you used "Mr." vs "a kid"). > What grounds does he have to say something like that to Torvalds? An open Q/A forum? Are those good enough grounds? Ok now you tell us why do you think he should not be able to ask that question?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- rodgerd 12y ago
  So free software's a meritocracy where ideas matter until someone asks Linus a question you don't like?
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  Live by the sword, die by the sword.
shaurz 12y ago
Loved his rant on glibc, etc. breaking stuff. I've been saying this myself for years. Really static linking is the only way to make a binary for Linux that will work on any distribution.
- kev009 12y ago
  It's interesting that a lot of this isn't a problem in FreeBSD due to the Base system and ABI guarantees. FreeBSD Ports also averts many of the grumblings about distro packaging.
  - asuffield 12y ago
    Having worked with FreeBSD before in a Real Product, I'd have to say that the main reason FreeBSD doesn't have a problem with this is because most of it hasn't changed since the 1980s. Not even because it's particularly good, but just because nobody wants to work on large tracts of the codebase. The normal feeling is "bwah, this is complicated and ugly. I'll just leave it alone..."
- fosap 12y ago
  I'm not sure, but doesn't the opensuse build service tries to solve these problems? I haven't used it, but I think i slurps source code and builds packages for multiple distributions. And I absolutely agree with Linus view on linking. I just tried to install ffmpeg on opensuse on a desktop pc. All I wanted was one statically linked binary. I had to dig a wiki, follow outdated build instructions (not nearly enough dependencies where listed, I had to go back several times, configure runs like 20 minutes), it took hours. For one simple binary. FFmpeg could put on their homepage.
  - rodgerd 12y ago
    Build services are great if you have the source to everything. But the reality is I've got software I paid for on Linux that doesn't run on a modern distro after a decade, and software I paid for on Windows that's 15 years old and runs fine.
  - 12y ago
blutoot 12y ago
I am really heartened by his push for consumer-facing simplicity of the OS which, by his account, the distros have not helped in achieving. I didn't expect that from him given that he operates at a much fundamental level of computing. But his example with his kids' connectivity issues tells me that even the nerdiest person starts appreciating the value of simplicity when they start facing use cases that demand it.
banachtarski 12y ago
I wish the deb and ubuntu package maintainers would take note. I avoid those packages like the plague.
rando289 12y ago
I think his view that the most important part of the license is that it makes the software better is shortsighted. If linux gets used in 95% of all capable hardware everywhere, but it's all on locked down hardware by a few companies, what is the point of being open source? Effectively, it's proprietary software which is co-owned by a group of corporations, and the open source is primarily a training program for future employees and phds. Users being able to choose what software they want to run on their devices does matter. Well, he did say it was a fine license (if you care about that). Also, I don't think he gives enough credit to fsf, as almost all other free/open source licenses automatically and always allow later versions, but gpl doesn't. Creative commons is one big example.
- avar 12y ago
  He doesn't have a problem with the GPLv2 allowing later versions, that's completely reasonable. His problem was that with the GPLv3 they changed the spirit of the license. He thinks a license "upgrade" shouldn't have done that, they should have just released a new license instead. I.e. previously the agreement was "here's my code, if you change it send me the changes", now in addition to that it includes clauses about what you can do with the hardware you run it on. I also don't want a future where all you can buy are locked-down devices, but is the GPL really the right venue to fight that battle? If companies want locked-down hardware they're just going to do lock it down anyway, and just use e.g. FreeBSD instead of Linux and contribute none of their code changes back. Isn't it better that they release locked-down hardware but contribute their code changes, so that if someone wants to make competing open hardware they can start with all the same driver & feature support in Linux?
  - rando289 12y ago
    I believe the spirit of the license was not changed. The spirit was spelled out by fsf and rms very well in things like the free software definition, and faqs about the purpose of the license etc. Not disallowing tivoization was an oversight in the legal code which needed to be corrected for the spirit to remain what it had been. Linus thinks the spirit was in the exact legal code. That is more like "the letter of the license", not the spirit. > I also don't want a future where all you can buy are locked-down devices, but is the GPL really the right venue to fight that battle? Is it legal for software to defraud people, to act explicitly for ransom/extortion, or purposely kill people by stopping their medical devices? No. If it was, and it was happening a lot, I bet a copyright license that had something to say about that would be popular. Consumer owned devices which attempt to force people to use specific software for no technical reason, just so they can make more profit from the user, should be illegal outside of any copyright license. Until that happens, then yes gpl is one of the right venues. > Isn't it better that they release locked-down hardware but contribute their code changes, so that if someone wants to make competing open hardware they can start with all the same driver & feature support in Linux? Ya, right now it's that way, especially since they don't do a good job of locking things down and you can circumvent it on most phones. But it's not at all certain it will stay that way.

