ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

The OS should be invisible to the user - Is Torvalds right?

By | February 9, 2008, 5:28am PST

Summary: Is Linus Torvalds right? Should the OS should be invisible to the user? How invisible? Is he speaking about the kernel specifically or the distro as a whole? Given the emphasis that popular Linux distros such as Ubuntu place on the UI, is Torvalds’ views too caught up in the kernel?

The Sydney Morning Herald has a Q&A with Linux kernel creator Linus Torvalds.  It’s an interesting read, but one part more than any stood out for me:

An o/s should never have been something that people (in general) really care about: it should be completely invisible and nobody should give a flying [expletive deleted] about it except the technical people.” [emphasis added]

Note that Torvalds said “o/s” and not “kernel.”  Given Torvalds’ credentials, I find it hard to believe that he made a mistake here.  Since he made this remark is response to a question about the press that Windows and Mac OS gets, it’s fair to assume that he’s talking about distros here and that the OS on your system should be invisble in the way that the road you drive on, the water supply that you drink from and the electricity supply that you tap into is.

This is an interesting point of view.  I guess that what Torvalds is doing here is stripping the OS to the absolute basics and saying that the core should be invisible to the user, and since the only time that most users get to glimpse as deep as that is when things go wrong, I suppose he’s right.   In Torvalds’ world users would download the very basic OS and build on that.  You’d choose each aspect of the OS and customize it to suit your needs, starting with the kernel.

But …

That’s a developer’s view of the world, and it’s a view that just wouldn’t get very much traction in the real world where users have a hard enough time finding the on switch or understanding why their digital camera won’t let them take another snapshot. 

I am, in part at least, a Linux convert, and that’s largely because of what’s happened to Linux over the past few years.  I’m not dismissive of it, neither do I believe that it is a path to computing utopia.  Years ago when I began dabbling with Linux distros, it was, without a doubt, a geek’s play thing.  I can’t speak for others but for me it was an OS where I spent much more time working on the system than with the system and there’s a point where that became unsustainable - I didn’t really need Linux as a hobby.  Not only has the Linux kernel improved dramatically, but so has the GIU and the applications that go into turning that kernel into a distro and a workable OS.  

Then businesses became involved and created distros that are “user friendly.”  These businesses believe in open source, but they also believe in making a profit.  To have a chance of turning a profit, a company needs to see a broad user base.  That’s why Dell ships Ubuntu. 

My take is that Torvalds is torn between two camps - in the one camp you have those that believe that Linux is a niche OS and only needs to appeal to sub 1% of users, and in the other camp you have those that want Linux to go mainstream because there’s money to be made.  To go mainstream is seems that the distros need to put a lot of effort into the GUI.  Similarly with mobile devices, adoption of the Linux kernel requires a GUI and applications to go with it.  Maybe it’s just me, but it’s  certainly interesting that what’s giving Linux a shot at grabbing market share both on the desktop and mobile devices is companies and the desire to make a profit.  It seems that you have to have a balance between the kernel and the rest of the OS (the GUI, applications, drivers …).

A part of me likes the idea of building my own custom distro, picking the best parts in the same way that I do when I build a new PC, but I don’t have the time.  I could ask the question “what’s the best distro for me?” but I end up with at least a dozen suggestions each time.  I’ve chosen Ubuntu for desktops and notebooks running Linux, but for all I know PCLinuxOS or openSUSE might be better.  I dunno.  I wish I had the time to find out.

Note:  I’ve read and re-read what I’ve written here several times and there’s one thing I want to get clear before I close.  This post is not intended to be flamebait.  It’s not.  If you feel that it is, I encourage you not to contribute to creating a fire.  Close the browser and forget what I said.  I’m writing this because of my interest in what Torvalds said and what others feel about this.

Thoughts? 

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

55
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

No Details...
dhaynie@... 14th Feb 2008
Yeah, I'd like to know there IS an engine, some of the characteristics of that engine (mine is actually engine and motor), size and performance specs. That's fine.

