Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 1st Oct 2005 16:22 UTC
Linux "No matter what strides the new generation of open-source companies make, they all owe a big debt to Torvalds. In 1991 the Finnish programmer started Linux as a project at the University of Helsinki. Fourteen years later the reverberations are still being felt." In this email interview Torvalds discusses his thoughts on where open source is heading and the challenges the Linux community faces.
Order by: Score:
And baby makes three.
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 16:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Man! Am I the only one who saw the headline and though "Torvalds had a kid?" Looks like the kernel will have a maintainer for another generation.

Reply Score: 0

RE: And baby makes three.
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 00:21 UTC in reply to "And baby makes three."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes, you are the only one....

Reply Score: 0

kid
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 16:42 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

You're in luck:
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/torvalds/
Patricia Miranda Torvalds. Probably a lot older now than when those pictures were taken.

Reply Score: 0

RE: kid
by DigitalAxis on Sat 1st Oct 2005 16:45 UTC in reply to "kid"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Ok, according to the article he has THREE daughters.

Reply Score: 1

v oooh!
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 17:34 UTC
RE: oooh!
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 17:56 UTC in reply to "oooh!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes, the press ignores that Linux is only a kernel. Yes, they ignores that GNU hat anything to do with the hole thing (bash, gcc, you name it). Yes, they ignore that the *BSDs exist or fur that mater HURD, Minix or any other FOSS kernel that could do and could have done the job just as good as Linux. And, last but not least, they ignore that all the FOSS software that runs on Linux was written by thousands of hackers that are just as talented as Linux is.

But hey, things came the way they did and Linux is the main FOSS kernel and Linus is its maintainer. Thatís a big job, no mater if it was a fluke that put him in that position and he dose have the right attitude for it; itís not the kernel that is important for end users and the only measure of improvement is what you had before. The Linux kernel is a good product and it improves for its users faster then any other FOSS kernel out there. Give it a few years and even you will have to own up to it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: oooh!
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE: oooh!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Please, please, don't bring up Hurd... it's just an embarrassment to GNU.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: oooh!
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE: oooh!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

@ Anonymous (IP: 84.146.208.---)

Yes, the press ignores that Linux is only a kernel.

Well, most people do. But most Linux systems are based on GNU tools so perhaps that's the reason why GNU isn't mentioned? Personally I'm trying to remember calling it GNU/Linux but not when I'm talking with other geeks. Then it's just linux because it's shorter.

Yes, they ignore that the *BSDs exist or fur that mater HURD, Minix or any other FOSS kernel that could do and could have done the job just as good as Linux.

*LOL* The Minix kernel is second to anything. It's not useful as a desktop or server system. It's nothing but a learning system, and is far away from being useful for most people. The Linux kernel, and the *BSD kernel are lightyears ahead of Minix.

The Linux kernel is better than *BSD kernel in some areas and vice versa. Use whatever pleases you.

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

RE: oooh!
by Anonymous Penguin on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 06:39 UTC in reply to "oooh!"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Almost every time there is a linux thread, some smart a... must tell us that (Free)BSD is better.

And the question is always the same: why has FreeBSD only a tiny fraction of the number of Linux users, why is not supported by big companies...

Maybe if you BSD users/developers started making BSDs more user friendly, writing more drivers...instead of trolling, the situation could change and I for one would be very happy to use BSDs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: oooh!
by butters on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 07:19 UTC in reply to "RE: oooh!"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

"Almost every time there is a linux thread, some smart a... must tell us that (Free)BSD is better.

And the question is always the same: why has FreeBSD only a tiny fraction of the number of Linux users, why is not supported by big companies..."

I've been thinking about that for years, and I think I have a viable answer: Red Hat.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: oooh!
by Anonymous Penguin on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 07:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: oooh!"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

So you seriously believe that IBM, Dell...let themselves "blackmail" (or whatever you want to call it) by Red Hat?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: oooh!
by butters on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 08:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: oooh!"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

"So you seriously believe that IBM, Dell...let themselves "blackmail" (or whatever you want to call it) by Red Hat?"

