News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Linus Torvalds defends his right to shame Linux kernel de... by narrator on Tuesday July 16, 2013 @02:30PM (#6053787)
The big difference between Linux and Jobs/Bill Gates is that people working on Linux are not employees. They are more like friends at a dinner party. The host can be a jerk to his party guests when they say something the host finds disagreeable and as long as it is personal opinion and doesn't come to blows the offended guest can just leave in a huff and have their own party where the host is not invited.
Re:Linus Torvalds defends his right to shame Linux kernel de... by inafield on Tuesday July 16, 2013 @02:50PM (#6053941)
The only problem with this perspective is that Linus is kind of the only show in town where it regards the Linux kernel. You can't just leave and have your own party without the host because the host has a monopoly on this particular party.

Sure, you can fork the kernel, but good luck with that!

Re:Linus Torvalds defends his right to shame Linux kernel de... by jlgreco on Tuesday July 16, 2013 @02:54PM (#6053967)
As much as anything can be forked, the Linux kernel can be forked.

The only barrier to forking is the fact that most kernel developers are not bothered by Linus. Which raises the question of why we should want a fork if nobody wants a fork...

Re:Linus Torvalds defends his right to shame Linux kernel de... by inafield on Tuesday July 16, 2013 @03:06PM (#6054052)
Narrator's comment, to which I was responding, implied that some might want a fork because the host is a 'bad' host.

The other barrier is the effort required to compete with what is currently the most used Linux kernel base. It's not like forking OpenOffice, KDevelop, or Eclipse where you can compete as an alternative on top of a standard OS. It's replacing the basis of the OS that everything else is written to work for.

Re:Linus Torvalds defends his right to shame Linux kernel de... by jlgreco on Tuesday July 16, 2013 @03:18PM (#6054128)
There are absolutely no technical limitations to forking the kernel. Hell, even XFree86 got forked. Make a point of not breaking userland (aside: one of the things Linus flames for) and you will be fine in the short term until you fail to implement features that Linux proper implements and others choose to use.

The problems with forking are social. You are only going to have a handful of people working with you instead of Linus (because nobody cares that Linus can be a meanie) and as a consequence you are only going to have a handful of people using your fork instead of Linus' (because nobody cares that Linus can be a meanie). Because of this progress on Linux will progress faster than progress on your fork, which will make your fork obsolete (but nobody would care, because nobody would be using it, because nobody cares that Linus is a meanie).

These are not problems with forking Linux. These are problems with forking anything if nobody cares about your fork.

Re:Linus Torvalds defends his right to shame Linux kernel de... by subsystem on Tuesday July 16, 2013 @04:49PM (#6054650)
"because nobody cares that Linus can be a meanie"

The thing with being abusive is that people won't actually tell you what they really think.

Re:Linus Torvalds defends his right to shame Linux kernel de... by jlgreco on Tuesday July 16, 2013 @05:07PM (#6054744)
If you really think there is demand, then by all means, fork. Nothing should be stopping you if there is demand.