Courtesy of GeekCruises Capt. Neil Bauman and Senior Editor of Linux Journal Doc Searles, OET brings readers an extended transcript of Linus’ shipboard Q&A, where he responds to Linux dev questions on the future of Linux, including the status of Linux 2.6, impacts from increasing corporate (and vendor) adoption, an ever-growing kernel, and even on the pending lawsuit from SCO.
Linus Fields Dev Questions On the Future of Linux
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
🙂
“Q: (Something about pushing stuff down into the kernel.)
Linus: Nobody wants to. There are actually a few things that people are trying to do in user space, and they should be doing more in kernel space.”
I’m sure that he wasn’t thinking of this specifically, but it’s something that I find troubling with 2.6.
Knowing that the linux kernel can run on enterprise systems as well as on my Epox mobo gives me a great sense of confidence as well as pride in running Linix. This is a very good interview IMHO. Hail to the chief!!
for the DE developers to create more comprehensive applications for configuration of Networks and services, and settign up a nice network browser that can automaticly see NFS and SMB shares after you enable it.
right now, the only config tools for this are Distro spesific, or 3rd party tools.
once we get all the system configuration built into the DEs, we will have a very usable system.
Desktop environments don’t like to make themselves dependent upon the hardware.
Third party distro-neutral apps to do what you talked about would do a much better job of making system configuration tightly integrated with the rest of the operating system.
Debman writes…
and settign up a nice network browser that can automaticly see NFS and SMB shares after you enable it.
What are you referring to doesn’t Nautilus already do this?
Anyway does MS use exactly the same kernel in its workstation products as it does in its server products?
Would it be better that Linux still had the same core kernel, but then got divided into a Desktop and a server kernel. Doesn’t the embedded one still use the same core kernel, but is mainted seperately with embedded specific patches?
2.6 is a good step to future. Perhaps, Unix isn’t dead
Try using lan:// in Konqueror. It lists every machine on your LAN and the protocols it supports. A nifty feature is FISH, which is something I think the KDE guys invented: a filesystem thing like NFS, but tunnelled over SSH, so it can work on any machine running an SSH server. Sort of like SFTP/SCP, but better. Slow though.
Maybe we would have got to not hear about Linux this and Linux that all the time…
That should be lan:/ with one slash. Otherwise Konqueror misinterprets it.
That was already known before. Is there any indication that he doesn’t now?
Would it be better that Linux still had the same core kernel, but then got divided into a Desktop and a server kernel. Doesn’t the embedded one still use the same core kernel, but is mainted seperately with embedded specific patches?
How about just including the relevant choices in the kernel configuration? For example, in 2.6, you can choose a preempt kernel. You can also choose what scheduler you use. We don’t need two kernels, just one that can be adequately configured. Which is what we have. Plus most desktop distributions throw in kernel patches fine-tuned for desktops.
All the interesting stuff is now happening in userland – the kernel is solid, and has been for a long time now. Better support for binary drivers, yeah yeah, I know they don’t like it, but so far I’ve not seen much evidence that companies are going to open source their drivers just because we make it inconvenient for them not to. They just hack around it.
As for KDE vs GNOME, well it’s nice but I think it’s unlikely that usage of for instance the KDE/GNOME frameworks will rise. In fact I think they’ll fall. The GNOME team have realised this and are slowly deprecating their custom libs, moving some stuff into GTK, redesigning some parts to be based on standards and so on. The KDE guys are still building more and more classes every day, but I rarely encounter programs that use them. When I do (like Boson) it’s a pain in the ass because of the way they package things. Boson needs KDE Games ,ok, no problem, but now I seem to have a load of tetris games in my menus I never wanted – ie the KDE libs aren’t fine grained enough.
And the attraction of writing desktop neutral software is always there of course….
Standardizing the operating system so all 3rd party vendors don’t need to know which distribution someone uses and everything works which it doesn’t still.
How about working to make a fast lean, easy to use operating system ?
No ? Then you can forget the public wanting to use it then.
Agreed, fish:/ is great if a bit slow. A good example of real innovation: reusing current and well-distributed protocols in novel, user-friendly ways.