No, I believe (although not too seriously) that if Red Hat would have created a BSD-based OS instead of a Linux OS, then BSD would be more popular than Linux today. There was no blackmail, it was a matter of commercialization and marketing. Red Hat was the first commerical entity to realize the potential of OSS. They chose Linux. The first open source operating system I used was Red Hat 6.2, which came on a CD included with a book I bought at a computer retail store. There was no book there that included FreeBSD.

If there was no Red Hat, perhaps I would have never heard of Debian or Slackware. Perhaps there would have been a FreeBSD install CD at the computer retailer.

All of this massively predates any Linux committment put forth by IBM, Dell, Novell, Sun, Netscape, etc. Red Hat was first. They chose Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: oooh!
by Anonymous Penguin on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 08:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: oooh!"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, a bit too many ifs and buts.

I believe (but I am not sure) that Debian and Slackware came before Red Hat.

It is a bit like wondering why Apple, with their hardware and software so much better than Microsoft, lost so badly.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: oooh!
by butters on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 09:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: oooh!"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

"Well, a bit too many ifs and buts."

2 ifs, 0 buts. You asked why is, and I answered because if. That's how rhetoric works.

"I believe (but I am not sure) that Debian and Slackware came before Red Hat."

Slackware came before Red Hat. Debian and Red Hat both started in 1993 and first released in 1994. But would anyone be talking about Slack and Debian today if not for Red Hat? Would there be a "Linux and Open Source" category on Eweek? Would GNOME exist?

"It is a bit like wondering why Apple, with their hardware and software so much better than Microsoft, lost so badly."

Sure, let's repeat the exercise. You ask why is Microsoft much more popular than Apple. Because IBM was the first company to stumble upon the power of cheap, commodity home computers, primarily through Compaq's IBM-compatible clones. IBM chose Microsoft. If Apple had let Compaq make Macintosh clones, then Apple would be more popular than Microsoft today.

The thing about history is that you can't derive the impact of a single change of events. The best you can do is present a viable conclusion. If you don't like because if, then don't ask why is.

I just think this is a more viable conclusion than the BSDI/AT&T lawsuit, the GPL, or especially the "hype."

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: oooh!
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 11:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: oooh!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Don't know about about Debian, but Slackware did came before Red Hat. It's not a matter of Red Hat choosing Linux instead of BSD. It's a matter of people and corporations choosing what's easier. Period. That's one of the reasons that made crappy MS-DOS so popular in the past (besides of running on cheap hardware), and that's what makes Linux popular today when we all know FreeBSD makes a far superior server in almost all cases. People are dumb and want what's easier.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: oooh!
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 11:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: oooh!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

FreeBSD is not far more superior. It has certain strengths and certain drawbacks as well as all other OS'es.

The same goes also for the Linux-kernel and the many GNU/Linux distributions.

Several tests in "Alt Om Data" (sort of: Everything About Data) shows that FreeBSD has a (much) weaker scheduling than Redhat Linux Enterprise, but also performs (slightly) better in regard to network transactions. I believe the best OS for you depends on what your needs are ;)

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: oooh!
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 12:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: oooh!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

> And the question is always the same: why has FreeBSD only a tiny fraction of the number of Linux users, why is not supported by big companies..."

"I've been thinking about that for years, and I think I have a viable answer: Red Hat."

You all seem to be forgetting one thing. The nature of the BSD license means that any BSD user doesn't have to have any kind of indicators that they are indeed using BSD. The downside of doing one's job well.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: oooh!
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 13:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: oooh!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

You all seem to be forgetting one thing. The nature of the BSD license means that any BSD user doesn't have to have any kind of indicators that they are indeed using BSD. The downside of doing one's job well.

There's nothing stopping someone from pulling an Apple with the Linux kernel.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: oooh!
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE: oooh!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

And the question is always the same: why has FreeBSD only a tiny fraction of the number of Linux users, why is not supported by big companies...

I could mention a rude saying, though that would just add fuel to the fire.

Overall, the question about what is 'better' in the unix world is irrelevant; Linux is unix is FreeBSD is Solaris is unix is ... . OK, not spot on identical, though close enough to be flavors of icecream; don't blow a brain cell complaining about the details when the details usually do not matter one bit.

If someone pushes for one flavor over another, it's a preference most of the time and not a requirement.

That said, you don't want to serve pistachio to someone who is allergic to nuts -- that's where diversity comes in. Anything else is just silly.

