Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux Turns 17 Today

kdawson posted about 6 years ago | from the hippo-birdies dept.

Linux 285

Meshach writes "Over at the Linux Journal, Doc Searles is noting that today marks 17 years since Linus posted to Usenet, starting Linux (post). As a Linux user at work and at home I say, thanks Linus!" The anniversary is also featured on the top page of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

cancel ×

285 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Age of Consent (5, Funny)

BaldGhoti (265981) | about 6 years ago | (#25268933)

One more year and it should be legal.

Re:Age of Consent (5, Funny)

weenis (656512) | about 6 years ago | (#25268945)

I'd totally fsck that!

The case against Barack Hussein Obama (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269025)

Obama will castrate our military and destroy our nuclear deterrent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxL8NcNACBY [youtube.com]

He will tax corporations and high income earners that employ the population of the US, which will force them to cut jobs and send the unemployment rate skyrocketing.
http://obama.3cdn.net/b7be3b7cd08e587dca_v852mv8ja.pdf [3cdn.net]

He sees dead people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=galtZF0nKYc [youtube.com]

He wants to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving us at the mercy of criminals.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_gun_control.htm [ontheissues.org]

He'll cut and run from Iraq, knocking the legs out from under the Iraqi government as they are finally finding their footing.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/ [barackobama.com]

He believes homosexuals are entitled to more rights than straight people.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/index.html [cnn.com]

He believes in mob rule concerning criminal punishment.
The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 58

He refuses to call terrorists "terrorists" even when presented with evidence.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15251928 [npr.org]

He will prevent us from keeping sensitive materials confidential, which will place national security at risk.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14356/ [cfr.org]

He would talk with terrorist countries without demanding that they cease their efforts to murder innocent people and abide by the rule of law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4 [youtube.com]

He believes we should reward people who ignore the existence of a country's sovereignty and illegally enter the country instead of forcing them to abide by the law.
http://obama.senate.gov/news/060923-sen_obama_at_to/index.php [senate.gov]

He believes the government should regulate the internet.
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral/index.php [senate.gov]

He believes in making those who have money pay for the healthcare of those who do not have money.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ [barackobama.com]

He believes we should take corn, a staple food for the US, and use it for ethanol production, which will cause shortages in food supply and produce car exhaust that is more dangerous to humans than gasoline burning cars.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/05/new_us_congress_looks_to_boost_alternate_fuels/?p1=MEWell_Pos5 [boston.com]

He believes that parents should have no choice but to send their children to government run schools to be indoctrinated by sub-standard teachers.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/04/041027.obama-ct.html [uchicago.edu]

In short, he's an anti-American, anti-military Marxist who will destroy the US before he can be voted out of office. I don't like McCain and I have problems with many of his positions, but he will, at the very least, keep the US from crashing and burning within the next 4 years (provided the Dems don't win Congress).

And no, he's not a Muslim (as far as we know). He's not black (he's bi-racial). He's not a Christian (against everything Christians believe in). He's not a foreign-born Manchurian candidate (born in Hawaii and he's telling everyone how he'll kill the country).

Terrorists regimes around the world have said that they want Obama to be president. Would you take advice from people who want to kill you and elect the person they want elected?

MOD PARENT UP (then vote McCain) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269239)

Yeah!

Re:MOD PARENT UP (then vote McCain) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269353)

> Obama will castrate our military and destroy our nuclear deterrent.
I don't mind. As far as spending and numbers are concerned, we already outnumber the rest of the world. And anyone crazy enough to use nukes is crazy enough to not care about US deterrent.

> He will tax corporations and high income earners that employ the population of the US, which will force them to cut jobs and send the unemployment rate skyrocketing.
Several prominent economists disagree with this assessment. And even if it's true, New-Deal style job creation is in the pipe too.

> He sees dead people.
Who the fuck cares.

> He wants to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving us at the mercy of criminals.
If you read the linked article, you'd know this is a misrepresentation.

> He'll cut and run from Iraq, knocking the legs out from under the Iraqi government as they are finally finding their footing.
Likewise an oversimplification. The 16 months are tied to a timetable of phasing in Iraqi control of Iraq. This is no more cutting and running than a road trip is reckless driving.

> He believes homosexuals are entitled to more rights than straight people.
This claim is not supported by the transcript.