109 points by caio1982 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

_RPM 12y ago

The man at 18.00 minutes with the question about the mailing list tone. He kind of called Mr. Torvalds out on the way he talks to people on the mailing list. What grounds does he have to say something like that to Torvalds?

meddlepal 12y ago
Why not? First, I thought the response was perfectly reasonable, but second, I think the way Linus behaves publicly entitles any person with or without credentials to legitimately question if that is the best approach. Linus, by making his criticisms both public and humiliating at times must expect to be criticized by anyone, especially someone willing to come out from behind a keyboard and ask him in person!
- blutoot 12y ago
  The fact that Linus didn't take offense to the criticism of his abrasive nature shows that he expects it to be a two-way street. He really does have a thick skin.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    Or maybe he senses the hypocrisy of complaining about the same sort of treatment he dishes out. I think he's too smart to make that mistake.
    - Crito 12y ago
      Is it really so hard to believe that a man who is abrasive has no problem dealing with other people who are abrasive? There do exist different cultural attitudes and standards for abrasiveness, tact, manners, and respect. The standards currently used in corporate America are not universal; some people have stronger standards, others have looser.
      - lutusp 12y ago
        > Is it really so hard to believe that a man who is abrasive has no problem dealing with other people who are abrasive? That would be a classic symptom of narcissism. I'm not saying Linus is a narcissist, if anything I'm saying the opposite -- if he accepts the same treatment from others that he puts out, that argues against narcissism. Now Steve Jobs, on the other hand ... I couldn't stand working with Steve because of his obvious and unbearable narcissism. He is why I never worked directly at Apple for more than a few weeks during many years of professional association on a number of software projects.
  - dan00 12y ago
    Linus told a story about a guy, that wrote something for the kernel and Linus thought in the first place that it was more or less bullshit, but didn't told it directly to the guy, so when the guy was finished and wanted to get his stuff merged, Linus had to tell him that he will never merge this. I don't know how mucher later, but this guy killed himself afterwards. Linus told that he doesn't feel guilty about this or thinks that he was the main cause for the killing, but well, I don't think that such an experience has no effect on your behaviour, but I can't tell if Linus' behaviour was different before this event. I think that Linus told this story in the talk where he showed nvidia the finger.
    - conistonwater 12y ago
      This is the part of that talk, I believe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShbP3OpASA#t=2111 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShbP3OpASA#t=2111 I actually find his reasons quite convincing, I think he's got a point.
      - buovjaga 12y ago
        He said the developer's friends told him "he is suicidal", not that he killed himself.
        dan00 12y ago
        Oh, thanks, I just heard it again and yes, Linus says "suicidal", at the time I might just heard "suicided".
    - dan00 12y ago
      Like buovjaga rightly points out, Linus says "suicidal" and not "suicided". Sorry for that, I seem to have misheard it.
rdtsc 12y ago
A kid? I didn't see a kid. I saw man. Yeah he called Señor Torvalds out and so what? (using "Señor" here because you used "Mr." vs "a kid"). > What grounds does he have to say something like that to Torvalds? An open Q/A forum? Are those good enough grounds? Ok now you tell us why do you think he should not be able to ask that question?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rodgerd 12y ago
So free software's a meritocracy where ideas matter until someone asks Linus a question you don't like?
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
Live by the sword, die by the sword.

shaurz 12y ago

Loved his rant on glibc, etc. breaking stuff. I've been saying this myself for years. Really static linking is the only way to make a binary for Linux that will work on any distribution.

