The Torvalds Transcript (InformationWeek)

Posted Mar 22, 2007 23:06 UTC (Thu) by barbara (guest, #3014)
In reply to: The Torvalds Transcript (InformationWeek) by malor
Parent article: The Torvalds Transcript (InformationWeek)

>I remain convinced that the bad blood between Stallman and Linus
over 'GNU/Linux' is at the core of Linus' objections. I don't think he
would be attacking the GPLv3 so fiercely if he weren't personally invested
somehow.

You're probably right. I also think the reason that Linus can't stand
Richard Stallman is that he reminds Linus of his parents who were involved
in left-wing politics (his Dad was a communist and spent one year studying
in Moscow -- horrors!!). Politics was a big part of Linus' family, he's
rebelling against that in my view, and he now sees *any* kind of politics
in Linux as a Bad Thing (tm).

With all the threats to our freedom to use our computers as we wish, to
use an unfettered Internet, and to simply have the freedom Linux brings
us, it's important to keep our eye on and fight these threats (be it the
DMCA, the RIAA, the MPAA, and a whole host of other control freaks).
Politics is indeed important despite what Linus says and thinks.

to post comments

The Torvalds Transcript (InformationWeek)

Posted Mar 22, 2007 23:48 UTC (Thu) by malor (guest, #2973) [Link] (7 responses)

Well, I can't speak about that directly, as I don't know him personally; I saw him do a Q&A session once, but that's about as close as I've gotten. :) I am quite sure that there's something more to his GPLv3 hatred than he claims, but what it is, exactly, I don't know.

Stallman hatred seems plausible to me, but your idea of it being rebellion against his home politics could also be an explanation. Regardless, his apparent disdain for supporting the idea of Free Software has even bitten him, very badly, in the BitKeeper fiasco. Apparently, he didn't learn that it's important never to make yourself hostage to code.

In my view, the GPLv3 is the best way to make sure that doesn't happen, and I find it curious and disturbing that he'd fight so hard for the ability to be chained up again.

GPL3 = BitKeeper2?

The Torvalds Transcript (InformationWeek)

Posted Mar 23, 2007 7:03 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (6 responses)

even stallman used closed source tools when there weren't opensource tools that would do the job.

at the time the bitkeeper use started there wasn't anything available that would do the job nearly as well (for that matter, when the bitkeeper use stopped there wasn't a good option available, that's why he started the git project)

stallman could have done all his programming on a system with no closed source tools. it would have inconvienced him, but it could have been done (not all computers HAVE a BIOS on them), he choose not to do this and instead use existing closed source components until he considered the opensource componenets 'good enough'

Linus does the same thing, it's just that what each of the two is willing to define as 'good enough' is different.

beyond that there is a fundamental difference in approach in winning users

Stallman wants you to switch to opensource (free) software becouse it's 'The Right Thing To Do'

Linus wants you to switch to opensource software becouse it's the best choice available to you.

Personally, I think that Linus' approach is going to be far more sucessful. you always do better when you involve people's self interest then when you tell people that they should suffer for the cause.

David Lang

The Torvalds Transcript (InformationWeek)

Posted Mar 23, 2007 12:12 UTC (Fri) by malor (guest, #2973) [Link] (5 responses)

He was widely and strongly criticized for choosing BitKeeper, and as it turns out, the critics were correct for doing so. Code that can hold you hostage is bad.

Closed source, in and of itself, isn't automatically bad: what's important is whether it's used to assert control over how you use it and what you do with it. BitKeeper did that, and it bit Linus very badly.

The anti-DRM provisions of the GPL3 are there to prevent people from being BitKeepered via hardware restriction. It amazes me that Linus, of all people, would come down against that.

The Torvalds Transcript (InformationWeek)

Posted Mar 25, 2007 0:17 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] (4 responses)

He was widely and strongly criticized for choosing BitKeeper, and as it turns out, the critics were correct for doing so. Code that can hold you hostage is bad.

