Why Linus Isn't "Competing"

[Cyrus_the_virus]

The recent interview with Linus Torvalds cemented a number of things I've believed about Linux for a while now. Linux isn't an OS, or even a kernel: it's an embodiment of a design philosophy. One aspect of that philosophy could be described as "ignore the competition."

Maybe that's a harsh way to put it, but Linus has said himself, again and again, he's not interested in what the competition (read:Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT)) does. He doesn't see himself as trying to beat the Boys In Redmond at their own game. His stated interest is writing code -- improving the Linux kernel in conjunction with the rest of the kernel development team and the third-party contributors who submit patches. Linus's attention, and the attention of everyone else working immediately with him, is perennially on Topic No. One: making Linux better.

That's as it should be. Linux, not marketing or sales, is what Linus does.

Some people might argue that Linus is only shooting himself in the foot by not paying attention to the competition. My question is: Who's competing with whom? It's the individual Linux vendors who see themselves as competitors to anyone, and the essence of the competition is the specific feature sets that go into a given Linux distribution. It's Red Hat andNovell (NSDQ: NOVL) who compete with each other, not Linus competing with anyone else. Those vendors compete not only with Microsoft but with other Unixes (and, of course, each other), even if most of the talk is about how they compete with Microsoft, because that's how you get attention.

You also could argue that the very noncommercial-ness of the kernel development process is a philosophical mistake, and that Linux as a whole would be better served by making it a for-profit (and, by that token, closed-source) venture. By making it nigh-impossible to profit off Linux directly, rather than by selling services or support, Linux development as a whole is held back.

But, again: held back compared with what? Compared with things that have entirely different developmental cycles, design philosophies, and stated goals? Linux is developed the way it is because the developers value transparency and flexibility of purpose, first and foremost. If those aren't the things you want, there are plenty of other places to go. Linus knows this and isn't uncomfortable about it. He's stuck to his guns about this issue since it was first brought up. He knows Linux proves itself on its own terms.

I don't think Linus is "out of touch" for ignoring Microsoft. If anything, he's as in touch as anyone in the Linux space can be. And he'd better be: he's the one who needs most to be in touch.

Article by Serdar Yegulalp for Information Week

[naveen_reloaded]

One reason i will give is here in india and all they still think only one av is there and that too norton av..to this crowd yöü cant introduce a entirely new os and ask them to work..it.they will try two days and begin to bash yöü..thats india..
Many known friends of mine have tried and they said they are not comfortale with the os...they are also techie people..think of ordinary people.

[praka123]

Open Minds and Open People who embraces FOSS are the future.
reg Linux user friendliness,it is once u setup the system,u can forgot everything including Windows Vista.
Ubuntu,Fedora,PclinuxOS,OpenSuser all offers a very good experiance in an independent scale.
Linux is ready and not idiot friendly-it is waiting for you

[Gigacore]

"Linus Torvalds" has no "Jobs" so he is standing out of the "Gates" (Just for joke, not that i'm a anti-*nix)


Well anyway thanks for the info

[New]

Unless and untill MS starts legal action against pirated users ,only geeks use Linux in India.

[praka123]

^not exactly non-geeks too uses it.
try Ubuntu or Fedora

[New]

Installed Ubuntu two days ago and struggling to connect net.

[praka123]

^start a thread in OSS section.will help u.

[naveen_reloaded]

Is it like for everything someone has to open a thread when he really has no way to connect to net?


Even my bro installed and hard to use.may be it should take some time..but Isnt first impression is the best impression?

[praka123]

^it is because of people who are new to this OS expecting windows like things and also expecting .exe files will install on Linux In few genuine problems where driver is missing we have to do some tweaks.@new doesnt mention anything regarding his connection.with dialup internet or aDSL Linux works better.with mobile phones u have to use terminal for configuring the connection.and dont expect terminal to be equivalent to that DOS prompt on ur winblows!.
And You have to remember Linux is the work of Community and like Vista lacking proper drivers Linux too lacks for some hardware.the blame goes to H/W manufacturers!.
Any way nobody is expected to work on terminal for all purposes on Ubuntu.
I know,what i buy is gr8 attitude these Vista boys have.time will be there to make them straight.Use Linux for 2 weeks.then the FUD about Linux will be wiped off from even hardcore windows users!.
Linux is another BIG Superior OS,u cant compare it to Vista or any winblows!.UNIX model is here for past 37+ years and u cannot compare windows systems to compete with them.
I will say Vista shud compare itself with its own OS like Vista vs XP.fscking fanboys

[New]

^I agree with you..I asked the question in the thread "how to connect mobile to net" in OSS section.. But there is no replay since last night..Can you tell me where to save the file wvdial.. (which we edit).