Reply Score: 0

RE: oooh!
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 11:33 UTC in reply to "oooh!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

*LOL*

FreeBSD isn't better, nor is it worse.

In regard to distribution this is not different than with GNU/Linux systems.

There are already a few FreeBSD's distro's, which don't talk that much with each other.

The *BSD's have some strengths and some weaknesses and so does the GNU/Linux systems.

Reply Score: 0

Linux is no spring chicken
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 17:45 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

And the "linux" desktop never took off for various reasons, mainly because there's never been a "linux desktop". There's just desktops that happen to run on linux.

Torvalds talks about 5-10 years for the linux desktop to be "significant". Sorry, XFree86 has been ported to Linux since '92 or so and just because something is open source doesn't mean it doesn't have to play the market rules. It played the market rules on the server side and became significant.

Open Source is its own worst enemy when it comes to making significant inroads into the desktop. The fact that you have a million distros and random desktop environments that happen to run on linux has hurt and will always hurt linux on the desktop.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Linux is no spring chicken
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 21:58 UTC in reply to "Linux is no spring chicken"
Anonymous Member since:
---

There's just desktops that happen to run on linux.

And that's "Linux Desktop".

Desktop on Linux is a desktop running on Linux.
And it took off some years ago, and it keeps flying higher and higher.

The interview didn't really come up with something special, but nice to see someone actually keep his feet on the ground ;)

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

I'll quote the relevant part of the interview for your convenience:

Q: What about Linux on the desktop? Why hasn't it taken off?
Linus: Oh, it has absolutely taken off, but some people seem to think that "take off" means that suddenly everybody is running it. That's clearly not true. It's a very slow conversion. There are more people running it this year than there were last year, and it all looks and works a bit better all the time. But did everybody suddenly convert? No. It's one step at a time.


People are switching to Linux everywhere. But it just won't happen overnight. It might take 5 or 10 years before Linux becomes the dominant desktop OS. But it's happening, no doubt about it. It's inevitable.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Geeks are usually right ;) .. that's why we are called geeks ;)

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

Adam A Member since:
2005-07-07

This is not Slashdot.

Just because you say stuff that you hope to be true, dosn't make it true or even feasible.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, the linux desktop has taken off.

It's flying (not so high as I would like) but it's flying.

Just because you don't like knowledge doesn't mean knowledge isn't good ;)

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

No, you're wishful thinking doesn't translate to reality.

Once you wake up to the real world where the vast majority of people are non-geeks then you'll better be able to cope in it.

Reply Score: 0

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I don't really care what reality you live in.

The Linux Desktop HAS taken off, it is flying. How far it will fly and how high is yet to be seen.

Nowadays you don't have to be a geek to use Linux. It's every bit a mature as Windows or Mac OSX (if they are mature, that is).

Personally, I don't consider any system mature at the moment. They are all lacking quite a bit considered what's possible to implement.

But you have another opinion, Mr.Noname, and that's fine. We just don't agree.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

The Linux Desktop HAS taken off, it is flying. How far it will fly and how high is yet to be seen

No, it's not flying. Below 2% or below of the market is not flying. It's yet to be seen if the linux desktop market will ever take off. If it ever hits 10% then we can consider it significant.

Once you step out of the geek osnews world and face reality you'll be able to better realize certain truths that are independent of your limited views.

Reply Score: 0

suggestive title
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 18:52 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Personally i think the title is suggestive and a bit misleading.I guess "An in depth interview with Linuz Torvalds" wouldn't attract much response.

Reply Score: 0

RE: suggestive title
by jayson.knight on Sat 1st Oct 2005 21:47 UTC in reply to "suggestive title"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe if it had actually been in depth it would have.

Reply Score: 1

Re: Linux is no spring chicken
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 20:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Open Source is its own worst enemy when it comes to making significant inroads into the desktop. The fact that you have a million distros and random desktop environments that happen to run on linux has hurt and will always hurt linux on the desktop.
<p>
No worse than Windows at this point. Still in live use today is Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, 95, 95b, 98, 98b, 2000, XP, CE (and a different version for each processor and form factor), NT Embedded (and a different version for each processor and form factor), and on and on. Worse yet, almost all of these versions are 100% mutually incompatible with each other. Just try running something designed for Windows CE on a Windows 3.1 or XP machine. Try running anything from 3.1 on XP or vice version. At least with Linux, it just works between versions...