What I don't want is to deal with numerous pointless details of that engine on a daily basis. I want that engine to enable moving of that chassis from point A to point B... maybe that's pure utility (what do I care about performance specs when I'm in 17 mph traffic on the way to work), maybe that's pure fun (whem I'm tracking a line through a mountain switchback at 75mph, I don't want an "Are You Sure?" popping up -- I demand invisibility, that's all that keeps me alive at that point).
0 Votes
+ -
I think you misread him
Yagotta B. Kidding 9th Feb 2008
Linus has been saying for a long time that the only purpose of the OS is to run applications. At that level, it is invisible to the user. It's admittedly an unattainable ideal, since there are always some things that users do without high-level applications (e.g. move files around) but as an ideal it's not unreasonable.
0 Votes
+ -
Much better
zaine_ridling 9th Feb 2008
A much better way to say it than I did.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
OK ...
Adrian Kingsley-Hughes 9th Feb 2008
... can it be too invisible? For example, when buying a new car, some will want to know the engine size. They might know nothing of mechanics and have no intentions of lifting the hood, but they want to know.

Reminds me of a story of someone I knew at a Rolls Royce dealership. I don't remember the whole story but the bit that I do remember went something like this:

Customer: How big is the engine?
Salesperson: The engine is of adequate size, sir.
The engine example you give is the equivalent of CPU.
0 Votes
+ -
In your face
Yagotta B. Kidding 9th Feb 2008
OK can it be too invisible?

There's a difference between "out of sight" and "inaccessible."

For example, when buying a new car, some will want to know the engine size. They might know nothing of mechanics and have no intentions of lifting the hood, but they want to know.

Well, that may be a difference between Linus and Steve Jobs. Certainly Linus would never argue that you shouldn't be able to find out, or pop the bonnet.

Getting away from the automotive metaphor (please!) I prefer to think of it as household plumbing. Most people are quite happy, thank you, to never know what goes on in the pipes; if water comes when they turn the tap and the drains make it all go away they are happy.

Which isn't to say that we don't want the option of replacing a faucet washer without calling in the plumber.
0 Votes
+ -
re: In your face
cbradshaw@... 11th Feb 2008
The OS's function is to handle the communication between the Users and the hardware. In this Linus is correct that is should be invisible to the users. It does not matter what the OS is.
0 Votes
+ -
I have an old PC that my kids use for web access and for basic tasks with open office. For users like this, the OS really is quite invisible. I like to play with distros, and I have swapped out operating systems and my kids really cannot tell the difference between a BSD and Linux, at least once I have Java and Flash plug-ins working. Unless they have to worry about upgrades or command line options, it really doesn't matter to them.
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong....
ItsTheBottomLine 12th Feb 2008
...
0 Votes
+ -
No Details...
dhaynie@... 14th Feb 2008
Yeah, I'd like to know there IS an engine, some of the characteristics of that engine (mine is actually engine and motor), size and performance specs. That's fine.

What I don't want is to deal with numerous pointless details of that engine on a daily basis. I want that engine to enable moving of that chassis from point A to point B... maybe that's pure utility (what do I care about performance specs when I'm in 17 mph traffic on the way to work), maybe that's pure fun (whem I'm tracking a line through a mountain switchback at 75mph, I don't want an "Are You Sure?" popping up -- I demand invisibility, that's all that keeps me alive at that point).
could change out the OS and the people using the applications do not notice any difference in moving files around.
0 Votes
+ -
Right on
nilotpal_c 9th Feb 2008
That is the purpose of the OS, isn't it? There is too much attention paid to eye candy now and too little to whether it functions. Almost the entire Vista "Wow" campaign focussed on stunning visuals. One of the main selling point of Macs is also eye candy. Makes you wonder if having a translucent screensaver with widgets and what not has become more important than to actually create or edit a file.All in all, there is too much attention paid to style over substance today.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes and no
Yagotta B. Kidding 9th Feb 2008
There is too much attention paid to eye candy now and too little to whether it functions. Almost the entire Vista "Wow" campaign focussed on stunning visuals. One of the main selling point of Macs is also eye candy. Makes you wonder if having a translucent screensaver with widgets and what not has become more important than to actually create or edit a file.

Those graphics (Compiz etc.) are also available to applications. I'm not really sure how much spinning translucent pages do for word processing, but I can see them being very popular with the "slideshows are my life" set.

All in all, there is too much attention paid to style over substance today.