[praka123]

^ i think there is a sticky thread which answers ur query. we will discuss it there in OSS section now on

[New]

Fine..Thank you..

[gxsaurav]

Originally Posted by praka123

^it is because of people who are new to this OS expecting windows like things

Expecting Internet to work is "WIndows like thing"? U mean only Windows connects to net? LOLZ...

And You have to remember Linux is the work of Community and like Vista lacking proper drivers Linux too lacks for some hardware.the blame goes to H/W manufacturers!.

Absolutely right, it is the fault of Hardware manufacturers that they have not released drivers for older hardware for Windows Vista

Any way nobody is expected to work on terminal for all purposes on Ubuntu.
I know,what i buy is gr8 attitude these Vista boys have.time will be there to make them straight.Use Linux for 2 weeks.then the FUD about Linux will be wiped off from even hardcore windows users!

WHy do u bring us Windows users in your bashing again & again for no reason?

[MetalheadGautham]

let me make this reason clear why linux is good:

AT&T made C ---1
AT&T made UNIX ---2
AT&T wrote UNIX in C ---3
The same team worked for both ---4

1+2+3+4 => C was made for designing UNIX --- 5

6. UNIX was made at a time when competition and marketing were ZERO. their customers were bespectacled scientists, who only cared about functionality and security.

5+6 => UNIX was destined to be perfect --- 7

Linux was made as a free OS which can complement UNIX. It hence has several standard unix commands working for it. It also borrowed nearly every initial idea from unix. ---8

Linus and other early developers(of vertion 3 onwards) also added some functions they wanted from UNIX which were non existant in UNIX to Linux. ---9


7+8+9 => Linux is as good as it can get. Solaris, MAC OS, BSD also in same catogary ---10

MAC OS and Solaris were initially(mac still is) closed source, so not much developement. ---11

11 => BSD and Linux are the only canditates left for a good OS.

BSD was controvorcial due to its apparenly "Satanic icon" and due to freeBSD's old logo. It also lacked eye-candy, drivers, etc by default
. So it sadly is not popular enough despite having several good features. ---12

11+12 =>Linux is the best OS, due to popularity and functionality.

Closing thoughts: If we use some more of BSD code in linux, it can still be made better. there are some small bits in BSD which make better in certain feilds.

[praka123]

you have to say that Apple made darwin(open source) from which OS X is made.and apple tingered with freebsd code(which OS X is based on) to make it loss the original unix qualities and making it a lil unstable.
and GNU tools are used in Linux,while BSD got its own tools(same commands) but with their own version.and one big down is BSDs doesnot install on logical partitions !
and ur explanation is very nice and 100% agreed.

[MetalheadGautham]

but I think you are over doing that glorifying linux and windows user bashing part, Parka... Learn something from Linus. He is the perfect example of a gentleman cum researcher. So is Bill Gates, who never did GNU bashing...

Lagtha hai ki thune paani ke badale kutch aur piya

[praka123]

^sahi samcha re!waah! :bows:

[Yamaraj]

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

let me make this reason clear why linux is good:

Wow! I'm buying a ticket too.

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

AT&T made C ---1
AT&T made UNIX ---2
AT&T wrote UNIX in C ---3
The same team worked for both ---4

Chinese invented abacus, which lead to development of PCs much later. Therefore Linux is good. Logic, logic!

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

1+2+3+4 => C was made for designing UNIX --- 5

You got it right this time.

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

6. UNIX was made at a time when competition and marketing were ZERO. their customers were bespectacled scientists, who only cared about functionality and security.

Get yourself familiar with history of computers before making such absurd claims.

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

5+6 => UNIX was destined to be perfect --- 7

It wasn't. Early UNIX releases weren't even multiuser systems.

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

Linux was made as a free OS which can complement UNIX. It hence has several standard unix commands working for it. It also borrowed nearly every initial idea from unix. ---8

Linux is NOT an OS. Linux kernel development was started because a few Minix users weren't happy with Tanenbaum's attitude towards adding features to his educational OS.