> He refuses to call terrorists "terrorists" even when presented with evidence.
No, he refuses to call a losing battle a winning battle, even if doing so keeps certain terrorists from being classified as such. The bill in question covered an omnibus of opinions, and disagreeing with one does not mean he disagreed with the whole bill.

> He will prevent us from keeping sensitive materials confidential, which will place national security at risk.
The stated plan is to go through classified materials and determine what can be declassified without threatening national security; the hypothesis is that there are many such documents kept classified for political reasons. If all of those materials really do need classified status, the department will do nothing. I fail to see the issue here.

> He would talk with terrorist countries without demanding that they cease their efforts to murder innocent people and abide by the rule of law.
Why would a country that is convinced you are the enemy do anything you tell it to do? Why would a country with whom you will not communicate listen to your demands?

> He believes the government should regulate the internet.
The government is already giving the people who run the internet an exception from antitrust law, on the basis of the "natural monopoly" created by the wires. In fact, the government helped pay for those wires. Shouldn't it have a say in how those wires are used?

> He believes in making those who have money pay for the healthcare of those who do not have money.
The alternative is for those with no money to have no healthcare either. Most of the country considers that unacceptable.

> He believes we should take corn, a staple food for the US, and use it for ethanol production, which will cause shortages in food supply and produce car exhaust that is more dangerous to humans than gasoline burning cars.
He believes we should use corn ethanol as one of many replacements for oil. Corn production has already skyrocketed on speculation for this alternative fuel. Meanwhile, your comments on the dangerous nature of ethanol exhaust are supported neither by the article nor a cursory Google search on the matter.

> He believes that parents should have no choice but to send their children to government run schools to be indoctrinated by sub-standard teachers.
How do you know? The linked article only mentions that he happens to send his kids to a private school where he gets a discount. Not supporting vouchers does not mean wanting to destroy private schools. They seem to be getting by well enough without government hand-outs.

> In short, he's an anti-American,
What the fuck does that mean.
> anti-military
And why not?
> Marxist
Not even close.
> who will destroy the US before he can be voted out of office.
Assuming that Congress rolls over to every fucking thing he suggests, and assuming he was lying about bipartisanship and dialogue as being fundamentally necessary for democracy to work.

> Terrorists regimes around the world have said that they want Obama to be president. Would you take advice from people who want to kill you and elect the person they want elected?
The devil said Goody Proctor was working for him. Why should we believe the devil? Why should we believe the terrorists? If they really wanted Obama to win, would they be spilling their guts about it so everyone in earshot could hear?

MOD PARENT DOWN (then vote McCain) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269501)

You must really hate America!

Re:Age of Consent (5, Funny)

iminplaya (723125) | about 6 years ago | (#25269159)

Go for it [m0sia.ru]

Re:Age of Consent (4, Funny)

moosesocks (264553) | about 6 years ago | (#25269667)

Please don't let this be the new rickroll.....

Re:Age of Consent (4, Funny)

rob1980 (941751) | about 6 years ago | (#25268947)

Not that it'll ever get any, of course...

Re:Age of Consent (-1, Flamebait)

MrMista_B (891430) | about 6 years ago | (#25268967)

Um, you do know that using Linux isn't against the law, right? It's legal to use it.

Re:Age of Consent (1)

satoshi1 (794000) | about 6 years ago | (#25269021)

Whoosh.

Re:Age of Consent (3, Funny)

IceCreamGuy (904648) | about 6 years ago | (#25269085)

Are you sure? Maybe that's just your state; I'm 90% certain that at least in Maryland an operating system has to be 18 in order to buy cigarettes.

Re:Age of Consent (5, Funny)

eln (21727) | about 6 years ago | (#25269211)

You sick son of a bitch. How could you take advantage of a young, vulnerable operating system like that? An operating system less than 18 years of age is incapable of informed consent, and should not be "used", as you put it.

I'll be calling the Feds on you, and God help you if they find any screenshots of Linux on your computer.

Re:Age of Consent (5, Funny)

jadedoto (1242580) | about 6 years ago | (#25269401)

Now here in Kentucky...

Re:Age of Consent (1)

KGIII (973947) | about 6 years ago | (#25269405)

As a parent I can agree. They are, at that age, mostly acting like they're two and mostly costing a whole lot of money and mostly thinking they know more than anybody else.

