The historical reason is https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17#issuecomment-56546...

Perhaps some of these issues have been fixed by now, but the Linux project has been going on just fine without GitHub (git was even invented for the Linux kernel project itself even before GitHub existed) so there doesn't seem to be any reason to switch even if all the mentioned problems were to be fixed

Some good old Torvalds roasting going on in that thread.

Yikes. I didn't know the dude was so prickly. Glad I'm not a contributor.

He's mellowed a bit as the years have gone on but yeah, he sure is a character.

I do find them fun to read, but yeah being the target of one must be rough. Though it probably contributes to the quality of the Linux kernel.

With his attitude, the kernel has reached enormous market share, excellent performance, high quality and worldwide adoption. I’m sure it will be fine without your contribution.

Lol yes I'm sure it'll be fine too. It made me lose some respect for him, but he couldn't care less what I think lol.

No one knows "what would have been different", but it is very possible that the success happened not because, but despite of Linus rants. And if he would have had self reflexion earlier, I might now be able to recommend Linux to non tech people and enjoy a laptop without suspend and hibernation issues.

Just a theory.

No, Linus has a way of seeing straight through bullshit to the heart of the matter. You may not like that how he expresses himself, but a part of that is making it very clear where the bullshit is.

For example, his take on security bug prioritization. His argument is that all bugs have potential security ramifications in the kernel, therefore calling something a security bug is not useful, it's just a bug.

"Security people" want special treatment of their reports and he refused to give it to them.

I agree he is a genius in this regard, seeing the core of an issue clearly. I also think the world tolerates more from brilliant people, and this is why you in some workplaces have primadonnas. But look at some of the things Torvalds says, it is just ...intolerable. He once asked someone if he was dropped on the head as a baby because he had a suggestion that went against Torvalds'.

I don't doubt that Linus is a genius. What I wonder if he's driving away other potentially valuable contributors (not myself, but other geniuses) with his tone.

It's not like Linux never has security vulnerabilities, and if he's actively driving people away with his hostility... what happens when someone actually catches a mistake of his but doesn't want to deal with reporting it to him because he's so thorny? What happens when he decides to retire or dies? Is Linux going to fragment into petty warlordism because the only core contributors who managed to thrive in that atmosphere were equally tough-skinned and vicious? It reminds me of dictators' empires that collapse after the strongman goes away, unless another strongman can immediately take over and consolidate power.

I'm not saying that he needs to be all nice and accommodating and accept crap PRs all over the place, but there are ways of gentling correcting people and encouraging them to fix mistakes while not driving them away altogether. Some of those might've turned out to be valuable contributors with some coaching, rather than being turned off altogether.

Now I wonder how much of the abysmal adoption of Linux on the desktop is because of hostile attitudes like that. Could Linux have altogether obliterated Windows and macOS if it had a more welcoming, inclusive community that took different perspectives and user needs into account? Maybe they never wanted that, preferring a clear kernel/userspace separation? I dunno. Of course Linux is super valuable on servers and in embedded devices, but how much of its greater potential was limited by the arrogance and hostility of one man?

shrug On the other hand, look at more "community-driven" FOSS efforts that inevitably fragment and diverge from their original core mission... the modern Web is a mess (looking at you, ECMAscript), Mozilla has its tentacles everywhere while Firefox goes down the gutter, Wikipedia was taken over by a cabal of elite admins that care more about power than users, the BSDs are mostly niche now... maybe there IS an argument to be made for a strongman, dictatorial vision?

Just food for thought.

We already know what would happen, there are other projects that are more in-line with what you want and _NONE_ of them are nearly as successful.

So, while your thought experiment is probably fun, we already have the answer to it.

Ironically his rant about why authors should do the line-breaking

instead of your text renderer is really frustrating to

read because of all the seemingly random line breaks

throughout his comment.

He's amazing

That thread is hilarious to look back on, now that history has proven Linus was incorrect about both:

- word-wrapping (the correct approach is to indicate preformatted text in markup and allow the viewer to control wrapping for all other text)

- his own demeanor (Linus stepped down in 2018 from his role as BDFL of Linux to "get some assistance on how to understand people’s emotions and respond appropriately").

Linux kernel development has been coordinated via mailing lists for ages.

Linus wrote the git version control system specifically to suit the development of Linux.

GitHub made git mainstream, and they made lots of great features for the masses.

But there is no reason for the Linux project to change the way that they like to work just because of that.

Still, a copy of the Linux source tree is also hosted on GitHub. So it seems to me that everyone gets what they want. Linux get to continue their development in the way that they like to do it. People on GitHub can easily find the copy of Linux on GH, and browse the sources there. And they can create forks of the Linux sources on GH too.