Linus Torvalds in NSFW Red Hat rant

Re: RE: Pete Spicer

>> not just fanbois who accept anything he has as gospel.

It's really obvious you like to make assumptions off of your own biases. It's also very clear you're either not aware of the Open Source community or that you just don't bother to even read up about it much.

Re: RE: Pete Spicer

"""As long as you wouldn't criticize <insert CEO you hate the most> for speaking the same way ..."""

I'd love it if every CEO (and other people in positions of economic of government power) would speak like this - this sounds like how adults communicate, and I know that some of those CEOs, at least some of the time, would like to be allowed to talk like that in public. I'd much prefer the occasional emotional expletive to flavorless, clean statements that are designed to make life easy for the relevant Legal and/or HR departments.

Re: I think if I'd spent

As a way to summarize what redhat wanted... Well I have the most loose of understanding when it comes to kernel code and uefi so this analogy could be entirely wrong.

Linux Kernel = manufacturer of a key component

Red Hat etc = consumer of said product.

Microsoft = competitor to both linux and red hat.

Microsoft have released a new security feature built into their hardware option, and they're enforcing this on others, there are ways around it however.

Red Hat could implement something like this themselves, but their lives would be easier if Linux kernel handled it for them, so they request "Can you implement Microsofts UEFI stuff?"

Linux turns around and say "no fuck off" why? Because not only is the idea stupid. It's not a kernel operation. The kernel has one job and one alone (well it's loads of small jobs that handle one job) UEFI is not one of those jobs. The moment they start allowing excess functionality to flood the kernel is the moment the kernel goes downhill. The fact that the kernel is (in comparison) streamlined is one of the main selling points of linux.

Okay this went from hardware to software very quickly. Fuck it carrying on.

Additional to keeping things streamlined. If they start letting excess bits go in now which aren't needed, it opens the floodgates. First UEFI, then encryption, then we'll start seeing things like GNOME built into the kernel.

If it can be done outside of the kernel, as well as it could be in the kernel, it doesn't belong in the kernel.

It's like buying a car with a GPS built in. You can either get a car for £50,000 or get it with GPS built in for £55000. OR you could buy the car for £50,000 and buy a tomtom for £100 that you just plug in. Costs less and you still have the same car.

Re: Binary signed by Microsoft?

If by "much of the world" you mean "Microsoft", yes. In watching this general topic with a certain amount of attentiveness for the last year or so, I nave not noticed others showing more than acquiescence in a move transparently aimed at cementing a monopoly and extending it to a new class of devices (not that MS seem to having much success with Windows RT). Code signing is not the real issue: Most or all of the code i install on Debian systems is signed and I think validated at installation time, although not at each use.

While secure boot may have some benefit in system management and attack detection/prevention, I don't feel that I actually own a piece of hardware if I do not receive, with it, the software required to generate a self-signed platform key and install and maintain the secure boot software validation key chain (including the platform key of my choice. And requiring me to trust Microsoft (or any other entity) to determine what software I install is a nonstarter - they have not earned that trust.

Re: Binary signed by Microsoft?

> MS are trying to make sure that competing OSes, particularly Linux, aren't prevented from running

*snort*

Vic.

Re: No need for foul language.

"The vast majority of major linux users use RedHat derived OSes" - I am a bit skeptical about this statement, although it obviously is in need of a definition of "major." See:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2012mca.php

This does not report usage, to be sure, but in the universe of Gnu/Linux users, high regard is likely to be followed by adoption, especially since the various distributions are substitutable one for another.

Re: Once again...

Not educating people can be considered a harm.

Forcing people to suffer a public (and expletive laden) assault is not considered a harm?

You need to seriously reassess your values.

Re: Once again...

@AC 11:39 - Yeah, but we're only holding Linus up to the standards of the society in which we and he lives. Not asking for any special favours because he grew up in a completely different culture. In fact, he grew up in Finland, where this sort of behaviour would not be tolerated in a company.

Re: Once again...

"OSS is not a company"

Where did I say "OSS"? I said "Linux", or are you claiming the "Linux Foundation" shouldn't be treated as a professional organisation and beholden to the same laws and standards as everyone else?

Re: Once again...

@AC 12:58 - I don't know where you come from, but in the UK/EU charities are covered by exactly the same employment law as businesses, even for volunteers.

In brief: You can't treat someone like shit just because they are working for free.