Re:Age of Consent (0, Flamebait)

MrMista_B (891430) | about 6 years ago | (#25269645)

Flamebait for saying that it isn't against the law to use Linux?

You /do/ know what Linux is, right?

Re:Age of Consent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269031)

Just don't sing it "Happy Birthday to You" in public, unless you want to pay royalties [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Age of Consent (5, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about 6 years ago | (#25269305)

That won't be a problem until Linux support sound.

Re:Age of Consent (5, Funny)

Reikk (534266) | about 6 years ago | (#25269163)

I thought it already was legal. Linux has been fucking me for years.

Re:Age of Consent (1)

hendrix2k (1099161) | about 6 years ago | (#25269235)

Does this mean 2009 will finally be the Year of Linux on the Desktop?

Cause you know that once she hits 18, all the sleazy frat guys are gonna be all over her.

Re:Age of Consent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269497)

yeah they care about her being 18

Re:Age of Consent (1)

xristoph (1169159) | about 6 years ago | (#25269253)

Yeah, but it still can't drink... not in the US at least ;)

Re:Age of Consent (3, Funny)

isBandGeek() (1369017) | about 6 years ago | (#25269303)

So that gives whole new meaning to "free." Free as in beer, free as in speech, and free as in to f*ck.

Re:Age of Consent (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269367)

stfu noob go choke a dick

Re:Age of Consent (1)

Rinisari (521266) | about 6 years ago | (#25269381)

I believe it's already legal in PA!

WRONG DATE (4, Informative)

suso (153703) | about 6 years ago | (#25269583)

The right date is September 17th, not October 5th. But year after year people keep messing it up. Don't believe me, look here [wikipedia.org]

One more year (2, Funny)

nawcom (941663) | about 6 years ago | (#25268941)

..until Microsoft can legally fuck Linux in the asshole... these days though it seems like Linux is going to be the one "giving it". Smile Balmer :)

Re:One more year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269247)

You're only gay if you 'take it'.

Re:One more year (1)

KGIII (973947) | about 6 years ago | (#25269419)

Nah. You are only gay if your balls touch. Or so they said back then...

Made for hackers (4, Funny)

narcberry (1328009) | about 6 years ago | (#25268955)

It is currently meant for hackers

OMG SHUT IT DOWN!!!

Re:Made for hackers (1)

Gewalt (1200451) | about 6 years ago | (#25268961)

It is currently meant for hackers

OMG SHUT IT DOWN!!!

lol, that was back in the day when nerds actually mistook the word hacker to be a positive reference. (I hear some still do... the poor souls..)

Re:Made for hackers (1)

all5n (1239664) | about 6 years ago | (#25269047)

Don't be a Cracker.

Re:Made for hackers (5, Informative)

Mick R (932337) | about 6 years ago | (#25269051)

Don't mistake the word "hacker" for what the ill-informed media use it to mean. It is the popular media that have given the term a negative meaning, and then only in recent years. It WAS a positive term, and STILL IS to those who know what it really means.

Re:Made for hackers (2, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | about 6 years ago | (#25269095)

and STILL IS to those who know what it really means.

No, it really isn't. The old usage of the word has been eclipsed at this point. Not fair, but nothing you can do about it either. Insisting that "hacker" is still a positive label is needlessly muddying the language at this point.

Re:Made for hackers (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269181)

Not only that, but it was a negative term before, too.

A "hack" is an ugly thrown-together bit of code that is used because "it works" rather than coming up with a proper solution. A "hacker" is someone who largely produces this low quality, but mostly functional code.

I usually stay quiet when all these people insist that they are "hackers" since, by and large, I agree with them (based on the above definition).

And, this goes right along with the "It is currently meant for hackers", because at the beginning of a proof-of-concept project, "just works" is good enough; it will get reworked later.

Now, I will agree with them that it shouldn't be used to describe a "cracker" or "black hat", although they are largely "hackers" as well.

Now, get off my lawn, damn it!

Re:Made for hackers (2, Interesting)

SgtPepperKSU (905229) | about 6 years ago | (#25269191)

Of course, the "just works" in the fourth paragraph should be another "it works". I feel I should make that clear since the term "just works" has been taken over, too.

I see you are still on my lawn...