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

Linus and other early developers(of vertion 3 onwards) also added some functions they wanted from UNIX which were non existant in UNIX to Linux. ---9

This sentence doesn't even make any sense.

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

7+8+9 => Linux is as good as it can get. Solaris, MAC OS, BSD also in same catogary ---10

Linux is nowhere near "as good as it can get". It's in a state of evolutionary process just like everything else.

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

MAC OS and Solaris were initially(mac still is) closed source, so not much developement. ---11

Epitome of bullcrappola! Solaris has always been THE favorite system of ISPs, datacenters and universities all around the world. Linux can only dream of having as good a code-quality and advanced features that Solaris has.

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

11 => BSD and Linux are the only canditates left for a good OS.

What weed do you smoke?

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

BSD was controvorcial due to its apparenly "Satanic icon" and due to freeBSD's old logo. It also lacked eye-candy, drivers, etc by default
. So it sadly is not popular enough despite having several good features. ---12

Never knew "eyecandy" was the deciding factor in choice of solid, enterprise level operating systems that we are talking about here.

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

11+12 =>Linux is the best OS, due to popularity and functionality.

And Windows is crap because of its huge user base? There is no such thing as a "best" operating system, and Linux is ONLY A KERNEL for chrissake!

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

Closing thoughts: If we use some more of BSD code in linux, it can still be made better. there are some small bits in BSD which make better in certain feilds.

Such as? Stop trolling and get yourself educated before making such posts in future.

Consider it a friendly advice.

[praka123]

If sun comes opensolaris with GPL3,then Linux will...eh dont want to say!
and afaik sun and opensolaris community is making this OS "Linux-compatible" i mean the driver support etc
I think it is "Project Indiana"

[infra_red_dude]

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

6. UNIX was made at a time when competition and marketing were ZERO. their customers were bespectacled scientists, who only cared about functionality and security.

5+6 => UNIX was destined to be perfect --- 7

Very true. Fully agree to it

Saying, because UNIX is nearly perfect in all respects and hence Linux is too is NOT correct. Linux is a UNIX-system like OS. But keep in mind that UNIX and GNU/Linux are NOT even remotely related as far as code base is concerned. There is actually NO UNIX code in GNU/Linux. This is one of the reason why Linux is FOSS.

[praka123]

...and i never believes that disgruntled Minix devels(coz of andy tanbam) made Linux. does have any proof? and i believe Linus does the coding major part.

[MetalheadGautham]

Originally Posted by Yamaraj

Wow! I'm buying a ticket too.

Chinese invented abacus, which lead to development of PCs much later. Therefore Linux is good. Logic, logic!

You got it right this time.

Get yourself familiar with history of computers before making such absurd claims.

It wasn't. Early UNIX releases weren't even multiuser systems.

Linux is NOT an OS. Linux kernel development was started because a few Minix users weren't happy with Tanenbaum's attitude towards adding features to his educational OS.

This sentence doesn't even make any sense.

Linux is nowhere near "as good as it can get". It's in a state of evolutionary process just like everything else.

Epitome of bullcrappola! Solaris has always been THE favorite system of ISPs, datacenters and universities all around the world. Linux can only dream of having as good a code-quality and advanced features that Solaris has.

What weed do you smoke?

Never knew "eyecandy" was the deciding factor in choice of solid, enterprise level operating systems that we are talking about here.

And Windows is crap because of its huge user base? There is no such thing as a "best" operating system, and Linux is ONLY A KERNEL for chrissake!

Such as? Stop trolling and get yourself educated before making such posts in future.

Consider it a friendly advice.

1. By competition I ment the leavel we have today


2. I said destined to be. I know a lot about unix history and computer history.


3. know that its not an OS. evey fool knows that. But a kernel was amost everything those days, as the OS was only a handful(or a hundred handfuls) of commands


4. not to you perhaps... I ment that linux had most of the unix features though some were added later.


5. yes linux is still evolving. I said that it had chosen a good parent OS to begin with.


6. Don't think I am a Solaris ignorant fool. I mean popular use. It still lacks mainstream home appearence. It is awssome, and used by several servers and mainly workstations. but not as much in everyday desktops.


