happen interviews the creator of the Linux kernel, Linus Torvalds, and this time the boys were TechRadar those who have made a meeting in which Linus have asked for some interesting questions, and above all the I did mention in my interview with Mark Shuttleworth: “Less is more?”. I mean, would not it be better fewer options
The interviewer asked him the same question, “Have you failed Linux on the desktop because there are too many options? “, something that Linus replied stating that the fundamental problem is that people do not want install anything, and manufacturers have Linux preinstalled in almost any case .
Linux
But then again on the subject when the interviewer makes a comment about PulseAudio, a system that gives perhaps too many options rather than a volume control with which all developers should provide support. Instead the complexity of PulseAudio has complicated their success and alternatives have appeared as Jack, not necessarily better or worse, just different. And that’s when Linus says “ Yes, some things would be simpler if there were no choice, I agree with you “.
The interview is interesting because it is very hot some issues such as the integration of Android in the kernel or the status of Secure Boot (which Linus has good review). Also think about the fact that you have a MacBook Air, which claims its hardware design is fine but “ with the hardware itself have often done some stupid things “. No further clarifies the concept, but the fact is that Fedora on your Mac Book Air .
The last question is particularly curious because the interviewer asks the same to all personalities ranging Linux to interviewing: “Linus Torvalds If you were, what would you change about Linux? ” , to which Linus replied “I would not change anything “.
No related posts.
Torvalds and Alan Cox’s comments criticizing Miguel de Icaza
Miguel de Icaza, GNOME co-created, wrote a post a few days ago on his blog in which he stated that OS Apple OS X had been the cause of the slow growth of Linux as a desktop operating system, especially for the interest they had generated among the developer community and the tools they had provided to reinforce this important facet.
Miguel de Icaza
. (Source: Flickr)
In his post
de Icaza emphasized some of the problems which he had impaired development in Linux and the GNOME desktop environment, and these criticisms have raised some blisters in the user community and developers, as some of them do not see things as he sees them.
In fact, Linus Torvalds joined Google+ debate in a thread that started Sriram Ramkrishna, an Intel engineer who is also involved in the development of the kernel. Torvalds was also asked about the subject in ITWire, which indicated that “GNOME People have their own problems. seem to like to blame everyone, but not to them “.
“ One of the basic rules of the core has always been to break no external interfaces” -something referring de Icaza. “That rule is there from the principle, although it has become much more specific especially in recent years. The fact that breaking internal interfaces are not visible to the user is irrelevant, and a weightless argument. I wish people would understand the rules GNOME kernel . As “external interfaces never break” and not use the excuse of “we need to do to improve things “.
Alan Cox , one of the legends of the Linux kernel development, also joined the criticism Icaza, stating “ is absolutely right about the way people GNOME compatibility still breaking all the time not only to applications but with the user interface, the configuration (which is now worse than it was in GNOME 1.x) and other things. However, there is a problem of Open Source, but a problem of GNOME . My kernel can run a binary 3.6c developed in 1992. The X Window System is still backward compatible with applications much older than the kernel Linux “.
This little war of words again highlight the enormous diversity of open source projects that are on the market, and for which there are sometimes those differences of opinion and philosophy when put into place and implemented. Unfortunately this freedom that we enjoy with the Open Source also becomes a double-edged sword on sensitive issues like these if development methodologies do not follow a unified parameter, which is the basis of this discussion generated Initial post by Miguel de Icaza.
No related posts.