It's not up to the techies to dictate culture, however. If the customers want tailfins, they get tailfins.
Gtk? Those are all things that an application needs to have present.
0 Votes
+ -
You don't NEED those things
Michael Kelly 10th Feb 2008
Compiz is just a window manager. You can run an application on straight XWindows. But it's awfully convenient to have. Likewise you can make an XWindowing application without using libraries like GTK or QT (there are many others), but those are awfully convenient to have as well. Even XWindows isn't necessary for graphic applications, I can use browse the web with graphics, look at pictures, and even watch movies without XWindows, but XWindows also is awfully convenient to have.

I would say that the OS proper is the part that you need run the computer and use your hardware, and anything over and beyond that, even if it's really convenient to have, is considered applications and/or libraries.
0 Votes
+ -
I think you are onto it.
shardeth-15902278 11th Feb 2008
And the key to that 'invisibility' is for users to be able to select the bits that suit their needs by a single-click... And then have them 'just work' on their hardware, whatever it may be. no chasing dependancies, no fiddling with config files, no hacking registry settings, no removing and re-installing drivers...

At that point, you have 'invisibility'.
0 Votes
+ -
And therefore
nilotpal_c 9th Feb 2008
The rightful place of these are as applications. They should not be taken as indicators of how good or bad an OS is.
You are right about the fact that techies should not dictate culture. But that is happening, more and more. Don't you think that this shift from functionality to eye pleasing effects are partly due to techies, along with the marketing people. Seeing no innovative idea coming out for improving the UI (it is fine today as it is), they have jazzed up the idea of a good OS as one having stunning visual effects. Mind you, I am not against visual effects in its entirity, but to come to a situation where I have to show (mostly) useless spinning cubes to prove that one OS is not inferior to others, is going too far I feel. And I think that that was the point Torvalds was trying to make: The visual shell strictly does not belong to the OS, and should have no bearing on judging the efficiency or otherwise of an OS. They are there just to enhance the experience of some applications.
0 Votes
+ -
That's been my arguement all along
merc2dogs` 11th Feb 2008
The OS is there to connect the software to the user, not to baffle them with bull**** and flashing lights.

an OS should do what you say and get out of the way.

Ken.
0 Votes
+ -
Interesting...
gmureddu@... 11th Feb 2008
Though I don't think there is much of a valid point if you stay in the GUI paradigm. For instance, take GNOME or KDE on any of the Unix and Unix-like operating systems. You can perform file operations within a common application to all OSes under the same Desktop Environment, be it Nautilus or Dolphin, despite the OS being Linux, *BSD, Solaris, etc; file operation remain under the very same application wink
0 Votes
+ -
Torvalds is drawing from Heidegger
zaine_ridling 9th Feb 2008
Linus has long repeated this "The OS should be invisible to the user" sentiment in many interviews. Primarily what he means is that the OS should be invisible to your circle of concern. For example, you don't notice your car engine until you get in it one morning and it refuses to start. You shouldn't be concerned with any tool — a hammer, a disposal, a TV remote, light switch, etc. — until something changes (usually when it stops working). Otherwise, the OS should thus be invisible and you shouldn't have to care about it all the time.

I agree that the GUI makes a huge difference. It certainly hooks Apple fans and converts, and when you see some of the aspects of KDE 4, you're happy to see them as a GNU/Linux user.
are not part of the OS - they are part of the distribution. Though, if you have default menu structures, the GUI is largely irrelevant too.
0 Votes
+ -
Good Point...
ItsTheBottomLine 12th Feb 2008
...
the Complete shipping version of OSX, Windows, or Ubuntu. He would take GNOME, KDE, FireFox, for instance and say that is not part of the OS. You have to realize that MS even calls applications like a web browser part of the OS, though they probably really do not believe that, it is just for legal and marketing considerations.

As an example, when Apple switched the Mac to BSD, they switched the complete OS, not just the kernel. The only thing left was the Mac GUI and Mac applications.

And this fits with with Linux as well. We have the Kernel, the OS, and finally distributions that include a GUI and applications.

I would tend to agree with Linus. It is the complete OS that you should not notice, NOT just the kernel that you should not notice.
0 Votes
+ -
Take MacOS
s_souche 9th Feb 2008
MacOS is almost not an OS, but a layer on top of it, the SO being BSD.


there is that almost thought, because apple had to change the underlying part, and did not keep , and neither tried to keep, their super layer and BSD underneath. too bad.
0 Votes
+ -
No knit picks here. Good work Adrian.
D T Schmitz 9th Feb 2008
nt
0 Votes
+ -
HastalaVista is invisible
theo_durcan 9th Feb 2008
here; nowhere can be found...