7. I don't smoke. I am just narrowing down popular OSS OSes to see why linux survives the way it does now


8. eye-candy attracts noobs. noobs get urge to learn stuff now, they become pros. then the enterprise builds. I just tried to look for a reason why BSD has not made it.
this also must have been included, I agree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD#Net...legal_troubles


9. as I said, I was only trying to find reasons why linux lives. and yes, Windows is good for home use. all know it. and I KNOW LINUX IS A KERNEL. I JUST HATE TYPING GNU/LINUX + X + GNOME/KDE TO BE MORE ACCURATE. LINUX THESE DAYS IS USED SIMPLY TO REFERED TO AN OS BUILT ON A LINUX KERNEL.


10. BSD has stricter security. It also has several stuff you would be better off reading the net for information than from harassing my fingers. For people like you who understand something else of what someone is trying to say, only some english PhD can convay something correct to you. If you think this is trolling, see what iMav posted to get the Ubuntu is still a Gibbon thread closed(agreed, I and Prakash were involved too, but on the milder opposing side). And yes, if DirectX was to be available on all OSes, I suppose windows could not have made it. this one product made microsoft powerful. Otherwise we would see only macbooks most of the time instead of dell lappys and sony vaios. And many would be selling OpenSUSE and Ubuntu in their PCs.

NEW Conclution: UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE THESE DAYS ARE IN A HURRY TO GET THINGS DONE. THINGS MIGHT NOT BE TOLD THE WAY YOU WANT TO HERE AND YOU NEED TO PUT UP WITH INCOMPLETE AND VAGUE REPLIES. WE DON'T GET PAID FOR POSTING IN ELOBORATE RESEARCHED ARTICLE STYLE FORMATS.

[Yamaraj]

Originally Posted by praka123

...and i never believes that disgruntled Minix devels(coz of andy tanbam) made Linux. does have any proof? and i believe Linus does the coding major part.

Linus only maintains the Linux kernel now. It has grown too big for a man to comprehend, grasp, code and debug. As for the proof, you could have Google'd. Anyway!

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux/

Linus Torvalds set out to write his own operating system as a result of his dissatisfaction with Minix and its creator, Andy Tanenbaum.

Source: http://status.lsu.edu/start/2006/01/

[praka123]

Originally Posted by Yamaraj

Linux is NOT an OS. Linux kernel development was started because a few Minix users weren't happy with Tanenbaum's attitude towards adding features to his educational OS.

OK I know all this.although i cant find anywhere some other minix devels also wrote the code for Linux kernel along with Linus
anyways,thanks for the links.nice esp the history part
and i need to post below things here

For one thing, DOS was still reigning supreme in its vast empire of personal computers. Bought by Bill Gates from a Seattle hacker for $50,000, the bare bones operating system had sneaked into every corner of the world by virtue of a clever marketing strategy. PC users had no other choice. Apple Macs were better, but with astronomical prices that nobody could afford, they remained a horizon away from the eager millions.

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/lin...he%20Beginning

[MetalheadGautham]

my god! i never knew that abt DOS... bought from a hacker...

[praka123]

^...and that is Bill Gates,the marketing genius.

[Ecko]

Don't just develop
Be user friendly too

---------------------------------------
Just downloaded live suse 10.3
was unable to open a window like interface frm its cmd

[infra_red_dude]

Originally Posted by Ecko

Don't just develop
Be user friendly too

The problem with new users is that they are so used to Windows that everything else seems difficult. Ask a person who has used Linux right from the begining of his computer life. He'll feel Windows is difficult to manage. Its all how you are used to.

Ask a Mac OS X user about "user friendliness" of Windows

Originally Posted by Ecko

Just downloaded live suse 10.3
was unable to open a window like interface frm its cmd

Kindly start a separate thread in OSS section. People will surely help you out

Btw, the second part of the sentence didn't make any sense to me. Plz rephrase it in the thread.

[praka123]

offtopic:@ecko:u mean to launch a GUI app a file manager(Konqueror) from Konsole(the terminal).this is because Konsole does not allow exporting users X credentials,hence u cant launch.press alt+f2 to get a run dialog inside type xterm or gnome-terminal and use them to launch ur gui app from terminal.if u want konsole to launch gui apps,u need to install a xwrapper called "sux".then as root u can open File Manager or whatever app it is.