However, clearly the RMS propaganda machine has worked, and now the phrase has a new meaning to the new generation... So feel free to not read anything that might contradict with your point of view.
My question is has Linus ever considered Linux to be the operating system rather than just the name of the kernel?
As evidence, take the POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface) standard, which included portions of the user-space C library in the POSIX.1 (Core Services) published in 1988. While the name "POSIX" was suggested by RMS, the notion that it might have been part of an agenda to claim credit for Linux violates causality (the very first version of Linux was released in 1991).
POSIX.2 is "Shell And Utilities", and was published in 1992.
Clearly, the notion that the operating system extended beyond the kernel was not a fringe one.
And, well, the Kernel is really the only common things between the various distros these days.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Sv-Linus...
Given that he's spent most of his life in the US, he may have subsequently decided to "americanize" the pronunciation.
I find the following phrase hilarious:
>> I find people who think open-source is anti-capitalism to be kind of naive and slightly stupid.
Now, even if I find it particularly funny, I'm not sure if that's the best face for open source, maybe someone less confrontative and more politically correct would be better suited, but he is who he is, and his contribution to open source, well, need no explanation.
Even so, I wonder if Linux and open source in general would benefit from having a more friendly / approachable face and have Linus in the technical side of things.
It's not something that's easy to change though because it wasn't a decision, it's something that just is.
Of course, if you are really good, he isn't unpleasant to you.
I'm not that good, so I suppose the fact that I wouldn't want to work with Linus would be a success story from his point of view.
How do you know he is unpleasant to work with?
"Reporters" drive clicks by pretending to be outraged. Therefore they have to build up a set of standards and narratives which will make readers find Linus' behavior unacceptable, and dismiss Linus' explanations as just being a grouch. Once readers buy into the narrative, they see the world through that lens.
Side note: multiply this by all the news sites that use snark and moral outrage. That's how you get thin skin and judgmental in society. It's just like how the bigger news organizations exploit and reenforce a sense of fear in their viewers.
The many eyes theory is broken due to complexity and amount of code, and hence the primary way to the future is in reduction of both (loc and complexity thereof). At over 10 million loc these days, linux has become unweildy for even the most experienced kernel hacker to really understand. This is why I think microkernels like Minix 3 have a bright future as their development progresses. (Minix 3 has <15k loc)
And, when Minix 3 has as much functionality as Linux does, how many loc will it have? I grant you that you might have some efficiency from the (assumedly) better architecture, but how much? Would Minix 3 have 5M loc? Would it be really understandable at that point? (Perhaps more than Linux, because of more modularity. Still, you're essentially comparing a robust product to a nowhere-near-production-ready proof-of-concept. It's very much not apples-to-apples.)
Just wondered: 19 MLOC all driver code included, right?
Apparently the reporter assumed that everyone who goes to college, lives in a dorm room. But in this case that was not true.
It's weird that a writer at the level of Bloomberg would be so weirdly dogmatic about this. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing weird about capable people being attracted to a leader who is good at identifying actual problems and is grouchily intolerant of those actual problems attracting capable people. Nor anything weird about such a leader motivating the people who are attracted; nor anything weird about such a leader getting high performance out of the organization. Supposed examples are not exactly scarce in business, military, scientific, sports, and entertainment off the top of my head, and as far as I know they're mostly true, not misleading legends. In most cases I only know second-hand, and I could be mistaken or misled. But the most straightforward interpretation of the evidence seems to be that successful doesn't-suffer-fools-lightly leadership is a pretty common pattern in sharp results-oriented endeavours.
In contrast, it would make much more sense if a sentence like that in a profile ended with "...has managed to be such a supremely effective automobile salesman;" as far as I know retail sales is not full of examples of grouchy doesn't-suffer-fools-lightly successes. But managing sharply goal-oriented organizations? Who would think that's inconsistent with what's reported about Linus here?
Even the prima donna antipattern of being a loose cannon who is flakily grouchy can be somewhat consistent with success --- people will put up with irritating inefficient prima donna stuff if there are enough compensating advantages. But I don't think the article establishes that's what's going on, and as far as I know it's uncommon for knowledgeable people to think that's going on. Success always breeds some level of resentment, and some fraction of people will jump to unusual conclusions, and many thousands of knowledgeable people know of Linus, so I assume there are some knowledgeable people out there who believe that he's an unreasonable prima donna. But I can't think of any individual to nominate as particularly likely to believe this.
Well, yeah, but the first rule of journalism is to know your audience and I'd bet if you asked the readers of Bloomberg to name a few operating systems they'd say "Windows, OSX, Android, Lin..Lin...Linux." How many would list things like Darwin or kFreeBSD?