Re:Made for hackers (1)

Tikkun (992269) | about 6 years ago | (#25269341)

Most muggles don't know what the heck I'm talking about anyways, what's one more word thrown in for good measure? ;)

Re:Made for hackers (2, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | about 6 years ago | (#25269459)

You are obviously lost, perhaps this forum is not really meant for you. Computer hacker in geek/nerd speak is technically neutral, neither good nor bad, cracker on the other hand is definitively bad and has always been considered so. Just as the individuals who know and understand this have re-defined the language in terms of the use of nerd and geek from negative to positive, so we, not the knuckle dragging jockstraps, define the use of the term hacker.

So in geek/nerd speak to clarify good or bad in relation to hacker, white hat or black hat is appended. Imagine, allowing mass media hockey puck 'mom' journalists from those colleges for dummies to define our language for us, what are ya thinkin, next you all be lettin em become president, 'er', wink, giggle.

Re:Made for hackers (1)

pizzach (1011925) | about 6 years ago | (#25269507)

No, it really isn't. The old usage of the word has been eclipsed at this point. Not fair, but nothing you can do about it either. Insisting that "hacker" is still a positive label is needlessly muddying the language at this point.

General usage of the word has been eclipsed at this point. But people who do know the difference should not necessarily be randomly throwing them around regardless. While you can call everything a taskbar, sometimes calling a gnome-panel a gnome-panel is more clear and make more sense.

Re:Made for hackers (3, Interesting)

Gewalt (1200451) | about 6 years ago | (#25269131)

And it was a negative term "to hack" long before a small group of programmers started misusing it. Because the general populous perceived the word akin it's etymology, to the public the word could only be used to describe something malign.

Re:Made for hackers (1)

KGIII (973947) | about 6 years ago | (#25269461)

There was a table, according to the lore that I recall but I can't think of any search terms to find it again in today's diluted internet, that had a power switch and anything (at that time) that was placed on it tended to ground out. I *think* it was at MIT. Leaving it on was considered a hack as there was absolutely no reason why it would not work with it on or off as it wasn't even connected with anything. I just spent way too much time actually looking for it but the terms I'm using are obviously failing so if anyone remembers this lore (could be urban legend) and a place to go look again (I think they had pictures) I'd be grateful.

Re:Made for hackers (3, Insightful)

dragonturtle69 (1002892) | about 6 years ago | (#25269141)

This is partially related to Linux's slow adoption rate, the "Hacker" stereotype presented in movies and such. If "Hacker" was portrayed accurately as similar to say "Skilled Mechanic", would Linux have more adoption? A Hacker being the one who helps get more from the hardware/software like a skilled mechanic getting you 5 MPG more than stock, and a cracker (not mentioned due to USA racial concerns?) being the one who takes your car on joy rides and brings it back beat up.

I think that the true hackers need to new group moniker, something that we'll get and Hollywood will not touch.

Many thanks to Torvolds for the initial release and every DEVHEAD since then who has contributed code, bug reports, or word of mouth advertising.

Re:Made for hackers (1)

KGIII (973947) | about 6 years ago | (#25269473)

Trademark or copyright. Those are what protects Linux today. If it is a term than I'd suggest trademark.

also: (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 6 years ago | (#25268959)

HURD turned 18 this year (22 if you count the first failed attempt).

Re:also: (5, Funny)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 6 years ago | (#25268987)

HURD turned 18 this year (22 if you count the first failed attempt).

There was a *successful* attempt?????

Re:also: (3, Funny)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | about 6 years ago | (#25269277)

Yeah, that time they got malloc to work. Because that's totally all you need for a working OS.

Re:also: (2, Insightful)

ari_j (90255) | about 6 years ago | (#25269319)

"First failed attempt" implies nothing about a later successful attempt. It just points out that you need an ordinal to tell which of the many failed attempts was meant.

what (4, Funny)

mikesd81 (518581) | about 6 years ago | (#25268983)

No google logo for this?! I expected a penguin or something like that.

Re:what (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269019)

Google doesn't give a fuck about linux except for how it (Goog) can exploit it. Go ahead and say I'm flamebaiting, I'm not. It's true. Prove me wrong. You can't because I'm right.

Re:what (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 6 years ago | (#25269229)

$CORPORATION doesn't give a $EXPLITIVE about $TECHNOLOGY except for how it ($CORP) can exploit it.

You're not flamebaiting. You're not insightful either, you're just spouting obvious statements in a beligerant manner. Your mother must be proud.

