Linus Torvalds calls Google engineer's RISC-V code "garbage" in Linux 6.17 dispute

[NotYourITguy]

Pretty sure he's absolutely devastated about not meeting you...

Not a bad Torvalds impression.

 

[acrossthestars]

Microsoft had leadership like Linus, Bill Gates and Steve Balmer. Both notorious for their bluntness and lack of lack of people skills, yet Windows still had bloat. Now Microsoft is fighting to keep Windows 11 visible with gimmicks and toys, to lure users away from Windows 10. I wouldn't mind the frequent releases if they offered substantial benefit and function, instead of lots of fluff.

I have tried Linux multiple times and it is not all that!

You’re conflating leadership efficiency with project directives and mission creep.

The problem with Microsoft is that they are a 40+ year old company, mired in coding practices dating back decades. They are not agile. Their bread and butter is Windows and Office. Windows is one kernel, generally speaking. They made a mess with Windows 8 and Windows RT, effectively trying to retrofit their existing product paradigm into a new form factor. It didn’t work, which is why Windows 10 is/was a thing. However, Windows 11 still has some remnants of those failed attempts buried deep in its codebase. It’s why every version of new release of Windows, based on the NT kernel, is backwards-compatible with older software, in a way that Linux really isn’t and macOS doesn’t even pretend to be.

However, that extensive legacy support increasingly comes at the cost of usability and stability. There are at least 10 different versions of Windows (going all the way back to MS DOS) that are in effect, at any given time. Windows, trying to be all things to all people, is an “everything box”, that all of Microsoft’s engineering efforts get thrown into. It’s why you can’t use certain naming conventions in Windows 11, because otherwise you’d break compatibility with Windows 98 (which was released in 27 years ago). Satya Nadella, the current CEO of Microsoft, also cannot just tell his software engineers to “start fresh”. They have too many customers using older versions of the OS, including the DoD, that they are contractually-obligated to support, for as long as necessary. So, just ditching the bloat is not optional. This constant need to maintain support for existing users, while adding to the user base by adding features, is the reason for incremental mission creep. It’s also why the system requirements for Windows keep escalating with each passing year: if the operating system cannot shrink, then the hardware must get more powerful to accommodate it.

Linux, on the other hand, does not have any of these problems. Not only is it not a commercial product from its inception, but it’s not an “everything product”. There is one mainline kernel, maintained by Linus and other kernel developers, and then there are refactored kernels found in most distributions of operating systems bearing the Linux moniker. Each version of those refactored kernels buildup on the source and some of their features get added back, but each one is an independent effort that is scaffolded by the rest of the community for that particular project. It’s not a catch-all system. What Linus was berating the developer for, was adding features from one architecture into the source for another architecture, effectively polluting the main branch, in order to take a shortcut. Microsoft might allow that, because it theoretically speeds up development time, but it also adds to the cumulative pile of tech debt. Since Microsoft's developers are paid to develop new features, not go back and rework existing ones to be more efficient, there is negative incentive to make anything faster. That is part of the reason why Linux development is more expedient: each branch of the kernel works autonomously, which is why there are so many versions of Linux and also why the sum total of their effort is probably larger than the combined product that is Windows’ entire codebase.

 

[WaphleStomp]

I have tried Linux multiple times and it is not all that!

Then you don't understand its purpose, benefits, and capabilities. Were I to state I don't understand trig or calculus, that declaration would not reduce the power of the technology, but instead merely emphasise my own ignorance.

 

[onebignerd]

You’re conflating leadership efficiency with project directives and mission creep.

The problem with Microsoft is that they are a 40+ year old company, mired in coding practices dating back decades. They are not agile. Their bread and butter is Windows and Office. Windows is one kernel, generally speaking. They made a mess with Windows 8 and Windows RT, effectively trying to retrofit their existing product paradigm into a new form factor. It didn’t work, which is why Windows 10 is/was a thing. However, Windows 11 still has some remnants of those failed attempts buried deep in its codebase. It’s why every version of new release of Windows, based on the NT kernel, is backwards-compatible with older software, in a way that Linux really isn’t and macOS doesn’t even pretend to be.

However, that extensive legacy support increasingly comes at the cost of usability and stability. There are at least 10 different versions of Windows (going all the way back to MS DOS) that are in effect, at any given time. Windows, trying to be all things to all people, is an “everything box”, that all of Microsoft’s engineering efforts get thrown into. It’s why you can’t use certain naming conventions in Windows 11, because otherwise you’d break compatibility with Windows 98 (which was released in 27 years ago). Satya Nadella, the current CEO of Microsoft, also cannot just tell his software engineers to “start fresh”. They have too many customers using older versions of the OS, including the DoD, that they are contractually-obligated to support, for as long as necessary. So, just ditching the bloat is not optional. This constant need to maintain support for existing users, while adding to the user base by adding features, is the reason for incremental mission creep. It’s also why the system requirements for Windows keep escalating with each passing year: if the operating system cannot shrink, then the hardware must get more powerful to accommodate it.

Linux, on the other hand, does not have any of these problems. Not only is it not a commercial product from its inception, but it’s not an “everything product”. There is one mainline kernel, maintained by Linus and other kernel developers, and then there are refactored kernels found in most distributions of operating systems bearing the Linux moniker. Each version of those refactored kernels buildup on the source and some of their features get added back, but each one is an independent effort that is scaffolded by the rest of the community for that particular project. It’s not a catch-all system. What Linus was berating the developer for, was adding features from one architecture into the source for another architecture, effectively polluting the main branch, in order to take a shortcut. Microsoft might allow that, because it theoretically speeds up development time, but it also adds to the cumulative pile of tech debt. Since Microsoft's developers are paid to develop new features, not go back and rework existing ones to be more efficient, there is negative incentive to make anything faster. That is part of the reason why Linux development is more expedient: each branch of the kernel works autonomously, which is why there are so many versions of Linux and also why the sum total of their effort is probably larger than the combined product that is Windows’ entire codebase.

I was making a general comment about Microsoft management and the lack of vision for Windows. Go spew your Linux ideology on someone else please!!!

 

[onebignerd]

Then you don't understand its purpose, benefits, and capabilities. Were I to state I don't understand trig or calculus, that declaration would not reduce the power of the technology, but instead merely emphasise my own ignorance.

I don't care for Linux, deal with it!!

 

[WaphleStomp]

I don't care for Linux, deal with it!!

I can deal with knowing I'm safe and others willfully use unsafe computer technology.