kev009 12y ago
It's interesting that a lot of this isn't a problem in FreeBSD due to the Base system and ABI guarantees. FreeBSD Ports also averts many of the grumblings about distro packaging.
- asuffield 12y ago
  Having worked with FreeBSD before in a Real Product, I'd have to say that the main reason FreeBSD doesn't have a problem with this is because most of it hasn't changed since the 1980s. Not even because it's particularly good, but just because nobody wants to work on large tracts of the codebase. The normal feeling is "bwah, this is complicated and ugly. I'll just leave it alone..."
fosap 12y ago
I'm not sure, but doesn't the opensuse build service tries to solve these problems? I haven't used it, but I think i slurps source code and builds packages for multiple distributions. And I absolutely agree with Linus view on linking. I just tried to install ffmpeg on opensuse on a desktop pc. All I wanted was one statically linked binary. I had to dig a wiki, follow outdated build instructions (not nearly enough dependencies where listed, I had to go back several times, configure runs like 20 minutes), it took hours. For one simple binary. FFmpeg could put on their homepage.
- rodgerd 12y ago
  Build services are great if you have the source to everything. But the reality is I've got software I paid for on Linux that doesn't run on a modern distro after a decade, and software I paid for on Windows that's 15 years old and runs fine.
- 12y ago

blutoot 12y ago

I am really heartened by his push for consumer-facing simplicity of the OS which, by his account, the distros have not helped in achieving. I didn't expect that from him given that he operates at a much fundamental level of computing. But his example with his kids' connectivity issues tells me that even the nerdiest person starts appreciating the value of simplicity when they start facing use cases that demand it.

banachtarski 12y ago

I wish the deb and ubuntu package maintainers would take note. I avoid those packages like the plague.

rando289 12y ago

I think his view that the most important part of the license is that it makes the software better is shortsighted. If linux gets used in 95% of all capable hardware everywhere, but it's all on locked down hardware by a few companies, what is the point of being open source? Effectively, it's proprietary software which is co-owned by a group of corporations, and the open source is primarily a training program for future employees and phds. Users being able to choose what software they want to run on their devices does matter. Well, he did say it was a fine license (if you care about that). Also, I don't think he gives enough credit to fsf, as almost all other free/open source licenses automatically and always allow later versions, but gpl doesn't. Creative commons is one big example.

avar 12y ago
He doesn't have a problem with the GPLv2 allowing later versions, that's completely reasonable. His problem was that with the GPLv3 they changed the spirit of the license. He thinks a license "upgrade" shouldn't have done that, they should have just released a new license instead. I.e. previously the agreement was "here's my code, if you change it send me the changes", now in addition to that it includes clauses about what you can do with the hardware you run it on. I also don't want a future where all you can buy are locked-down devices, but is the GPL really the right venue to fight that battle? If companies want locked-down hardware they're just going to do lock it down anyway, and just use e.g. FreeBSD instead of Linux and contribute none of their code changes back. Isn't it better that they release locked-down hardware but contribute their code changes, so that if someone wants to make competing open hardware they can start with all the same driver & feature support in Linux?
- rando289 12y ago
  I believe the spirit of the license was not changed. The spirit was spelled out by fsf and rms very well in things like the free software definition, and faqs about the purpose of the license etc. Not disallowing tivoization was an oversight in the legal code which needed to be corrected for the spirit to remain what it had been. Linus thinks the spirit was in the exact legal code. That is more like "the letter of the license", not the spirit. > I also don't want a future where all you can buy are locked-down devices, but is the GPL really the right venue to fight that battle? Is it legal for software to defraud people, to act explicitly for ransom/extortion, or purposely kill people by stopping their medical devices? No. If it was, and it was happening a lot, I bet a copyright license that had something to say about that would be popular. Consumer owned devices which attempt to force people to use specific software for no technical reason, just so they can make more profit from the user, should be illegal outside of any copyright license. Until that happens, then yes gpl is one of the right venues. > Isn't it better that they release locked-down hardware but contribute their code changes, so that if someone wants to make competing open hardware they can start with all the same driver & feature support in Linux? Ya, right now it's that way, especially since they don't do a good job of locking things down and you can circumvent it on most phones. But it's not at all certain it will stay that way.