

Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR - linuxnow
https://linuxfr.org/nodes/85904/comments/1230981

======
bruce511
I think Linus's pragmatism has a lot to do with Linux's success. He's out to
make Linux the best it can be, and he's not worried about what MS is doing or
what BSD thinks or whatever. He doesn't have the political agenda of the FSF
or the commercial agenda of say Apple or Sun. Hardware companies can open, or
not open, their hardware - developers can build open, or closed, source
programs on Linux.

His approach to licenses is the same - he uses what works for him, and lets
others decide for themselves what works for them.

It makes Linux attractive as a platform at all levels because you never feel
like you're making some grand statement, or locking into someone's master
plan. I have Linux servers in the office, but also Windows desktops. I program
code for embedded devices (running Linux). We use the right tool for the job,
and if a better tool comes along we can switch. We're not married to the
computers, we just use them.

To some extent this makes the whole "Linux on the desktop" issue a non-issue.
Maybe it'll be on the desktop one day. Maybe it won't be. Either way it
doesn't seem like this matters much to Linus - as he said Linux competes with
itself.

I like pragmatism. It gets stuff done.

------
dkarl
_So the first and the very negative answer is that I absolutely despise the
people who try to push the GPL as being about "ethics". I think that's
absolute bullshit. Why? Because ethics are to me something private. Whenever
you use it as an argument for why somebody_else should do something, you're no
longer being ethical, you're just being a sanctimonious dick-head._

Good lord, so we're supposed to take an interest in ethics privately but never
speak about it publicly? Almost everything I believe about ethics comes from
processing other people's ethical ideas, and the same is true for Linus, I'm
sure. I personally don't think less of anybody who uses an MIT or BSD license
instead of the GPL, but I do think less of Linus for declaring ethics to be an
unsuitable topic for public conversation, simply because he can't stand to
hear people disagree with him or disapprove of him.

Not to mention he is a brazen hypocrite. He broadcasts his opinions about
other people's behavior, calls them dickheads, and says he despises them,
_because_ it's inappropriate for them to talk about how other people should
behave. Sorry, Linus, it's hard to be more of a sanctimonious dickhead than
when you're calling someone else a sanctimonious dickhead.

~~~
burgerbrain
Has Linus ever claimed to not be a dickhead? Quite the opposite I believe....

Gotta say though, I do agree with his point. People who cram their ethical
systems down other peoples throats are dickheads. Am I automatically a
dickhead myself for calling people out on this? So be it, I can live with
being a dickhead to that degree.

~~~
dkarl
The perception of "cramming" is Linus's problem. The concrete complaint he
makes (before his blanket statement that ethics should never be discussed
publicly) is that people "push" the GPL as being "about 'ethics.'" Well, that
is nothing about Linus, it is about the GPL, so he can't even claim it's
personal. Plus, it's a reasonable opinion to have, especially since the person
wrote the GPL did so to promote certain ethical considerations. It is Linus's
fault that he is so sensitive that he can't abide somebody having an opinion
that the GPL has an ethical side to it.

Then he goes on to say, "I really want to point out that it's not that the
license is somehow ethical per se." So it's okay for _him_ to have and express
an opinion on that question. The hypocrisy is really thick there.

And here's the question that prompted that response: "Do you agree that there
is an ethical content in the GPL?" Hardly a pushy question, and the
interviewer practically apologizes before he asks the question. So no, there
is no cramming, there is just a person who is extremely sensitive on an issue
and responds to a polite question with an insulting rant about civility. There
is nothing cool about that. He isn't dropping his brilliant technical judgment
on an unsuspecting noob who will be better for it in the long run. It's just
unpleasant behavior to no useful end.

~~~
burgerbrain
There are _undeniably_ people who do what can only be realisticly described as
"cramming" their ethics systems. I'm guilty of it myself on occasion (with
regards to the GPL even!) and I'm sure that if you honestly look at yourself,
you'll find you are too.

All this said, he's literally just saying that people who cram the GPL onto
other people because it's more "ethical" are dickheads. As far as I can tell,
he's not doing that himself, and he's not attempting to imply that the
questioner was doing it either. Rather, he just isn't kidding himself, and
recognizes that the reason the question is being asked is because there are
certain "high profile" people who have made it a full time hobby to do such
cramming. He wishes to make it clear that his reasons for using the GPL are
purely pragmatic, not quasi-religious.

To be honest, at this point it really just seems like you are attempting to be
contrarian.

~~~
dkarl
Not, not really, I just accept that there are people out there expressing
opinions about how I should live and that there's no way for me to shut them
up. "How many times do I have to express my opinion before those dickheads
stop expressing theirs?" is a natural feeling when a controversy drags on
longer than one feels it should, but it is counterproductive to express that
feeling as if it were an argument. (Also, personally, I don't think the free
software ethic is something that ought to go away, even if I don't follow it
myself.)