Re:what (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269525)

And resorting to a personal attack over substance is the worst form of trash. Your argument is a complete failure. I sincerely hope you are better at other things in life.

Heh, you must work for google to get so upset over something. Thanks for proving me right!

Re:what (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 6 years ago | (#25269081)

The problem is, when do you call Linux "released"? Is it today when the original code was written, or when it became stable with a 1.0 release? Or would it be when the first major Linux distribution was released? As you see, there is a lot of dates you could call Linux as being "released".

Re:what (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | about 6 years ago | (#25269139)

I thought it was universally agreed that Linux is the kernel? Which would be Oct 5, 1991 with version 0.02. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] states:

Linux is a Unix-like computer operating system family which uses the Linux kernel.

Re:what (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 6 years ago | (#25269157)

Yes, but which kernel? The stable 1.0 version? The beta version? The .02 version? Put it this way, while a lot of Linux-centered publications say that Linux was written in 1991, I've read even computer textbooks that use the 1994 date of the 1.0 release to say when Linux was released.

Re:what (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | about 6 years ago | (#25269219)

Did you not read my reply? Even from the article it says the 0.02 version. Look at this [google.com] . The 0.02 version.

Re:what (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269451)

Why not version 0.01 like Slashdot celebrated back in the days [slashdot.org] ? We should choose one date and stick to it, guys.

Re:what (4, Informative)

Petrushka (815171) | about 6 years ago | (#25269297)

Probably because Linux had already been announced in August 1991 [google.com] , so that is probably the more important anniversary. But the October post linked in the summary is the first usenet post to refer to it as Linux, and to link to the source.

(Incidentally, at the risk of starting a flamewar, I think the 28th of September [google.com] was also a fairly important anniversary ...)

Poor Quality (1, Troll)

bmo (77928) | about 6 years ago | (#25269001)

That article was a POS. It's pretty much content-free.

Poorly researched. No explanation of what Linux really is. No real explanation of why it's come as far as it has.

Wikipedia looks comprehensive and accurate in contrast.

--
BMO

Re:Poor Quality (3, Insightful)

mikesd81 (518581) | about 6 years ago | (#25269071)

I don't think it was meant to be a history lesson. If you're looking at the fact linux is 17 today, then you know what linux is. I kinda think, and this isn't one of Doc's better articles, it's saying where Linux is now at the moment and where it may go?

Re:Poor Quality (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | about 6 years ago | (#25269183)

Why is it a problem that it has no explaination for what linux is? People know what linux is. Hell, I do tech support, and most of the X-AOLers I talk to know what linux is.

IP Squatting? (1)

sysusr (971503) | about 6 years ago | (#25269015)

No fun. I wanted to register 128.214.6.100 but GoDaddy won't let me...

My Linux has a fake ID (4, Funny)

LM741N (258038) | about 6 years ago | (#25269065)

Its called Ubuntu and he is supposed to be 60 years old and lives as a zoo keeper, naming all of his projects after various animals there.

Britannica? (3, Funny)

paradoxSpirit (1172919) | about 6 years ago | (#25269125)

"The anniversary is also featured on the top page of the Encyclopedia Britannica"

Britannica is overrated, wake me when it make the first page of wikipedia ;-)

Linus... humble!? (1, Flamebait)

saleenS281 (859657) | about 6 years ago | (#25269147)

Holy crap, Linus almost sounds like he was humble back then. Apparently all that fame and power since has turned him into a complete cock.

Yaya, mod me down as flamebait, but the guy really needs to get off his high horse.

Re:Linus... humble!? (2, Insightful)

Macthorpe (960048) | about 6 years ago | (#25269207)

Open Source is full of guys with huge egos, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't see any difference between Linus and say, RMS.

Then again, at least Linus is a good coder...

Re:Linus... humble!? (5, Insightful)

zkiwi34 (974563) | about 6 years ago | (#25269249)

I'd say he (Linus) is far far more humble than Gates, Ballmer, Ellison et al. In fact, I should add that I rather think RMS is shy and retiring compared to those guys.

Re:Linus... humble!? (4, Insightful)

saleenS281 (859657) | about 6 years ago | (#25269257)

Ya frigging Stallman. While he may be a bit off his rocker... he only created the license Linux currently uses, as well as the compiler it was created with. Other than that, a COMPLETE hackjob.