Linus quote from interview:
“Hey, our secretaries are actually better off using Linux, because we don’t want them playing solitaire. (Laughter.) That’s how DOS came to be, right? Linux has solitaire too, but you can control better how to install it. Right?”
I wonder if Linus has ever heard of group polices. I wonder if he understands much outside of hacking kernels.
I’ll write native KDE apps the day that QT isn’t GPL anymore. If I want to write software and release it under the BSD, or any other OSI license that’s my perogative.
All you have to do is rename sol.exe to notepad.exe and you can play solitaire all day long. On the other hand del sol.exe fixes that.
Qt will never become non-GPL. It is the property of Trolltech, and what they are doing by releasing it under the GPL is protecting it. This is why companies like the GPL–it makes sure no one makes money off their work except through distribution and support.
Sorry, what I meant was “the free version of Qt will never become non-GPL”
It’s legal for BSD-licensed apps to link to GPL’ed libraries. In fact, some KDE code is under the BSD license.
Crond, can’t understand how you can be so anti-OSS when you come from a socialist country, yourself.
“Crond, can’t understand how you can be so anti-OSS when you come from a socialist country, yourself.”
I thought the open source movement wasn’t political. It is comments like this that will keep open source software out of the majority US business.
He was making a joke for Godsake, get a sense of humor.
Ouch. Linus’ comments on quantum computing were painfully clueless. First, DNA computing is *not* quantum computing. It’s not even related! Second, to say quantum computing is bull is just plain narrow minded. Quantum computing works. It’s just not scalable to any usefull amount right now.
If it is ever made to be scalable, it could seriously change computing. It will make some problems that are not solvable right now doable. Thats a big deal. I have to say, after reading this interview it’s clear that Linus is no visionary. He makes okd traditional software, but that’s about it.
well, considering Trolltech wants to retain their work and sell it, making the QT tool kit BSD would sort of kill their ability to run a business.
being a sceptic about thinks like quantum computing is not being foolish. true, he is under educated about what QC is, it seems he just groups all future computing tech together into the “ill believe it when I can hack it” category and does not give it a second thought.
but how does that make him a non visionary? DNA computing will be impotent because of the sheer amounts of bio mass needed to do anything of importance, and QC is anywhere from 20 to 100 years away, and even then, it will not be in every home, it will more likely be used at two or 3 places on the planet for SUPER computations and not for any end-user applications (maybe it will be used for space flight if the technology is scaled down by that time). so I would say he is being practical about it rather than claiming it will change the way humans and computer interact. IMO, that change in interaction will come LOOOONG before QC is realized.
Somewhat, I think your code does not compile!…
“As a user of Microsoft Windows, the progress made on Linux disgusts me. Why don’t you open source hacks concede defeat and just admit that Microsoft won? They day I have to switch away from Windows because some app I need only runs on Linux is the day I kill myself… seriously, I hope SCO wins. Like I tell my friends : “non-Windows platforms: Just say no”.”
nice try, not working. buh-bye.
“How about just including the relevant choices in the kernel configuration? For example, in 2.6, you can choose a preempt kernel. You can also choose what scheduler you use. We don’t need two kernels, just one that can be adequately configured. Which is what we have. Plus most desktop distributions throw in kernel patches fine-tuned for desktops.”
One interesting aspect of the newer kernels is that you can tweak things in real time by ioctls, rather than having to worry about configuring and compiling a new kernel.
For instance, to turn on low latency is just ‘echo “1” > /proc/sys/kernel/lowlatency’. There is a patch so you can regulate swappiness with /proc/sys/vm/swappiness too, and I’m sure many others I don’t know about.
So the idea is that you can tune the machine *in real time* to go between a super responsive desktop, or a less responsive machine, but with more total throughput for server use.
I know the default choices should always be as sane as possible, but it’s nice to be able to experiment with these options and instantly get feedback. Perhaps user space software could inform the kernel about it’s requirements, ie running 3d games could have a different schedular and latency setup than day to day desktop apps.
“Sort of like SFTP/SCP, but better. Slow though.”
Except for it beeing GUI vs. CLI, which imo is without extended argumentation too inaccurate to say any of these 2 is ”better”. Why /is/ it according to you better than SFTP/SCP? What’s wrong with these 2? From a technical point of view?