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

<quote>
At least with Linux, it just works between versions...
</quote>

ROFL

Reply Score: 2

TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Uh? Windows incompatible between versions??

Uh? Linux compatible between versions??

What are you talking about? ;-)

Try running anything from 3.1 on XP or vice version

Uh? Vice-versa? Office 2003 on a Win3.1 machine?

You got me lost... really...

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

He went a bit over the top, but it is true, for instance, that apps which worked in Win XP, stopped working once you installed SP2.
And with Vista the situation is going to be a lot worse.

But the worst has still to come. If they (MS) don't forget about backwards compatibility and don't start from scratch, they are going to sink faster than the Titanic.

At least if you compare a bleeding edge linux distro with one of 5 years ago you'll notice a *huge* difference. When Vista comes out next year, it will hardly have any meaningful difference fom XP.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Too early to say.

One never knows what MS will do. But apart from USB support and better game support (and visual styles) I don't see much difference (as end user) between NT4 and Win2K3 (NT 5.2).

There has been virtually know evolution on the MS desktop since 1995. But then, that could also be said about other DE's for other platforms. Not that it's surprising. New technology typical (READ typical) takes 45 years to mature and become an everyday thing. So we still have a decade before the desktop (on any platform) will be truly grown up.

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

v Consistency
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 21:30 UTC
RE: Consistency
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 11:46 UTC in reply to "Consistency"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Take a look at a typical Mac OSX or Windows desktop. They are not the least bit consistent.

Windows: My system is speaking denglish (danish and english mixed together - very annoying), applications scales poorly when changing the DPI setting, even standard windows components are not aware of system settings. They don't use the fonts I'm telling them to use, resulting in a very messy look. This doesn't happen on Gnome, nor on KDE I believe.

Mac OSX: Just look at it. One application is using one theme, another application is using a second theme, and a third application uses a third theme. This is okay, but it's still inconsistent. Some people like that behaviour and some don't. Personally I don't care.

Gnome: Suffers in some applications from denglish. This can be solved by translating more of it. You can do that yourself. But denglish is still annoying. Non-GTK apps are not GTK-theme aware. Means less consistency, just like running java apps on mac or windows. Not annoying, but can be confusing for the newbie.

Windows is more consistent in some areas than Gnome(/KDE/EDE/etc.) or Mac OSX.

Gnome(/KDE/EDE/etc.) is more consistent in some areas than Windows or Mac OSX.

Mac OSX is more consistent in some areas than Gnome(/KDE/EDE/etc.) or Windows.

Summasummarum: No desktop is consistent at the moment. Probably never will be. In the end it's a user choice.

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

what happened to the line about
by Anonymous on Sat 1st Oct 2005 21:39 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Torvalds leading a "ragtag band of programmers around the world" that has "even the Microsoft colossus looking over its shoulder".

I thought all "gee, there's this Linux OS" articles in the mainstream press were required to use those phrases.

Paul G

Reply Score: 1

community
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 00:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Don't forget to give credit to the community who gave the little kernel some momentum back in the day.

Reply Score: 0

Uh.. wait... wait... what am I hearing??
by TBPrince on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 02:55 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

Open Source is its own worst enemy when it comes to making significant inroads into the desktop. <u>The fact that you have a million distros and random desktop environments that happen to run on linux has hurt and will always hurt linux on the desktop.</u>

Weird... I always thought that was called freedom. I'm glad that Mr. Torvalds is finally somewhat switching to a view which is closer to reality of things. He forgets to add this is a direct consequence of crazy GPL allowing people do redistribute software to which they changed a single line of code.

He also forgot to mention Linux (kernel) is licensed via GPL. Does he maybe start to feel the breath of big corps approaching to remove him from room of buttons of his own baby?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Two things. Freedom's nice but as anyone will tell you absolute freedom is anarchy and chaos. Two the "crazy GPL" isn't the only license out there that allows source code distribution.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Linus does not say anything about the GPL being bad.

And the quote "Open Source is its own worst enemy when it comes to making significant inroads into the desktop. <u>The fact that you have a million distros and random desktop environments that happen to run on linux has hurt and will always hurt linux on the desktop." is not from Linus but from somebody else in this thread.