Or did you conveniently forget that it's GNU/Linux? Without Stallman you likely wouldn't have Linux at all.

Re:Linus... humble!? (3, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 6 years ago | (#25269307)

No, but you could still have Free/Net/Open BSD, though. So what, really, would be the loss?

Of course, gcc is really the engine that makes all our worlds revolve these days.

Re:Linus... humble!? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269355)

Or did you conveniently forget that it's GNU/Linux?

Ahem, did *you* conveniently forget that it's [Mozilla|Konqueror]/OpenOffice.org/KDE/QT/[X.org|XFree86]/GNU/Linux?

The advertising prefix worked on some (0)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 years ago | (#25269533)

Or did you conveniently forget that it's GNU/Linux?

No. Perhaps we are not so new to this that we can remember the silly LiGnuX suggestion for gnu advertising purposes and then two years later the GNU/Linux suggestion for the same reason. The article was about linux and not the very useful gnu tools which are a completely different project.

It was several years ago but I'm still going to say "Stop trying to correct the old folks that have a clue and get off my lawn newbie!". Bah, the kid probably doesn't even remember the emacs fork gobdarnit.

Re:Linus... humble!? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269339)

and rms needs to get a haircut, shave and bath.

Re:Linus... humble!? (5, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | about 6 years ago | (#25269575)

Mod down? No. But there's an important distinction: to get technical excellence, you have to have some way to filter out technical mediocrity. Therefore, in an environment demanding technical excellence, those who are technically mediocre will feel slighted and rejected.

Building excellence is not about "feeling good", a bunch of hairy hippies sitting around in Buddha style kumbaya. It's about building excellence, and it's not always pretty.

Linus is very forward and very direct; a display of the confidence that comes from years of proven experience producing and overseeing real, valuable excellence. He's OK with stating his opinion very openly and succinctly, confident that if his ideas are wrong, they'll be picked apart ruthlessly and publicly.

Linus has done an amazing job of coordinating an insane amount of information in one of the largest, most complex, and most distributed project ever attempted by mankind. And he accepts that his ideas are only valuable if they are RIGHT by the standards of excellence.

I don't care if he is "polite", he is an amazing fellow simply because he's OK with being wrong, and puts his ego in 2nd place after technical excellence!

This is the hallmark of good science and good engineering: when who has the right answer is less important than what's the right answer!

Hugs to Linus!

Re:Linus... humble!? (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | about 6 years ago | (#25269631)

Why, exactly? You don't think his achievements are meaningful?

I'd say he's earned his 'high-horse'ness far more than most.

0.95b... (1)

Temkin (112574) | about 6 years ago | (#25269177)

Has it really been that long???

I remember being excited when 0.95b came out. It had a parallel port driver, and I could print on these flat cellulose sheets made from dead trees. You young whipper snappers probably don't know anything about that...

Re:0.95b... (1)

deniable (76198) | about 6 years ago | (#25269657)

We know about paper. You forget Quality Assurance, developed by the paper industry to defeat the paperless office.

Grats! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269197)

Congrats! 17 years and almost 2% of the market share. This is the year!

http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

Relevance? (2)

zergl (841491) | about 6 years ago | (#25269205)

Somebody indulge me, but why is the *17th* birthday of the kernel worthy of main page? Slow news day?

15, 20, 25, etc. yes. But 17?

Re:Relevance? (1)

Provocateur (133110) | about 6 years ago | (#25269441)

Because here in the US, most college kids celebrate the day they need no steenkin' ID to purchase alcohol and/or cigarettes, and that alone is cause for celebration and wearing women's underwear.

Oh, wait that last part was *my preference. My bad...

Linux Is a Living Dinosaur (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269209)

Linux's daddy, Unix, is itself an ancient dinosaur that somehow escaped from a museum of the 20th century. Unix is the offspring of a bunch of aging and confused baby boomers who would not know a good OS if it kicked them in the gonads. Linux is woefully inadequate to the computing challenges of the 21st century. It solves neither the parallel programming crisis nor the reliability and productivity crises. It should be thrown into the trash bin of obsolete and lame technologies where Microsoft Windows and all the other hideous operating systems of the dark ages of computing will soon keep it company. Five or ten years from now, people will uncover the trash bin to take a look at how things used to be and their reaction will be, WTF!!??