Hmm i just readed the review. What i don’t like is when Linus says: ”Linux has solitaire too”. No Linus, your kernel doesn’t have solitaire. The GNU/Linux OS doesn’t have solitaire. My Debian GNU/Linux desktop doesn’t have it. This is just bad phrased. It should say something like ”(GNU/)Linux operating systems can run solitaire too because […] (ie. it got ported, written for *NIX and opensource, WINE, whatever the reason is).”
I don’t agree with his opinion on servers either, because i think an easy but informative way to build and admin a server could be done with GNU/Linux because it’s easy. I think without GNU/Linux and the *BSD’s it would be a different situation right now…
Other than that, it was an interesting review.
You can write BSD apps with GPL’ed libraries now. Any app licensed under a GPL-compatible license can use GPL’ed libraries. The GPL will apply to the *linked* application image, but will not apply to the source code of the app itself unless the app directly includes other GPL’ed code. Here’s why:
The GPL depends on the concept of derived works. When you copy GPL’ed code into your program, it becomes a derived work of that GPL’ed code, and must be governed by the rules of the GPL. When your OS’s runtime linker links your app to a GPL’ed library, it becomes a derived work of the GPL’ed library, and again, must be governed by the rules of the GPL.
This results in GPL-compatible and GPL-incompatible licenses. A GPL compatible license is one that allows the overall process image to be GPL’ed after dynamic linking. Generally, these are less restrictive licenses like BSD. A GPL-incompatible license is one that dose not allow the overall process image to be GPL’ed.
A source of a program that links to a GPL’ed dynamic library does not contain enough GPL’ed code to be considered a derived work. Thus, the source itself can be distributed under whatever license you want. So you can write an app that uses GPL’ed code and license it under the BSD license, or public domain, or whatever. People can copy your code and use it in their program under the terms of the license you choose.
See the GNU license page: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicens…
I’m guessing you’re using Windows XP and have crush on Bill Gates, so you’re not worth any more of my time.
“You can write BSD apps with GPL’ed libraries now.”
No, you can’t.
See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
—
Q: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
A: Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.”
—
According to the FSF, therefore, the application in question has to be “under the GPL”, *not* merely under a GPL-compatible license. [I’m pretty sure they’re exquisitely aware of the distinction, since they explicity use the phrase “GPL-compatible licenses” in the question below regarding language interpreters, yet not in this one.]
Of course, this is only the FSF’s interpretation. Whether the notion that dynamic linking constitutes a derived work is actually legally sound, who knows; it’s not yet been tested in court AFAIK.
That said, I’d personally rather take their word for it than risk becoming the first legal test case for enforcement of the clause. The copyright holder of the GPLed library in question would be almost certain to sue, since dynamic linking would otherwise be a nice easy way to sidestep the requirements of the GPL.
Really sounds like a great guy doesn’t he, in all honesty.
they are referring to a program (which Rayiner included in his comment
the compiled program is a GPLed program binary, but the source code is a BSD source that links to GPL code.
all that means is that when you compile and distribute your program, you must make the source available for the people to have. it says nothing about the license of the source you are giving them.
and if you did not want to distribute your source…why are you making it BSD anyway?
Hmm i think its simple, because since it’s BSDL it is also ”GPL-licensed” (it can be relicensed as GPL). FSF writes this as: BSDL is compatible with the GPL.
(referring to BSDL as in the revised version! NOT the original with the BSD advertising clause!)
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCOrigBSD
There’s more about this at the philosophy section of gnu.org.
The link you refer to says the *program* must be under the GPL. That is different from the source code of the program. From a post RMS made to the GNOME developer’s mailing list:
“So if you want to write a non-copylefted application, release it under the X11 license, and link it with a GPL-covered library, that is allowed. The linked executable would be covered by the GPL, of course, but the app source code would be covered by the X11 license alone.”
Ah, ok. 🙂 Thanks for clearing that up.
http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue38/kidd.html is one place the quote can be found, just to save anyone else who might be interested the trouble of Googling for it.