 _There are undeniably people who do what can only be realisticly described as
"cramming" their ethics systems._

Most controversies include some number of unpleasant people. If we let that
affect how we respond to polite questions from polite people, we become part
of the problem. If you said something to me about the U.S. occupation in Iraq,
would it be constructive for me to respond by complaining about the conduct of
various people who have expressed similar opinions?

------
tbassetto
Almost all browsers will show a warning about the certificate… Link without
https : <http://linuxfr.org/nodes/85904/comments/1230981>

~~~
smanek
Off-topic, but does anyone know why browsers go crazy about self signed certs?

It's not as good as one signed by an ostensibly trusted CA, but it's strictly
better than plain HTTP (no sniffing, harder MITM, etc) - so why not present it
to the user the same way that plain HTTP is?

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if trusted CAs 'lobby' browser vendors
to make it so?

~~~
pmjordan
Self-signed certificates _don't_ prevent MITM attacks on connecting unless
you've transmitted the certificate securely out-of-band and installed it in
the client's browser. (which practically never happens with sites on the open
internet) They only prevent tampering with the connection once it's
established.

The browser _should_ jump up and down when encountering such a certificate as
it's exactly how an attempted MITM attack would look.

~~~
smanek
Granted, it doesn't provide as much protection as a cert signed by a trusted
CA - but it's still far more protection than plain HTTP, right? e.g, Firesheep
wouldn't work

I don't know if browsers do this, but in principle they could even notify the
user on certificate change, so the MITM would have to be on the first
connection to a site.

~~~
vladd
Introducing a "third state" for the SSL indicator, usability-wise, is very
difficult. A lot of browser users don't understand SSL, and those that do have
a binary understanding of the protocol: it can be used to either confirm or
refute the identity of a website. It's very difficult to implement a UI for
the regular users that says: "this might be a MITM attack since I cannot
confirm the identity of the site but at least I can confirm that it's the same
with the one that you connected with the first time".

------
javanix
_Because ethics are to me something private. Whenever you use it as an
argument for why somebody_else should do something, you're no longer being
ethical, you're just being a sanctimonious dick-head._

For someone who is not a native English speaker, Linus really has an awesome
way with words.

~~~
benhoyt
At least it's clear what he's saying, but I was surprised at this -- it puts
Linus well and truly in the postmodern camp. He says ethics are completely
relative and personal. (Which of course is not the case: if I try to kill
someone, the cops aren't being "sanctimonious dick-heads" when they stop me.)
Anyway, all this is off topic, but I was just surprised at Linus's relativism
when he seems so "absolutist" about many other things, for example, how much
C++ sucks.

Edit: OTOH, Linus is talking in the context of software licenses -- I agree
with him that it can get holier-than-thou the way some folks push the GPL (not
least its original author).

~~~
Raphael_Amiard
To reiterate, even if murder is universally considered as being wrong, other
issues such as property, copyright, profit and a lot of other things are
treated extremely differently in different cultures.

So it's as easy to find something we all mostly agree on (murder) than
something we all mostly disagree on (property).

Also taking the murder example is quite dishonest. Linus wasn't talking about
murder issues. He was talking about intellectual property issues. Do you claim
there is objective right and wrong in this domain ? Do you claim to know what
it is ?

EDIT : Didn't see your edit, so correction about the "dishonest argument" part
:)

~~~
riffraff
FWIW, even killing people is/was considered acceptable: if the victims have
property X where X varies between having the wrong race, being the firs born
girl, being physically impaired, being sentenced to death, being a sacrificial
offer and plenty more.

------
edw
I'm always struck by how down-to-earth and pragmatic Linus is, compared to a
lot of the Linux peanut gallery. One thing in particular made me very happy:
He sees Linux as a Unix, and not some "Unix-like" operating system.

(Yes, let the lawyers and marketing droids point out that "UNIX" is a
trademark of the Open System Group and that no Linux distribution has been
registered as comformant to the Single Unix Specification, but that doesn't
change the reality that Linux is a Unix.)

------
Luyt
The interviewer states, citing Lennart Poettering:

 _"Linux is the focal point of all Free Software development"_

...which is of course bullshit (pardonnez-le-mot ;-). Look at all the open
source applications and servers that are developed nowadays. Look at the BSD
projects! Free (as in Freedom) Software is not confined to the linuxsphere.

------
linuxnow
May 3 9PM according to the headline, it's very recent.

~~~
chalst
I thought that was when the copy was submitted, not the date of the interview.

It has to be fairly recent, since it talks of the upcoming anniversary and the
site considered it newsworthy, but ...

------
chalst
Where and when were this interview conducted?

~~~
bmichel
It was done by email last week.

~~~
chalst
Thanks.