Linus has changed his view as such. He still likes the GPL, and he still doesn't care too much about all the booky lawyer stuff. RTFA!

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Typo in my earlier post.

Linus has changed his view as such.

This should've been Linus hasn't changed his view as such.

Soort for the typo.

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry then. I had read the article and infacts I didn't remember about such quote. Then I found that in other comment and thought it was a quote from article. My guess was bad. ;-)

I was too lazy to go back and try to find that quote on original article. My fault, of course.

Reply Score: 1

valeri_ufo Member since:
2005-07-06

Please, give me a quote where Linus calls that (what he said) freedom.

Reply Score: 1

v GPL/Linux f
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 06:28 UTC
rant
by butters on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 07:15 UTC
butters
Member since:
2005-07-08

The Linux kernel supports more hardware and more architectures than any other operating system kernel. This, more than any other reason, is why ISVs, OEMs, and embedded systems companies (are beginning to) target Linux.

The kernel is also becoming a mature, stable, and functional product that is beginning to achieve technical parity with more established *nix kernels in certain areas. It isn't just a free clone anymore. For x86/x86-64 hardware, it is questionable whether there exists a better general purpose kernel. Certainly the Solaris and FreeBSD kernels have some compelling advantages, but they also have drawbacks that could be showstoppers for many users. Before you flame me, note that I'm not saying that Linux is a definitively better kernel than Solaris, FreeBSD, etc., but that there are areas where Linux does offer better performance, support, or functionality.

The community development model is different from what we've seen in the past. Instead of seeing a market and providing a solution, the community produces multitudes of designs, which are evaluated, discussed, and flamewar-ed as new versions of each are distributed. Eventually one project embraces the criticism of the community and produces a solution that becomes a standard. We've seen this in the server space with apache, mySQL, and PHP. Yes, there are alternatives, but these projects have become ubiquitous. We're starting to see this with Firefox in the browser space.

The X11 desktops suffered a significant setback as XFree86 began to stagnate. As a result the desktops that were popular in 2000 are still the dominant X11 DEs. As Xorg development proceeds at a much more rapid rate, the new functionality will provide a means for a new desktop (or new version of an existing desktop) to emerge and eventually become a standard.

Unfortunately the initial corporate investments in the modern X11 desktops coincided with this lull in development, so it is questionable whether new desktops will be received on an equal playing field. Also, I believe that a standard desktop API will emerge before any desktop becomes standard. This will be a relatively slow process, as people's conception of a better desktop vary much more wildly than that of an better webserver or browser. I expect a de facto standard toolkit by 2010. A standard desktop may never truly emerge, but I expect that the predominant desktops will share much of their underlying technology stack and default applications.

A fertile environment for desktops and toolkits is emerging. SymphonyOS (Orchestra Gecko engine), Komodo (Emotion .NET library), Enlightenment (EFL C libraries), KDE4 (Qt4/Plasma), and possibly some emerging Python-based desktops are all slated for the next year or so. Who knows which ones will be hits and which will be duds. But the discussion will continue to rage on OSNews and other forums, and the future of the Linux desktop is bright.

Reply Score: 4

RE: rant
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 12:02 UTC in reply to "rant"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Ok, butters you're making some sense now instead of the usual fanboy rants we see around here.

The kernel is also becoming a mature, stable, and functional product that is beginning to achieve technical parity with more established *nix kernels in certain areas. It isn't just a free clone anymore. For x86/x86-64 hardware, it is questionable whether there exists a better general purpose kernel. Certainly the Solaris and FreeBSD kernels have some compelling advantages, but they also have drawbacks that could be showstoppers for many users. Before you flame me, note that I'm not saying that Linux is a definitively better kernel than Solaris, FreeBSD, etc., but that there are areas where Linux does offer better performance, support, or functionality.

Agree with you 100%. The kernel is the shining point of the whole Linux stack on up to the desktop. It's stable, lots of drivers, etc..

The community development model is different from what we've seen in the past. Instead of seeing a market and providing a solution, the community produces multitudes of designs, which are evaluated, discussed, and flamewar-ed as new versions of each are distributed. Eventually one project embraces the criticism of the community and produces a solution that becomes a standard. We've seen this in the server space with apache, mySQL, and PHP. Yes, there are alternatives, but these projects have become ubiquitous. We're starting to see this with Firefox in the browser space.