Yes, Linus was criticized for using BitKeeper. No, he was absolutely right in doing so: The then imminent "Linus meltdown" was avoided, the kernel development picked up speed, and in the end all have got better SCM tools.

Was it painless? No. Was it worth is? Yes!

The Torvalds Transcript (InformationWeek)

Posted Mar 25, 2007 0:41 UTC (Sun) by malor (guest, #2973) [Link] (3 responses)

It was unnecessary pain. If he had simply refused to be chained in the first place, the whole fiasco wouldn't have happened. Kernel development essentially came to a dead stop for ages while they redid their tools; had they simply done the tools in the first place, they'd never have had the problem.

Code that can hold you hostage is bad. It's always bad. Anytime someone wants to tell you how or when you can use code, you're at a profound disadvantage.

I can't believe you're painting BitKeeper as a net positive. You sound like a Republican spinning the Plame outing.

The Torvalds Transcript (InformationWeek)

Posted Mar 25, 2007 2:34 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (1 responses)

First, it really wasn't as painful as you describe. Kernel development definitely did not come to a standstill. While Linus ran off and wrote Git for a bit, everyone else continued using whatever tool they liked. No big deal (unless you happen to think that only Linus can develop the kernel...?)

Because existing distributed SCMs were crap (they were), Linus had to write his own tool no matter what. It isn't like one path involved great pain and the other path involved zero pain. What scenario are you picturing where pain is somehow avoidable and there's no need to write Git?

Now, would you rather:

- Linus write his tool cold, having very little first-hand experience of distributed development.

- Linus write his tool after thoroughly using the most advanced distributed development tool available at that time.

Seems to me like either way works pretty well.

For the record, I agree that the Republican spin on Plame (and now Gonzales) are just stupefying. But they have pretty much zero in common with Linus choosing an SCM.

BK and git: Lessons learned (or not)

Posted Mar 25, 2007 3:05 UTC (Sun) by kevinbsmith (guest, #4778) [Link]

Linus (and the world) got lucky with git, and many folks have learned the wrong lesson from the whole affair. I don't mean that Linus isn't a great programmer or that git isn't a great tool. What I mean is that the BK folks *chose* to give the kernel folks several weeks to stop using BK, rather than terminating all kernel dev licenses immediately (which they could have done). And git turned out to be relatively quick and painless for Linus to write.

If either of those (or other factors) had come out differently, the kernel could have been hurt very badly by the whole BK experience. Was BK net positive? With hindsight, I would say yes. Could it have been a disasterous net strong negative? Absolutely. The risk was high (and was known at the time BK was selected), the bet was made, and Linus got lucky and won.

Wrong lesson: Depending on closed source for a key tool is fine, because git easily replaced BK.

Right lesson: Depending on closed source for a key tool is very risky, and you really don't know how things might turn out.

The Torvalds Transcript (InformationWeek)

Posted Mar 25, 2007 4:33 UTC (Sun) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

if he had refused to use bitkeeper at all then kernel development would have ground to a halt as Linus overloaded, and people would not have had the experiance with distributed SCM tools to be able to create git or it's equivalent.

if the opensource SCM systems weren't up to the job of being able to handle the kernel after several years of bitkeeper being an example, what makes you think that any of them would have been suitable for it back then?

as far as I can tell, other then git, there is still no opensource SCM that can handle the scale and distribted workflow of the kernel development.

yes bitkeeper was a gamble, but the options at the time were gambles as well (what decision isn't a gamble for that matter). Yes, if Larry McVoy had been an evil person out to scramble the kernel development process things could hve turned out worse then they did

remember that even stallman says that you are justified in useing a closed source tool if there are no opensource options.

The Torvalds Transcript (InformationWeek)

Posted Mar 23, 2007 21:07 UTC (Fri) by h2 (guest, #27965) [Link] (1 responses)

barbara and malor, thanks. It's been, especially since the Groklaw rantings by Linus, very easy to see that the foundation of his opposition was clearly not rational, even though he's now of course trying to paint some rational cover for this. But what was a mystery to me was the actual source of that irrational opposition. Now it finally makes sense, even though I'm usually not a big fan of psychological explanations, this one just fits a bit too well. I think there are some other core reasons too, equally irrational, but there's not a lot of point getting into details.