PF
PC OS's are still in a very immature state. What we need to do is set the objective that the user should not *have* to defrag, clean out temp files, manage other users, worry if the pagefile is big enough etc.

That is a more useful way of thinking about the problem instead of just saying that the "OS should be invisible".
0 Votes
+ -
...but you can jump in and do it manually (or, more accurately, via a dialog). As far as I'm aware, this is how it works across the 'big 3'.
0 Votes
+ -
Do-it-yourself
pjotr123 9th Feb 2008
All the distro's you mentioned, are the user-friendly mainstream ones. Which means that they are not tailored to your hardware, but made to run on everything that you throw at them.

Also they all have a standard set of applications, some of which you most likely won't need. All in the name of user-friendliness. happy

However, there are still some do-it-yourself distro's around. In the margin nowadays, because most Linux users (like I) are lazy and like things to be easy and simple. One of the reasons that I like Ubuntu, is that it's so much easier to install (and maintain) than Windows...

If you want to have a tailor made operating system for your hardware, with no fat rolls, choose Gentoo. Expect something like 10 % faster performance of your hardware. Warning: requires considerable knowledge of Linux and a lot of work. No smooth ride here. happy

Greetz, Pjotr.
An OS (kernel + shell) is indeed invisible to most of us as long as it's working w/o trouble. Performance, stability, security, device (internal/external) and application/file management are perhaps the only requirements expected from any OS. In the long run does it really matter how good looking the start menu, icons, title/status bar are?
Linus is right, in the strict definition of what an OS is and does, and I would suspect he's a strong believer in that definition (since Unix and Linux are really OSs in the strictest sense of the term). An OS is generally defined as a piece of software that manages hardware resources of a system, distributes them between the users, and provides access to them to programmers. In this sense, it really should be invisible to the users, because users in general use applications to accomplish what they do and thus should never be exposed to the workings of the system in the strict sense.

But Apple and MS have expanded the strict definition to include a host of bundled apps, including a shell with GUI, a variety of media apps, internet browsers, etc. Whether or not the fact that we as users now come to expect this bundle from any OS should change the definition of what an OS is or we should still use the more restrictive terminology is a question of philosophy. It is clear what side of the debate Linus is on, but he's the ultimate techie.
0 Votes
+ -
Does IT Matter?
doug@... 9th Feb 2008
This is the point that Nicholas Carr attempts
to make about the Internet, calling it the
World Wide Computer in his latest 'The Big
Switch'. The OS has become a commodity and
Linux is a big part of that. One reason you
may never seen Windows disassembled to the same
degree that Linux and kernel can.

He is right, the OS should be invisible to the
user and always be there, and always work like
a toaster, or coffee machine. Just tell it to
do what you want and it comes out perfect every
time.

Obviously, we still have a way to go to get
there, but we are on the way.
Seems to me that Linus has more of a clue about what an OS is supposed to be than the other "genius's" out there. devil
>>>I???ve chosen Ubuntu for desktops and notebooks running Linux, but for all I know PCLinuxOS or openSUSE might be better. I dunno. I wish I had the time to find out.,,,

PCLinuxOS is my choice because....it just feels right. If Ubuntu just feels right to you, who cares whether there is a technically better(somewhat objective view) or a more user friendly distro with spectacular eye candy(somewhat subjective view)? The other distros are out there for you to play with and 'test drive' if you ever find the time. No real hurry there.. My experience has been that most who use Linux tend to stay with the distro they learned on absent a compelling reason to do otherwise.
People really need to learn to differentiate between the gui system, the operating system, higher level software system (this part is not the operating system) and end user programs.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm somwhere in the middle
reedjjjr 11th Feb 2008
I consider myself a technical user. I write C code and interface with data acquisition hardware. In my experience it's been much easier to do my work with linux than with any Microsoft o/s since DOS. The last system I did took 28 days to design, buy the hardware, code with C, TCL/TK, link with a set of FORTRAN code and demonstrate to the customer. It then took over two months for a competent programmer to convert to Windows. Just figuring out what licenses you need to buy seems to be pretty complicated.

Maybe given time and plenty of financial backing I could learn to use Microsoft products, but practically speaking my choice is between a fairly transparent system and one that seems designed to keep me in the dark.
I think a good analogy comparing Linux, etc to
completed OS's would be the difference between what
are called "kit cars" and manufactured cars.