Agreed, but it didn't happen with the desktop and that's a problem. More about that later on.

The X11 desktops suffered a significant setback as XFree86 began to stagnate. As a result the desktops that were popular in 2000 are still the dominant X11 DEs. As Xorg development proceeds at a much more rapid rate, the new functionality will provide a means for a new desktop (or new version of an existing desktop) to emerge and eventually become a standard.

Agreed, now that Xorg7 has become modularized development should be eaiser for the causual, mere-mortal developer. The big problem for Xorg though is that they don't have the register-level specs for modern cards and thus have to hack stuff up with EXA, gleaning whatever technical info they can reverse-engineer or get from previous cards. Xgl would be the future, but then you get into the problem of old cards and no highly-optimized software version of Mesa for fallback.

Unfortunately the initial corporate investments in the modern X11 desktops coincided with this lull in development, so it is questionable whether new desktops will be received on an equal playing field. Also, I believe that a standard desktop API will emerge before any desktop becomes standard. This will be a relatively slow process, as people's conception of a better desktop vary much more wildly than that of an better webserver or browser. I expect a de facto standard toolkit by 2010. A standard desktop may never truly emerge, but I expect that the predominant desktops will share much of their underlying technology stack and default applications.

Not having standard toolkit for linux has hurt LotD. There's no way around it. Fanboys don't want to discuss the negatives of open source so things that need to be done never get discussed. Having dbus integrated into Gnome and KDE eventually is a good thing. Other freedesktop cooperation is good, but LotD still lacks a cohesive feel to it. It's still stuck in server mentality.

The problem with saying things like "in 2010..", is that Microsoft and Apple don't wait around for Linux to play catch-up. Vista will be firmly planted on the desktop and OSX will be another couple iterations in the future. It's not good enough for Linux to just be "good enough" on the desktop, it has to be equal or even better to make inroads.

A fertile environment for desktops and toolkits is emerging. SymphonyOS (Orchestra Gecko engine), Komodo (Emotion .NET library), Enlightenment (EFL C libraries), KDE4 (Qt4/Plasma), and possibly some emerging Python-based desktops are all slated for the next year or so. Who knows which ones will be hits and which will be duds. But the discussion will continue to rage on OSNews and other forums, and the future of the Linux desktop is bright.

Yes, I'm really interested in Komodo and E17 to a certain extent. Komodo is trying to address the issues of a cohesive desktop and E17 is trying to bring very fast software-rendered eyecandy to the desktop.

The point I always make is that LotD could be so much better than they are now, but because of corporate interests, politics, and factionalization they aren't. The linux kernel has worked well because it is basically one kernel that is modularized, but no matter what is added or removed it interfaces well with the rest of the system. The same cannot be said for current desktops.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: rant
by dylansmrjones on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 16:22 UTC in reply to "RE: rant"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Not having standard toolkit for linux has hurt LotD

We have a standard toolkit, but very few are using it directly. Most people are using GTK+ or QT ... or perhaps FLTK, eFLTK, FoX or whatever.

This is not only true for GNU/Linux systems, but also on other platforms incl. Windows.

Windows does have a standard toolkit, but it's not the only toolkit running on windows. There's also WxWidgets, FoX, FLTK and GTK and java-something.

And I'm pretty much using all of them (I'm not sure about FoX toolkit).

BTW. I got my account :p

Reply Score: 1

Mr Torvalds doesnt really matter a jot.
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 08:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If teenage Bill Gates had a Girlfriend instead of a computer a different global Monopoly OS would have arisen to take his place. Someone else would have become a dollar godzillionaire.

The success of Linux is due to the fact that the ONLY way to competing with a global monopoly is to charge nothing. Any other option fails.
If Linus had decided to become a fisherman or lumberjack, we might all be using another free OS instead and nothing much would really be different.

Individuals do not matter, we just make a cult out of them. Gates, Jobs, Torvalds, - they make no difference.

Reply Score: 0

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

"The success of Linux is due to the fact that the ONLY way to competing with a global monopoly is to charge nothing. Any other option fails.
If Linus had decided to become a fisherman or lumberjack, we might all be using another free OS instead and nothing much would really be different."