What continues to amaze me is that Linus and the majority of the kernel team day in and day out enjoy the freedoms a license like the GPL explicitly envisioned when it was written, but they seem somehow unable to admit that their actual day to existence is the direct result of the freedom the GPL made a space for. That's the core freedoms, not the fiction of Open Source.

They live good, free, creative lives, almost dreamlike in fact. But they don't seem able to connect the dots. Odd. The fact that they have come to mistake some corporation for the actual real person end user, that's kind of sad, but predictable too, that's the world they live in.

The GPL always restricted the freedoms it imparts enough to make it able to sustain itself against a world that is generally quite hostile to that concept. And BSD type licenses have always been there for users who don't want that restriction. And the world in the past 15 years has grown more aggressive, you can without any problem see patent attacks on the horizon, so failing to take something like that into account would be a serious error on the part of the FSF. And it's not an error they have any plans on making. The entire Tivo thing collapses as soon as you remember that the GPL is all about the rights of the end users, not some corporations. People that is. That also has not changed, nor I hope will it ever.

The Torvalds Transcript (InformationWeek)

Posted Mar 28, 2007 19:10 UTC (Wed) by wilck (guest, #29844) [Link]

Linus understands the GPLv2 perfectly. His statements in the Newsweek article demonstrate that clearly. He acknowledges that the GPLv2 fits his needs _although_ the intentions of the FSF when they published the GPLv2 may be different from his own.

Whatever Linus' true motivations may be, it's pathetic to dismiss his statements because of psychological speculations. You can disagree with him (I do, too, at least partially), but please respect the man and his arguments.

The Torvalds Transcript (InformationWeek)

Posted Mar 25, 2007 23:55 UTC (Sun) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]

> I also think the reason that Linus can't stand
Richard Stallman is that he reminds Linus of his parents who were involved
in left-wing politics (his Dad was a communist and spent one year studying
in Moscow -- horrors!!)

You are either a troll, or have quite obviously never been to Finland, or to Europe for that matter. Postings like yours and those of marlor who accuses Linus Torvalds and the kernel developers to "behave out of their pocketbooks" make me want to ask Jon for a KILL file feature in the LWN comment section.

Joachim

The Torvalds Transcript (InformationWeek)

Posted Mar 28, 2007 18:57 UTC (Wed) by wilck (guest, #29844) [Link] (2 responses)

I also think the reason that Linus can't stand Richard Stallman is that he reminds Linus of his parents

That's a dangerous line of arguing. Why not go one step further and ask what what Stallman is rebelling against (man, that guy's parents must be weird!)? And what are your motivations? Mine? Why the heck are we fighting against industrial giants, and trying to defend rights that 99.9% of the population don't care about? Dr. Freud, please explain!

Even if you were right, that would have nothing to say about the validity of Linus' arguments.

The Torvalds Transcript (InformationWeek)

Posted Mar 28, 2007 20:30 UTC (Wed) by malor (guest, #2973) [Link] (1 responses)

Well, I can't talk about barbara's idea, as I don't know anything about his past in that regard.

I CAN, however, see that the arguments he presents are largely based in 'don't trust Richard Stallman', and that's why I made the observations I did. I don't he likes Stallman, and I can't blame him: Stallman's GNU/Linux name grab made ME furious, and I'm not even one of the people in the project.

Regardless, I think it's a bad reason to try to sabotage GPLv3. I don't KNOW that that's the reason, but it sure looks likely to me, given their past and the way he's framing his arguments.

I mean, he couldn't use the GPLv3 even if he wanted to, so why try to mess it up for everyone else?

The Torvalds Transcript (InformationWeek)

Posted Mar 29, 2007 9:13 UTC (Thu) by wilck (guest, #29844) [Link]

I can't see that Linus is trying to "sabotage" GPLv3. He says that he doesn't like it, and that he won't adopt it if key parts of its current draft for remain unchanged. Why shouldn't he?