For those who don't know: kit cars come in boxes,
supposedly with all the parts that supposedly fit, and if
you just spend a month or so, you will come out with a
wonderful car that will blow the doors off a BMW or a
Ferrari 360, all for $10,000.

Of all the kit cars ever shipped, probably less than 1%
are ever completed, and of those, 75% show up on
eBay 1-10 years later at 25 cents on the dollar at
most.

I am not knocking Linux and what you can do with it.
I have 20 years building race cars. I can take a pile of
tubing and make a work of art with it.

But if I want a functioning automobile, my Nissan
Altima is what I need. Or a Lexus or a BMW, etc.

I have both Mac OSX and Windows. Windows I use
when I absolutely have to, to run things that Microsoft
geeks have purposely built so that they won't run on
anything but Windows. Those guys will find that they
are heading into a black hole, but that's another story.

In my daily work, the very few tweaks that I need to
make to OSX are easy to do, and generally come from
some free plug in that someone else has developed. I
try it and if I don't like it, I dump it.

A MUCH EASIER AND PRODUCTIVE LIFE!

And, do I care at all about Torvald's comments about
OSX. No, it makes no difference at all to my productive
life using OSX. From my point of view, he is just
another kit car producer.
0 Votes
+ -
Define user
SeanGee 11th Feb 2008
All the distros/ OS's that I use already are. My 15 year old daughter (who doesn't even have a PC at home) will happily walk in to my place and park in front of whatever computer is available. This may be any of OSX, PCLinuxOS, XP or Vista. She doesn't have access to my Debian servers (which do not have X installed) and would not know what to do with them. Fair enough!

OTOH I am happy with the fact that on most of these I can just pop the hood and tweak the engine. This is the most difficult on Vista because of the attempts to make it invisible to the user - so its a lot harder to turn off some of the annoyances.
0 Votes
+ -
If Linux does this it will bury Microsoft...
mikifinaz1@... 11th Feb 2008
If Linux achieves this transparency as well as being technically superior it will crush Microsoft.

Most average people avoid Linux because of its technical challenges. One reason (besides the fact that Microsoft has pissed off a lot of people) Ubuntu has risen so fast is it has almost reached this place of hiding its technical nature from the user that Microsoft has.

A user can install and use Ubuntu easier than he can a Microsoft operating system. Once Linux reaches a common install framework (so drivers and software installs etc. work as well as the Windows world) Linux will begin to pick up the momentum it will need to challenge Microsoft for the desktop.
0 Votes
+ -
ZZZZZZZZ...same lame comments.
ItsTheBottomLine 12th Feb 2008
- your last paragraph is a total farse...from personal experience on 3 different machines and platforms including Ubunutu server. It's 100Xs better than 2 years ago, but they - Adrian has pointed out - have a little ways to go.
0 Votes
+ -
Devil in the Details
Mitch 74 11th Feb 2008
Remember that Linux (the kernel) is also used, pretty much unpatched, in hand held devices and in integrated appliances - which both have very limited (if at all) GUI.
I think Linus' idea is to get even further than, say the XO's 'Sugar' interface - where you don't launch applications, you get started on tasks (instead of 'using Word', it runs into 'typing a letter'). Both result in the same thing: a document is word processed.
However, you don't have to think about "I open Word, create a blank document, type the document's content, and save this document in a folder", it becomes "I type a document".

The OS is the one taking care of loading the appropriate application for executing the task, starting the template required for the task, then saving, indexing and putting away the document.

Right now, Linux is a kernel; however, in that same interview, Linus talks about how interested he is in Linux on the desktop - and if anybody remembers, he started a flame war on GNOME's reduced user settings hell.

What does it mean? Probably that Linus wants to create a system where you don't have to tell the computer what to do, but also where you can teach it how to accomplish new tricks

The former is what GNOME, KDE, Windows and Mac OS strive to accomplish, the latter is where most fall short:
- Windows first, as it's hell to configure (Registry... bleah, don't mention VBScript),
- MacOS X gets better due to more visible AppleScript bindings,
- GNOME opens it up further with Python and PERL bindings on top of dBus and HALD,
- KDE is like GNOME and adds some further presets that allow users to configure it with minimum fuss.

Linux, as a kernel, is more and more transparent; with its mass of built-in drivers and increasingly intelligent management, you need less and less intervention to deal with the hardware.