Good. But there are other free software systems. FreeBSD started in 1993, around the same time as Slackware. Jordan Hubbard isn't a fisherman or a lumberjack.

At the same time as Linux was first commercialized by Red Hat, FreeBSD was rewritting it's "encumbered" BSD Net/2 code from bits of 4.4BSD-lite. So, it's either an issue of timing, where Linux was starting to take off during FreeBSD's major setback, or an issue of Red Hat's choice of Linux being directly related to this FreeBSD setback.

Or, a third possibility, that Linux succeeded because it was only a kernel.

Reply Score: 1

*BSD and Linux
by Anonymous on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 11:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Oh boy... stfu!

The *BSDs are good and so is Linux.

Just be happy you have the choice.

There are many reasons why Linux is more used today than the *BSDs. The whole legal situation of the *BSD code base back in early 90'es and the lack of easy *BSD distributions (this is radically changing at the moment - and that's good).

When it comes to performance, Linux performs better than the *BSD's in some areas and the *BSD's performs better in other areas. Use whatever you like and thank *someone* for the freedom of choice, you've been granted.

dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

BTW: Redhat wasn't the first commercial distro for Linux. Slackware for one came before Redhat. Redhat is however one of the oldest linux-distroes.

Reply Score: 0

BTW:
by dylansmrjones on Sun 2nd Oct 2005 16:27 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

The only thing hurting Linux on the Desktop are myths.

The Linux Desktop HAS caught up with the Windows Desktop, and dare I say it, the Mac OSX desktop as well. It doesn't work the same way, but you can do the same things.

The Linux Desktop does not lag behind. Only people without knowledge of linux perceive it as such.

But as I've written many times before, all desktops lag behind compared with what is possible to do.

Gnome is the desktop which is closest (most close?) to the desktop I want, but it still lacks some elements (read: template folder, I want my f***ing template folder).

Reply Score: 1

BSD's is not a choice
by Moulinneuf on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 15:56 UTC
Moulinneuf
Member since:
2005-07-06

- First BSD is NOT free Software and is not Open Source.

Why ? If your using Open Source software you ALWAYS have access to the source code , be it in commercial product or community based projects , the source code is always availaible It can NEVER be CLOSED source. BSD DONT meet that at all.

Its NOT Free software , Because Free Software can be shared , can be improved , can be studied , can be adapted to any platform , you can copy it and give it legally to anyone without any problem or legal repercussions. BSD DONT meet that at all.

Freedom is not the availibility to screw the predecesor and create a commercial product and resale it , no thats beeing a traitor and coward and thief to Open Source and Free Software.

The main problem the BSD's have are there many license , theres traitors licenses , with traitors licenses one individual can close the orginal software source code , call it a derivative and never have to share the source code with anybody else. Whats worst is that this ammoral attitude is legal and promoted and approved by the thief , coward , and traitor of BSD.

BSD for those who dont know is at the base of Microsoft and Apple , Two software maker that have taken original and closed them , called them derivative so that nobody but them can use it and do what they whant with it.

BSD is not improving at all , there not getting better installer or better desktop or better application , all of those recent improvment came from GNU/Linux.

There is no main stream computer that ship with BSD at all.

BSD's are not and never will be equals of GNU/Linux.

GNU/Linux is Mandriva , Debian , Red Hat , Now SuSe too , Ubuntu , etc ... All share the same software and improvements and contribute back.

BSD'S is ??? , Microsoft , Apple , they dont contribute back , they dont share there improvements.

The choice is simple you can participate to global improvment ( GNU/Linux )or participate at BSD'S , before someone take your code and never share it back with you.

You can leave GNU/Linux , come back in 10 years and have acces to all the new source code from yourself and others , the new improvments and the new commercial products improvments too are also accessible to all.

You cant leave BSD for 1 week and hope to always have access to your code and the code of others. In BSD someone always close access to improvement to others , its in there nature.

There is no choice to be made , GNU/Linux is for everyone and the only acceptable moral choice. Because it really does what the others promised they would do but never did.

10 + years on every project as shown what the real life outcome is. There is nothing to be argued anymore.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: BSD's is not a choice
by Anonymous on Mon 3rd Oct 2005 19:04 UTC in reply to "BSD's is not a choice"