I have to say, though, that I think the FAQ entry I quoted is highly misleading. Since the GPL is what one applies to the *source code* of a given piece of software, to state that a program “has to be under the GPL” strongly implies (to me at least) that the source code must be released under said license. At the very least, I think they should include the post you quoted by way of a clarification.
” thought the open source movement wasn’t political. It is comments like this that will keep open source software out of the majority US business.”
Think so? We’ll see..
I don’t speak for the OSS. But neither do you or Crond speak for Corporate America, right?
I am sure the majority of business in the US have a great dislike for socialism. If you don’t realize this you are living in a dreamworld.
“I am sure the majority of business in the US have a great dislike for socialism.”
Can you proof this statement? What does socialism have to do with the opensource vs. corporations discussion?
“If you don’t realize this you are living in a dreamworld.”
Haha! Ad hominem used to make your statement easier accepted!
It is comments like this that will keep open source software out of the majority US business.
Yeah, because we all know that US businessmen spend their day reading the comments section of OSNews…
Look, some people in the OSS movement are political, some aren’t. Get over it. (And you may be surprised to learn that some businessmen are political, and some aren’t. Yeah, you can be both an entrepreneur and a citizen – imagine that!)
I think IBM putting its weigh behind Linux is much more important in a businessman’s mind that what Applesandoranges has to say (no offense, man).
I am sure the majority of business in the US have a great dislike for socialism.
Perhaps, but on the other hand many companies survive on a special form of govt. subsidies called “defense contracts”, which of course is Your Tax Dollars at Work. Contrary to the official line, the U.S. is not a shining example of capitalism, but is actually quite interventionist.
Anyway, elements of Socialism can, in some form or another, be found in nearly all western democracies. Pure capitalism doesn’t work, something which the elites have understood quite some time ago.
Yes. But quantum computing is no where close to ‘bull’ as Linus says. And to confuse QC with DNA computing is just terrible.
If he had simply said, ‘QC is too far away so I don’t think about it’ that would be fine. But calling it bull is just silly. Besides, it may not be as far away as we think. Technology development has a way of surprising us. Although I do suspect that you are right, and QC is a long way off.
And I also don’t think his technological vision is very visionary either. Linux was never revolutionary on a techincal basis, and it really still isn’t. It’s only revolutionary in that it’s an important focus of the open source movement.
His ideas about kernels seem very old school, especially with regards to the monolithic kernel and such. How he talked about the kernel ‘knowing’ about the graphics drivers was kinda silly. Technology should be modular and if possible insulated from having tons of dependencies. This is much of the reason that DRI is in user space for the most part. I really don’t think that Linus himself would disagree with me if I were to say that the goals of Linux are to have a good stable kernel that is usable rather than to have a technologically revolutionary kernel.
Being visionary is dangerous.
“I think IBM putting its weigh behind Linux is much more important in a businessman’s mind that what Applesandoranges has to say (no offense, man).”
That was actually my point by reminding people I don’t speak for Open Source.
And as for you, Bill, I don’t see how I’m political for saying France is socialist when it’s routinely referred to as such by the Press.
why do people equate Linux with socializem or communizem, if we are going to compare OS philosophy to politics, then lets do it right
Linux is more of a true freedom based democracy where ANYONE can gather all the GNU/Linux packages and put together a distro and market it, sounds like a free democratic sociaty to me…
Microsoft is more like a totalitarian dictatorship where the Lord Billy borg Gates is wanting to rule the world with an iron fist, nobody has any say as far as anything, no thanks i don’t want it…
ok now vote which philosophy would you rather live under…
“Can you proof this statement? What does socialism have to do with the opensource vs. corporations discussion?”
If you go back through the posts you will see that I was originally replying to an open source avdocate who was relating open source and socialism.
“And as for you, Bill, I don’t see how I’m political for saying France is socialist when it’s routinely referred to as such by the Press.”
This is what you said.
“Crond, can’t understand how you can be so anti-OSS when you come from a socialist country, yourself.”
You are comparing being anti-OSS to being anti-socialist.
I defy anyone to deny that OSS is basically based on the theory of “each shall provide according to his abilty and each shall receive according to his needs.” This is why most OSS zealots keep drooling over IBM because most OSS avdocates are on the recieving end of the equation instead of the providing end.