An example? When you plug a digital camera in your system, you get:
- under Windows: a prompt to install the peripheral's driver, then install the driver (and one or more reboots), then the managing application, which will eventually ask you (after all the prompts asking you to spend more money on the editor's other apps) if you want to import your files,
- under MacOS X: a prompt to install the driver, the OS does the rest, then asks you if you want to import the pictures,
- under GNOME/KDE/Bash/GNU/whatever/Linux: a prompt asking you if you want to import the pictures from your camera.

In the latter case, then yes, the OS is transparent.

Note: due to the way files are organized on a UNIX system (that covers both Mac OS and Linux), you don't care about drives, partitions etc.
The O/S should absolutely be invisible. It should be nothing more than the interface between hardware and software. Why do I care if an O/S comes with a calculator or a notepad? I don't, really. That is far from the main selling point. Want to make a little money selling an O/S? Take one (preferably open source) and package it with the good software you think people want with it from any source vendor you prefer, burn it, sell it. Want to make a system for work, home, etc? Download the O/S you want (OK, you might have to borrow some time on a friend's/co-worker's computer), burn it, and install it. Simple enough. For those who aren't so inclined, have your family geek do it. You have us work on your computers already anyway.

What's important here is what the O/S really is. As I said, it's the interface between the HW and the SW. As such, the drivers should already be there, as much as is reasonable. You NIC, your video card, etc should work easily and pretty much right away. Need to serve DHCP? That's an add-on. Need rights management? Built into the file system, but various types of control modules would be add-ons. Web browser? ADD-ON (take a hint MS)! I'm not a programmer or developer, so I'm not really qualified to say what should be in the O/S and what should be an add-on piece of SW, but you get the idea.

My best case scenario? The all (well, most) O/Ss should conform to certain standards such that I could run any of them and any SW would run on top of that. Much like the hooks between the O/S and the HW are essentially universal (programming for an AMD is much the same as for an Intel or others), the APIs between the O/S and the SW should be basically universal. Then I could CHOOSE to buy Active Directory from MS to sit on top of my stable Linux server that runs a network of MACs and know that it's all compatible and stable (because I'd have more freedom to choose best-of-breed).
0 Votes
+ -
Absolutely correct, sort of.
WinnebagoBoy 11th Feb 2008
In some alternate time stream, imagine a world where Microsoft did not exist and Linux had become the dominant OS. By this time it would be reasonable to assume then that the Linux OS would be a two-part framework. One for the (invisible) virtual host and one for the distro where the distro would be customized to force performance and quality time on some high end app (like engineering CAD or medical diagnostics for example). In such a world, a typical user might have five or six distros working on the same machine managed by a nearly invisible `parallels? style virtual framework.

The Microsoft ?all things to all people model? by one company should have been obsolete by now or should now be on its last legs given the need to allow variations on the theme (the Linux model) to be as plentiful as the different kinds of cars one can buy.

The seemingly missing vision (probably due to so many independent parties playing on the Linux field) is the reason Microsoft survives. Microsoft can focus their vision if needed. Even now when Microsoft is retooling for Windows 7, the Linux players have continued to fail to capitalize on the huge window of opportunity afforded them.
0 Votes
+ -
I feel Mr Torvalds is correct.

In this early evolutionary period of digital processes, the operating system is a commodity competing for customers.

In a future world of mature digital service availability, the operating system will be a utility supporting functions selected by the user's needs. Not only will the o/s be irrelevant to the user, the source of the app will not matter because the app will change according to the user's choices.
0 Votes
+ -
Master Joe Says...
MasterJoe 11th Feb 2008
First and foremost, there has to be a comment amde on an above reply. NOTHING Linux does will EVER enable it to burry Microsoft. Linux just isn't a mainstream operating system, and nothing that ever occurs in the innovation and advancement of Linux, at this point, will ever allow it a dominant share of the market. It may, and most likely will, pass up the Mac OS, but Windows will continue to be the most dominant operating system in the market, for many years to come. Now, as far as this post itself, I disagree with the invisibility of the OS. First of all, I guess I am a bit old schooll, in the sense that I like to know every single command, every single memory address written to, every single thing that goes on behind the scenes on my computer, right down to the registers. I would be completely against any move to make that information less accessible than it already is. I am a Windows user, and rarely use any Linux distro, although I have installed and used various distros in the past. I have had a rather poor experience with Linux, and feel that Windows is a much mroe user-friendly, easily configured, and customizable operating system. I realize that there are a lot of users out there who have no reason, business, or interest in ahving access to the very core components of the operating system, and that should be up to the IT department ina corporate environment to prevent, but I would not ever support a move to make that the standard for all users and operating systems. Just because the majority of users are not capable, and should not have access to the core levels of the PC, does nto mean that that type of functionality shoudl be restricted, or taken away from high-level users, who are educated enough to know what things to change and what things to leave alone. Creator of the Linux kernel or not, i have to disagree with Linus on thsi one.

