Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

lkml.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 136 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#111

Post by nitrogen »

ahelwer wrote: post #73
jonhohle wrote: post #69

> Programs exist for their users While this may be inferred from this discussion, this is not what Linus said in this thread. He actually said: > The *only* reason for an OS kernel existing in the > first place is to serve user-space. This is a much narrower definition without the philosophical implications of the title. Sometimes programs don't exist for their users. Take DRM for example - it is explicitly against t…

The DRM user is the publisher, not the user of the program itself.

I find myself growing tired of our trend of redefining words to make our favorite clichés apply to our favorite companies.

Some examples:

"The customer is always right." -> "You're the product, not the customer."

"Software is made for users." -> "The publisher is the user, not you."

Sure, these things sound clever at first, but they only serve to increase our acceptance of these encroachments upon the rights of consumers and responsibilities of corporations by altering our vocabulary to fit these practices. Let's just stick with the traditional definitions (e.g. user: "the one sitting at the computer") and stop twisting words to accommodate things like DRM and privacy-invasive tracking.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#112

Post by aptwebapps »

mrud wrote: post #44
aptwebapps wrote: post #28

An easy way to read the whole thread: http://markmail.org/thread/wwi2aynfiliqanil I don't understand why Mark Mail doesn't get more love. I wish they had better SEO or something, it's so much easier to read a long thread on their site then most mailing list archives.

I don't like it because it seems to have no threaded view. I really like gmane much more for mailing list discussions - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1245999/focus=126...

Yeah, that is nice. Either one is a vast improvement over old-style list archives.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#114

Post by tsunamifury »

akira2501 wrote: post #59
exim wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would add politeness. Not sure about Linus, though...

Leadership doesn't require politeness. Fairness is probably what you really want.

I think this is a good point. I don't want people to be needlessly polite, I want them to be truthful in a manner that is also respectful.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#115

Post by ajross »

dhx wrote: post #105
ajross wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're fumbling over the term "Linux". What you're describing is platform library incompatibility. What Linus is talking about is the kernel ABI. Not the same thing. The latter is a subset of the former, obviously, but Linus can't fix the fact that library authors don't care as much about the problem. The kernel is doing its job. Userspace, not so much. Though it's not nearly as bad as you think. In general, any desk…

Even if you were to statically compile a software build from 5 years ago, it may require newer kernel features such as inotify (instead of dnotify). At some point of time the application authors (correctly) made a decision to throw out the old and go with the new. This is not a kernel issue (because old systems such as dnotify are still supported). But from a user perspective, it looks like the kernel is to blame, ev…

From my Fedora 16 laptop:

  $ fgrep DNOTIFY /boot/config-3.2.9-1.fc16.x86_64 
  CONFIG_DNOTIFY=y
Obviously it's true that dnotify is the old junk and inotify the new hotness. But it hasn't been abandoned, by either the kernel or the distros. Again, they take stuff like this very seriously. Old junk runs. Really, it does.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#116

Post by ajross »

microtherion wrote: post #103
ajross wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's nicer than Jobs, at least.

Granted, Jobs was not always a nice person behind closed doors. However, at least during his Apple 2.0 days, he did NOT trash the people working for him in public the way Linus habitually does. Another difference is that a lot of people working for Jobs (again, at least during the Apple 2.0 days) made f * you money for their efforts. There are engineers making a living working on Linux, but not on that scale, I think…

He also didn't praise people working for him in public. Or mention people working for him in public. At all. Are you sure you aren't mistaking silence for civility?

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#117

Post by jiggy2011 »

jff wrote: post #99
saurik wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Linux ecosystem needs one distro (say Ubuntu) to become so influential, that app devs start to primarily target it instead of the upstream. This used to be RedHat: software for Linux would often come as either 1) source code (if open), 2) a crazy .sh install script, and 3) an RPM package for RedHat 5.

It is now Ubuntu. I think damn near all Linux software I see now has an Ubuntu .deb available.

Apart from Oracle Java it seems.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#118

Post by dredmorbius »

nitrogen wrote: post #111
ahelwer wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DRM user is the publisher, not the user of the program itself.

I find myself growing tired of our trend of redefining words to make our favorite clichés apply to our favorite companies. Some examples: "The customer is always right." -> "You're the product, not the customer." "Software is made for users." -> "The publisher is the user, not you." Sure, these things sound clever at first, but they only serve to increase our acceptance of these encroachments upon the rights of consu…

I disagree with both your points.

This isn't a redefinition of words. It's a clarification of the true situation. Again: if you're not paying for the product, and somebody else is, then you're the product, and your use of a system or viewing content, etc., is an intentional objective of the payer. You'd be well advised to be aware of this, because you're being manipulated.

And the fact that someone else is paying for the system doesn't make it right. Just because I'm not paying for a DRM'd product (and very often you do pay) doesn't make it "right". In this case, usually, there are to goods in question: the information good for which you are the customer, that's covered by a DRM "service", for which the publisher is the customer.

There are also goods for which there is no intrinsic monetary market, or for which the market is at best diffuse. Language is one such good (there are very few people whose paycheck is based on maintaining, debugging, and extending the English language, for example). Free Software is another, though there are both paid and unpaid contributors. And you might well ask what the objectives of those who are actively contributing are (propagandists and marketing types influence English, device manufacturers and standards promoters write significant amounts of Free Software).

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#119

Post by dredmorbius »

jonhohle wrote: post #85
ahelwer wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DRM user is the publisher, not the user of the program itself.

I disagree. The Publisher in this case is the programmer - or at least distributor - of the program. Content consumers are the intended user.

DRM covers an information or entertainment product.

In many or most cases, the end-user is paying for this product.

The publisher is paying for, and benefitting from, the DRM capabilities or service, offered by the DRM system/software.

There are two markets and products at play here.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#120

Post by dredmorbius »

aptwebapps wrote: post #112
mrud wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like it because it seems to have no threaded view. I really like gmane much more for mailing list discussions - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1245999/focus=126...

Yeah, that is nice. Either one is a vast improvement over old-style list archives.

mbox and your own damned client.
Post reply on HN