What a year for Linux!

[GreyGeek]

[HalationEffect]

I fully expect this, the second decade of the third millennium, to be a very good decade for Linux and open source in general. Exciting times!

[tek_heretik]

Hmm, interesting video, thanks for posting. I know why Ballmer called Linux a cancer now, because it's eating his share holders like a malignant tumour! Wow, imagine if Linus was never born, scary stuff man.

[whatthefunk]

Wow, imagine if Linus was never born, scary stuff man.

Somebody else would have done something similar. Linux filled a need that would have been filled by something else if it had never been invented.

[james147]

Hmm, was that the safari browser I saw the video presenter using?

And yes, it is a great time to be involve with opensource projects

[capt-zero]

Why no mention of Stallman? He's as much the reason for this wonderful kernel we use as Torvalds. I know he's not as telegenic and somewhat radical, but let's not give him short shrift.

[jlittle]

Why no mention of Stallman? He's as much the reason for this wonderful kernel we use as Torvalds.

I'd say OS rather than kernel. It's GCC that makes it all possible, is or are there some unsung hero or heroes behind GCC?

[tek_heretik]

True story...my ZDNet comments nick used to be Colonel_Panic for schizz n giggles, lol.

[NickStone]

Hmm, interesting video, thanks for posting. I know why Ballmer called Linux a cancer now, because it's eating his share holders like a malignant tumour! Wow, imagine if Linus was never born, scary stuff man.

If we didn't have GNU/Linux we would have had GNU/Hurd or maybe BSD.

[GreyGeek]

Well, we've had both the "Hurd" and BSD for as long as we've had Linux. This fact leads to the question "why did Linux prosper, and not the other two?"

In the case of BSD it is the license. There is no incentive to those who take code from the BSD to return any improvements to it. Coders invest their time and money into it, but don't see any return on that investment -- improvements to their code contributed back by corporations who use it, for example. But, if the BSD coders are satisfied and fulfilled by seeing their name in a header file stuck on some obscure or system directory that the users never venture into, then so be it. BSD coders accuse Linux coders of taking BSD code, but the BSD license is incompatible with the GPL. Regardless of if that is true or not, why should they care, given the liberality of the BSD license?

Wikipedia describes the problems with the Hurd kernel:

Development of the Hurd has proceeded slowly. Despite an optimistic announcement by Stallman in 2002 predicting a release of GNU/Hurd later that year,the Hurd is still not considered suitable for production environments. Development in general has not met expectations, and there are still bugs and missing features. This has resulted in a poorer product than many (including Stallman) had expected. In 2010, after twenty years under development, Stallman said that he was "not very optimistic about the GNU Hurd. It makes some progress, but to be really superior it would require solving a lot of deep problems", but added that "finishing it is not crucial" for the GNU system because a free kernel already existed in Linux, and completing Hurd would not address the main remaining problem for a free operating system: device support.

So, even Stallman admits that the Hurd kernel is, essentially, dead. But, a few hardy souls are bravely marching on.

[james147]

In the case of BSD it is the license. There is no incentive to those who take code from the BSD to return any improvements to it. Coders invest their time and money into it, but don't see any return on that investment -- improvements to their code contributed back by corporations who use it, for example. But, if the BSD coders are satisfied and fulfilled by seeing their name in a header file stuck on some obscure or system directory that the users never venture into, then so be it. BSD coders accuse Linux coders of taking BSD code, but the BSD license is incompatible with the GPL. Regardless of if that is true or not, why should they care, given the liberality of the BSD license?

I disagree with this, companies don't only contribute back because they have to, they do it also because it gives them less work overall as they don't have to maintain a separate fork that contains their changes. There are quite a few libraries that use the 2 clause BSD or similar licence and do not suffer from the problem you mentioned (zlib and opencv are two major examples). (note that the 2 clause bsd licence is compatible with GPL)

If anything, the GPL licence can hold back a project, since it stops it from being used at all in cermercial software... where as with the BSD or zlib licence they can use it and might also contribute back to the project at some point.

Personally I prefer to licence my stuff under the zlib license if it is a library and gpl if it is a application.

[NickStone]

Well, we've had both the "Hurd" and BSD for as long as we've had Linux. This fact leads to the question "why did Linux prosper, and not the other two?"

In the case of BSD it is the license. There is no incentive to those who take code from the BSD to return any improvements to it. Coders invest their time and money into it, but don't see any return on that investment -- improvements to their code contributed back by corporations who use it, for example. But, if the BSD coders are satisfied and fulfilled by seeing their name in a header file stuck on some obscure or system directory that the users never venture into, then so be it. BSD coders accuse Linux coders of taking BSD code, but the BSD license is incompatible with the GPL. Regardless of if that is true or not, why should they care, given the liberality of the BSD license?

Wikipedia describes the problems with the Hurd kernel:


So, even Stallman admits that the Hurd kernel is, essentially, dead. But, a few hardy souls are bravely marching on.

Thanks for the info. but I think you missed my point. I was referring to the suggestion "What if Linus had never been born, and Linux was never created". All the development currently going on for Linux would be going on for HURD so it would be at the stage that Linux is at right now.

[jpenguin]

I've got to say; although I like and support linux. I don't agree with everything Torvalds stands for

[jlittle]

I've got to say; although I like and support linux. I don't agree with everything Torvalds stands for

That's interesting; what do think he "stands for"? (Other than monolithic kernels, the lousiness of CVS, oh and the badness of the company called Nvidia, I'm struggling to think.)

Regards, John Little

[HalationEffect]

That's interesting; what do think he "stands for"? (Other than monolithic kernels, the lousiness of CVS, oh and the badness of the company called Nvidia, I'm struggling to think.)

You could add to that list his dissatisfaction with Gnome (he prefers KDE), his pro-atheism stance, and his disdain for both of the major US political parties.

Personally, I don't have any problems with Mr Torvalds' position on any of the above issues.