IBM is alot smarter than you think though. Careful or they will co-opt the revolution.
I defy anyone to deny that OSS is basically based on the theory of “each shall provide according to his abilty and each shall receive according to his needs.”
That in itself is actually a good principle to follow as far as software is concerned.
This is why most OSS zealots keep drooling over IBM because most OSS avdocates are on the recieving end of the equation instead of the providing end.
The equation is even more unbalanced with Microsoft. Practically no MS advocates are on the providing end.
Now, the really weird thing is that most MS zealots see no problem with the fact that it’s a monopoly – even though monopolies are actually detrimental to a free market, because they are proof positive that such a free market will eventually lead to a concentration of production and monopolies, which diminish competition and innovation, and for all practical purposes closes the market to (non-free) alternatives.
So, Bill, let me ask you: do you think the MS monopoly is a Good Thing ™ or that it’s in fact a threat to the computer industry?
“That in itself is actually a good principle to follow as far as software is concerned.”
Since software is actually a marketable or commodity item I take that you are stating that you believe that the OSS method is based on a socialist-communist philosphy.
“The equation is even more unbalanced with Microsoft. Practically no MS advocates are on the providing end.”
Actually MS software users (unless they are thieves) do contribute money which then is used to higher programmers.
“Now, the really weird thing is that most MS zealots see no problem with the fact that it’s a monopoly .”
I don’t agree with assertation. I can choose MAC OS X, GNU Linux or BSD etc. I have purchsed Linux distros Redhat, Caldera and Mandrake. I found them not suitable for my needs. The very existance of this site refutes your assertation of MS monoply.
“So, Bill, let me ask you: do you think the MS monopoly is a Good Thing ™ or that it’s in fact a threat to the
computer industry?”
Since I disagree with your assertion that MS is a monopoly let me put it this way. I believe MS responds well to competetion. Too well for thier own good at times. I belive MS provides a better product when threatened with competetion.
I also believe that MS will always be able to provied an overall superior prosduct campared to the OSS method or model, because it operates on the priniple that each should be rewarded according to thier ability and each should pay what the market will bare.
Since software is actually a marketable or commodity item I take that you are stating that you believe that the OSS method is based on a socialist-communist philosphy.
Software can also be seen as the mathematical expression of logical processes. But that’s besides the point. Personally, I do believe that everyone should provide according to their ability and each should receive according to their need. For material goods this is problematic on a number of levels, but for immaterial and virtual goods this is quite adequate.
Oh, and I actually am a socialist. So there.
Actually MS software users (unless they are thieves)
You mean pirates, I presume? You should consider that, without piracy, Windows (and especially Office) might never have been as popular as they are today. This is something that MS tacitly understood for years as they remained silent about piracy.
In any case, saying that the money generated by MS software sales mainly serves to hire programmers is quite naive. Most of the insane profits generated by Windows and Office go to MS’s “war chest” of 40 billion+ dollars. It does not really help the economy but serves to enrich the company and its owners.
I don’t agree with assertation.
Of course not. But it’s still true: 90 to 95% of a market is a de facto monopoly. Now, you can argue semantics that a “true” by-the-book monopoly doesn’t offer alternatives, but we’re talking about the real world here. For all purposes, MS has a monopoly on OSes and Office suites.
Since I disagree with your assertion that MS is a monopoly let me put it this way.
It’s not my assertion, but that of the U.S. court. I’d rather go with the opinion of the American justice system than that of a MS apologist, if you don’t mind.
From judge Jackson’s ruling:
“Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.”
http://www.albion.com/microsoft/findings-6.html
Note that, even though Jackson’s intitial ruling was subsequently overturned, none of the other courts that picked up the case ever disputed the fact that MS was a de facto monopoly. The question was always whether MS had abused its monopoly status or not.
So, I suppose your answer is in fact a vote of support for the monopoly, then?
State socialism forces people to pay X for for example the health care. GNU/Linux isn’t about money, it’s about freedom.
I see a rather more likely corelation with a gift economy. Gift economy otoh is again corelated to anarchism principles.
NOBODY is forced to pay or to do anything. The GPL grants rights, it doesn’t forbid. Relative to BSDL perhaps, it could be argued it forbids.