It's time for /. computer nerds to grow up and stop worshiping crap. LOL.

Re:Linux Is a Living Dinosaur (0, Redundant)

FunkyRider (1128099) | about 6 years ago | (#25269279)

Stop arguing when you don't have a god damn point!? Where is your fucking point? All OS are obsolete blah blah blah, what do you use then? Your own fucking dick to do calculations on your bed using your semen? If you don't know what to talk about, SHUT THE FUCK UP. period.

Re:Linux Is a Living Dinosaur (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269349)

SHUT THE FUCK UP. period.

Dear Mr./Ms. dinosaur worshiper,

I cranked you, didn't I? Now go cry on your momma's shoulders. ahahaha...

Signed,

Icraponlinux

Re:Linux Is a Living Dinosaur (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269655)

Hey, quiet you! Stop complaining and get back to work! [haiku-os.org]

this just in (5, Funny)

Nyall (646782) | about 6 years ago | (#25269223)

Time keeps flowing.

38 comments in (1)

log0n (18224) | about 6 years ago | (#25269237)

and some of the best tags I've ever seen.

Keep up the good work!

WTF on encyclopedia britannica (1)

AceofSpades19 (1107875) | about 6 years ago | (#25269241)

By 1999 an estimated seven million computers were running on Linux, still available free of charge, and many major software companies had announced plans to support it. Meanwhile, Torvalds had taken a position with Transmeta Corp., owned by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen, working on a top-secret project that many in the high-tech community assumed would involve some future assault on the Microsoft empire.

outdated and erroneous much?

Re:WTF on encyclopedia britannica (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269621)

It also mentions in the article that Linus originally started Linux to replace his currently OS, MS-DOS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I had always thought he was replacing his copy of MINIX.

Britannica is too outdated (1)

Bob Gelumph (715872) | about 6 years ago | (#25269321)

Britannica is so crap compared to Wikipedia. The article on Linux seems to have been written in 1999, and the description of Linux as an operating system would not make Stallman happy.

I like the part where it says (1)

Provocateur (133110) | about 6 years ago | (#25269387)

"For a definition of Linus Torvaldis, see Merriam Webster"

OMG! I read TFA all the way to the end! And on this day of all things!!
 
/me hides

I vote next years first ubuntu release (5, Funny)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | about 6 years ago | (#25269395)

"Barely Legal"

17 years... (5, Funny)

rampant mac (561036) | about 6 years ago | (#25269403)

Obligatory:

1991 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 1992 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 1993 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 1994 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 1995 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 1996 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 1997 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 1998 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 1999 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2000 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2001 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2002 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2003 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2004 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2005 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2006 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2007 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!, 2008 - This is the year of the Linux desktop!

Stupid whitespace filter, yadda yadda

Re:17 years... (1)

pecosdave (536896) | about 6 years ago | (#25269463)

Nah, I would say that list should legitimately begun at 1998 or so, with low hopes. Before then I think it was said as more of a joke. The modern KDE and Gnome however are quite flashy and user friendly. Easier in Windows in many respects, and I've found a few things I like better about KDE (my prefered manager) than I do about Mac OS X.

Re:17 years... (1)

mcrbids (148650) | about 6 years ago | (#25269643)

It's been the year of MY Linux desktop since about 1999, the year a virus on my Windows 98 computer sent random copies of my word processing files to all of my customers. Since one of those documents was a list of usernames and passwords, I had the joy of contacting all my customers, giving them new passwords, and explaining the potential security breach.

Never again. //Typing this on a Dell laptop running Fedora Core 8//

Thanks to RMS as well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25269431)

Lets not forget to thank Richard for the great userland GNU provided (or the busy box folks if you use your linux on a small device)

Yeah, and I downloaded and built Linux version 0.1 (1)

afabbro (33948) | about 6 years ago | (#25269453)

I swear, it's like some kind of geek Woodstock. Just like every baby boomer was at Woodstock, every geek says he ran Linux in '91. Guys who merely downloaded Slackware floppies? Please...we ran 0.1 and compiled it ourselves blah blah...

Happy B-Day! (1)

motang (1266566) | about 6 years ago | (#25269475)

Happy birthday Linux...one more year and you vote and go off to Iraq and fight terrorism.

Re:Happy B-Day! (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | about 6 years ago | (#25269549)

Unless Linus signs a release and he can join the military early.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?