--Master Joe
0 Votes
+ -
The OS should be invisible
jfreedle2@... 11th Feb 2008
I believe that if Linux was able to get a universal driver model in which hardware vendors could produce one set of drivers without giving away trade secrets, and have it work for all Linux based distributions, then Linux would have the first step to taking on Microsoft.
I currently use Windows Vista, and I pretty much have found it much easier to use that Linux or Mac OS X, however I really like the idea of that I can just perform an update to my operating system and everything would be kept up to date. Yes, I know that I am talking more about operating environment here, but for the most part without the operating environment the computer would simply be a space heater that could do more.
I have been watching Linux since 1995 and I have yet to pull the trigger on moving because I am not convinced that it could handle the ease of use of what Windows affords me today. Basically it would need to handle me going to the store, buying a new peice of hardware that just came out in the market (or software) and take it home and install it. Right now from what I have seen, that can't be done. As far as the interface goes, I perfer the K.D.E. interface to the G.N.O.M.E. interface.
I would like to see Linux succeed as it would be a more open environment in which we could write software, but for now I will continue to use Windows because it is much easier to use and does not require an outlay of 3?? the cost for ?? the amount of functionality of what MacOS X offers.
0 Votes
+ -
i agree
vi0l3t1975@... 11th Feb 2008
I agree with Linus that the OS should be invisible to the user.
It shouldnt matter what OS you have, you should be able to use any app that you want. You should never have to ask 'will this work with my OS?' only 'do i have the hardware?' (e.g. games and graphics cards). There shouldnt be 2 versions of M$ Office (one for windows and one for mac os). The OS should take care of this itself.
This is where the OS fails to be invisible. Hence the M$ / Appple / Linux war of words that we partake in almost every day.
0 Votes
+ -
Absolutely bang on.
odubtaig 12th Feb 2008
When a piece of hardware is properly supported by Linux it brings a whole new dimension to the term 'plug and play'. None of this continuous nagging like you get in Windows with half a dozen notifications and, often, a tedious easily automatable install process, it just works.

Having said that, I've just had a kernel update on OpenSuSE and I have a nVidia graphics card. Ahh, the tedium on next reboot.
0 Votes
+ -
Ummm Ubuntu nags about as much
ItsTheBottomLine 12th Feb 2008
as Vista based on my experience. Of course that is if it even recognizes the hardware. Again, back to the comments about Hardware and Software being so stable and invisible that it wouldn't matter. Developers and egos are a long way away from that.
0 Votes
+ -
OS help
Homealone 12th Feb 2008
I believe he is right and I`d like to add that the OS should be the minimum size to get all hardware working and the there should be a help list to come up and ask what want to do,burn,rip,office,pictures,dvd and etc.. once selected it would list from most dependable to least and you select. One of the problems i see in the Linux system is to many addons that do the samething. All comercial software have extras we don`t want which Linux don`t, so for all the people like me it could be a lot simpler. The reason most people are using Windows is it came on the computer. Windows is like the price of gasoline it will keep getting bigger or higher. We must keep Linux Small and simpler.
0 Votes
+ -
Well put...
ItsTheBottomLine 12th Feb 2008
Well written, unfortunately there are some children in here.
Anyhoo - It would be interesting to have a totally seemless "software device" like a light switch. I don't care how it works, nor do I care that it will work in my house thanks to US standards. But I think about my father. If he had to choose what he wanted and just pick it to work...humm. I don't know he actually might. But it would have to be so darn seemless and total idiot proof... but and intersting thought. Developers both hardware/software are sooooo far away from a totally idiot proof pnp os/kernel, it's an interesting dream.

It will be interesting to see who gets all hot and bothered, bet you could guess - hahaha.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix