PDA

View Full Version : Linus Torvalds Sydney Herald Interview (was: Torvalds pans Apple...)


needthephone
Feb 5, 2008, 07:12 AM
Just read this-way above my head-I just use it not write applications. The headline which will be the only thing most people will mis very misleading.

"I don't think they're equally flawed - I think Leopard is a much better system," he said. "(But) OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is scary."

"Apple's much-touted new operating system, OS X Leopard, is in some ways worse than Windows Vista, says the founder of the Linux open source project, Linus Torvalds."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/torvalds-pans-apples-os-x/2008/02/05/1202090393959.html

BornAgainMac
Feb 5, 2008, 07:19 AM
I want him to explain in more detail. His explanation is total...

Tallest Skil
Feb 5, 2008, 07:21 AM
He's just mad that Apple stuck with HFS+ instead of going with ZFS. :rolleyes:

Evangelion
Feb 5, 2008, 07:39 AM
We need to keep in mind that Linus is a kernel-developer, and his perspective on these things is VERY different from regular users perspective. And if he talks about filesystems, and compares OS X's filesystem to Windows's, we need to remember that NTFS is actually pretty good filesystem.

And he does consider Leopard to be superior when compared to Vista. It's just that "some areas" of Leopard are worse than Vista. And I think that he's probably right. While Leopard is overall better, I don't think it's realistic to think that it's superior in every single thing.

tersono
Feb 5, 2008, 08:23 AM
His point about the file system is well made - and I suspect that Apple agree with him, but are cautious about rushing into implementing a new file system due to the potential knock-on effects.

What Torvalds (and others) miss is that people use Mac and Windows because a: most Linux distros ship with a GUI that is simply a mess
b: Windows and Mac run the software that people need/want to use.

Personally, I couldn't make a living with Linux on my desktop - and I probably couldn't stand even Ubuntu's GUI for long enough to make a living even if the software was available....

Linux remains the obvious choice for a server OS - I'd love to implement it in my workplace (unfortunately not an option due to a Windows-centric CRM application we use). I still remain unconvinced by the desktop experience, however - things have improved, but eye candy seems to be the aim with most distros rather than a serious attempt at a consistent and logical interface (whatever WM you use).

Evangelion
Feb 5, 2008, 08:41 AM
What Torvalds (and others) miss is that people use Mac and Windows because a: most Linux distros ship with a GUI that is simply a mess

Well, it ain't THAT bad :). While it lacks the spit 'n polish of OS X, I can with good conscience say that it's a lot better than on Windows. And while Vista adds loads of eye-candy that standard-Linux might be missing (although there is tech out there that put Vista to shame), in Vista, that crap just gets in the way.

My wife had no problems with Ubuntu, and she in fact complained when I switched to OS X, because she found OS X to be "confusing" and "difficult". Granted, she learned the GUI, but the point is that it all boils down to what we are used to.

Now, the color-scheme in Ubuntu might be off-putting (yellow & brown), but luckily that can be changed.

MacBytes
Feb 5, 2008, 01:13 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Mac OS X
Link: Torvalds pans Apple with 'utter crap' putdown (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20080205141342)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

wHo_tHe
Feb 5, 2008, 01:25 PM
Torvalds didn't call Mac OS X utter crap. He did praise OS X as "much better" than Vista, but saved his "utter crap" opinion of the file system, which is hard to disagree with, frankly.

TEG
Feb 5, 2008, 01:28 PM
"If I were human, I believe my response would be 'go to hell'.... if I were human."

Linux is such a hodge-podge of a system I'm amazed that he would have the testicuar fortitude to make a claim against the most widely used *NIX in the world. Apple has been able to do something that GNU and Linux have not, created a *NIX for everyone and is cheap.

The OSX file system is like all other *NIX systems starting at '/' and working its way down, just because Apple does something differently than what you want, does not make it "utter crap".

TEG

briandadude
Feb 5, 2008, 01:42 PM
Apple has been able to do something that GNU and Linux have not, created a *NIX for everyone and is cheap.
TEG

I think you have Mac OS and Linux confused.

Linux is the one that is free and widely available, Mac OS is the one where you have to buy it on a machine that starts at around $600.

Nermal
Feb 5, 2008, 01:44 PM
I think you have Mac OS and Linux confused.

He doesn't. Linux isn't "for everyone".

TEG
Feb 5, 2008, 01:52 PM
He doesn't. Linux isn't "for everyone".

Exactly what I meant. Plus OSX is $129, whereas other UNIX systems are several hundred dollars per license, and many commercial Linux systems are nearly as expensive.

TEG

/dev/toaster
Feb 5, 2008, 01:53 PM
I agree with him on a few points.

1) Filesystem, I agree HFS isn't the best option. I am not going to get into a battle of which FS is better, but HFS isn't in the running.
2) The OS should be transparent to the user. I totally agree.
3) Linux has a problem when it comes to UI. Gnome and KDE are just bloated window managers. We don't need something that crazy, give me something basic and *VERY* easy to use. OS X has one of the best GUIs I have ever used. Yes, I am a very long time Linux user.

Application management and installation also still suck on Linux and I don't see that changing. Sometimes, an open environment can be its downfall. There are actually too many options. I enjoy the methods OS X uses to install Applications. Linux needs a user library in a sense. Just some "standards" on how to cleanly separate items from users. I think Blizzard needs to learn this for WoW.

Linux is by far the best for servers and the worst for a desktop. OS X is best on the desktop imo.

Lord Sam
Feb 5, 2008, 02:18 PM
Jealous jerk. The day Linux is better than OSX is..... here it comes..... NEVER!

Spades
Feb 5, 2008, 02:26 PM
Holy cow. What are people getting so defensive for? He's just criticizing HFS, which is indeed a terrible FS compared to more recent ones. When Apple switches to a new FS, possibly as soon as the next release of OS X, most people are going to say, "It's about time." He isn't calling OS X in general "utter crap". Why act like he just personally ran over your dog and laughed about it?

Porco
Feb 5, 2008, 02:45 PM
Well, if Apple didn't pretty much agree (albeit they'd probably word it differently!) then all the stuff about ZFS doesn't make sense, does it?

I like the ideas behind Linux but every time I look at trying it properly I don't really see anything it really offers me that is worth the hassle. I'm glad it's there as an option though.

Baron58
Feb 5, 2008, 02:51 PM
Holy cow. What are people getting so defensive for? He's just criticizing HFS, which is indeed a terrible FS compared to more recent ones. When Apple switches to a new FS, possibly as soon as the next release of OS X, most people are going to say, "It's about time." He isn't calling OS X in general "utter crap". Why act like he just personally ran over your dog and laughed about it?

QFT.

We're talking about the formatting of the drive, NOT how the directories are laid out. I wish people would quit commenting on things that they just don't understand.

As much as I hate HFS+, I don't loathe it as much as ReiserFS4. If Hans Reiser weren't in prison for killing his wife, he deserves to be for the amount of grief that ReiserFS4 caused me (3 servers * 3.5TB each causing insane spikes in processor load). After juggling insane amounts of data from one server to another to be able to repartition them one at a time, I have to say that JFS (originally developed by IBM) was amazingly stable and gave NO performance or data loss issues.

The current generation of Apple's HFS+(Journaled) is tons better than the old HFS and HFS+ from the pre-OS X days. I've never seen a filesystem that would just destroy itself like HFS would.

Baron58
Feb 5, 2008, 02:52 PM
The day Linux is better than OSX is..... here it comes.....

EVERYDAY! (if you're running servers)

maestro55
Feb 5, 2008, 02:55 PM
Linus is becoming a jerk now that he has gained so much fame in the Open Source community. The great thing about computing in Linux is there are so many different file systems to choose from, and I am just waiting for ZFS to be ported to Linux (they have licensing problems with doing so, but maybe we will see it happen) so I can use it on my Linux box. As for HFS, I am also waiting for Apple to get ZFS to be the default file system (that time is coming).

macFanDave
Feb 5, 2008, 03:13 PM
Linus is becoming a jerk now that he has gained so much fame in the Open Source community.

Also, because he is a one-trick pony. After getting Linux started, he hasn't done much. How's that Transmeta thing working out? Linux is becoming more and more balkanized and the community is dissolving into tiny niches revolving around particular distros.

Notice that Mac OS X's marketshare is rocketing toward double-digits and Linux is no longer mentioned. It may have fallen behind DOS by now ;)

EagerDragon
Feb 5, 2008, 04:25 PM
I guess I got no credit, LOL.


It is not a matter if he is correct or not, It is how he said it. I think it could have been said a lot differently and would have sounded less out of his behind.
:eek:

nxent
Feb 5, 2008, 04:25 PM
Exactly what I meant. Plus OSX is $129, whereas other UNIX systems are several hundred dollars per license, and many commercial Linux systems are nearly as expensive.

TEG


i think you missed his point. how many people do you know are 'experts' at command line in linux? the operating systems are for different people. i use unix to manage databases. most people use os x to surf the internet and manage their photos. if i had to do that on linux, i'd probably throw the machine out the window.

psychofreak
Feb 5, 2008, 04:32 PM
I like Ubuntu (haven't yet tried PCLinuxOS) and will put it on all my family's PCs once there is a decent way to install apps found on the web and a file browser suitable for newbies. Hopefully ZFS will be the standard in 10.6, and Linus will have nothing to criticise :)

shadowfax
Feb 5, 2008, 04:33 PM
I have to say, though, that OS X, even with its rather confusing architecture shift, is a lot simpler than trying to figure out which binaries to get for your linux distribution, etc. Linux is really cool and well done when you look at individual ones, but it's such a hodge-podge when you take it all in, and the window managers really are pretty revolting.

But I heartily agree that it will be nice to get ZFS integration into OS X, checking off one more of the few really legitimate criticisms of the OS.

Sun Baked
Feb 5, 2008, 04:37 PM
I like Ubuntu (haven't yet tried PCLinuxOS) and will put it on all my family's PCs once there is a decent way to install apps found on the web and a file browser suitable for newbies. Hopefully ZFS will be the standard in 10.6, and Linus will have nothing to criticise :)

Since the Finder likely won't look/feel much different, he torpedo that as being utter crap because it isn't flexible enough. :p

clevin
Feb 5, 2008, 04:40 PM
somebody explain to me more about HFS. I know nothing about it? and what are better file systems? ext3?

never mind, I read it at wikipedia, Im surprised apple is using 1985's FS.

PlaceofDis
Feb 5, 2008, 04:44 PM
somebody explain to me more about HFS. I know nothing about it? and what are better file systems? ext3?

never mind, I read it at wikipedia, Im surprised apple is using 1985's FS.

they aren't. they've updated it since then, immensely.

i think most people would like to see ZFS implemented, but its not something you can do overnight.

clevin
Feb 5, 2008, 04:48 PM
they aren't. they've updated it since then, immensely.

i think most people would like to see ZFS implemented, but its not something you can do overnight.

whats the improvement of ZFS? is ZFS the best now?

PlaceofDis
Feb 5, 2008, 04:55 PM
whats the improvement of ZFS? is ZFS the best now?

best is arguable. all have their strengths and weaknesses, but there was a huge amount of hope that ZFS would be put into leopard for several reasons, but time machine especially.

the way it dynamically pools storage and its ability to take 'snapshots' are two of its huge plusses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zfs

and OS X is using: HFS+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HFS%2B

which was built off of HFS, and has been since modified as well. interesting progression, but getting dated.

clevin
Feb 5, 2008, 05:04 PM
best is arguable. all have their strengths and weaknesses, but there was a huge amount of hope that ZFS would be put into leopard for several reasons, but time machine especially.

the way it dynamically pools storage and its ability to take 'snapshots' are two of its huge plusses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zfs

and OS X is using: HFS+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HFS%2B

which was built off of HFS, and has been since modified as well. interesting progression, but getting dated.

interesting, maybe I should download solaris 10 and give it a try see how it works...

PlaceofDis
Feb 5, 2008, 05:07 PM
interesting, maybe I should download solaris 10 and give it a try see how it works...

from everything that i've heard, it works extremely well. and if you're up for tinkering go for it.

i think Apple's problem is the conversion to such a radically different system. which by no means is an easy thing to do, which is why i believe we won't see it for some time, but they are working towards it i think.

clevin
Feb 5, 2008, 05:17 PM
indeed, wiki is saying linux will not use it due to license issue, so they are working on FUSE to port ZFS.

I do have a spare 610C old laptop, so I should be able to try all these new stuff... thanks for the links.

gnasher729
Feb 5, 2008, 05:25 PM
1) Filesystem, I agree HFS isn't the best option. I am not going to get into a battle of which FS is better, but HFS isn't in the running.

Nobody has used HFS on a Macintosh in the last years. The file system that you are using is HFS+. And if anyone calls HFS+ "utter crap" then that person at least pretends to be clueless.

To many Linux guys, a case insensitive file system doesn't make sense, and using Unicode for filenames is completely inconceivable. Mac users take a different view.

Technically, HFS+ supports 16 Terabytes per filesystem with 4KB allocation block size (more with bigger allocation block size), arbitrary large files with named forks, has a very efficient directory structure (B*-tree with 1MB allocation block size), up to four fragments per file without additional directory access, automatic defragmentation, journalling, support for encrypted devices, Spotlight, and now FSEvents. If you can give me reasons why another file system used by Linux would be better, just tell us. (File systems that record every single access to a file need not apply :p)

gerardrj
Feb 5, 2008, 05:29 PM
Linux is NOT an operating system, it is a kernel.

If you install Linus' Linux software on a computer you will be able to accomplish just about zero.

The "operating system" is put together by vendors who bolt on all the stuff that Linux had nothing to do with (the windowing system, the window manager, the filesystem, the browsers, email clients, web servers, etc) and they you have and operating system. All this "other stuff" works just as well on almost any *nix like kernel such as Mach, BSD or OS-9 (not the Apple one).
Red Hat != Linunx, Ubuntu != Linux, Corel != Linux, etc. These are operating systems which are made up of about 1% Linux and 99% other people's stuff like GNU and KDE that, again, have nothing to do with Linux or Linus and vise versa.

/dev/toaster
Feb 5, 2008, 08:07 PM
Also, because he is a one-trick pony. After getting Linux started, he hasn't done much. How's that Transmeta thing working out? Linux is becoming more and more balkanized and the community is dissolving into tiny niches revolving around particular distros.

Notice that Mac OS X's marketshare is rocketing toward double-digits and Linux is no longer mentioned. It may have fallen behind DOS by now ;)

So, let me get this straight ... maintaining a massive open source project, manually managing and merging patchs for god knows how many years, and very actively developing the Linux kernel makes him a 1 trick pony ?!

/dev/toaster
Feb 5, 2008, 08:16 PM
Nobody has used HFS on a Macintosh in the last years. The file system that you are using is HFS+. And if anyone calls HFS+ "utter crap" then that person at least pretends to be clueless.

To many Linux guys, a case insensitive file system doesn't make sense, and using Unicode for filenames is completely inconceivable. Mac users take a different view.

Technically, HFS+ supports 16 Terabytes per filesystem with 4KB allocation block size (more with bigger allocation block size), arbitrary large files with named forks, has a very efficient directory structure (B*-tree with 1MB allocation block size), up to four fragments per file without additional directory access, automatic defragmentation, journalling, support for encrypted devices, Spotlight, and now FSEvents. If you can give me reasons why another file system used by Linux would be better, just tell us. (File systems that record every single access to a file need not apply :p)

Sorry, that was a typo ... I forgot the + sign.

Most modern filesystems (Keep in mind, I am not talking about the **** Redmond produces) have built in defrag. Linux has had filesystem encryption for quite some time. However, it requires patchs due to export controls in the US.

I don't know enough about the internals of spotlight to comment.

FSEvents is very nice, I agree with you there. Symlinks to directories is also a nice thing the newer version of HFS+ brings.

ext4 (iirc) supports block level snapshots, something HFS+ can not presently do. (FSEvents is close but not it) Block level snapshots is very hard to find unless you are paying out the arse for a commercial FS.

I have found performance on ext3 to be far greater then HFS+. No real benchmark data, just the user experience.

akadmon
Feb 6, 2008, 09:13 AM
EDIT: This and the next two posts are from a merge thread. --mkrishnan

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7B329ef3d6-28c2-458b-a4e3-2cd926653fa3%7D&link=http://www.247wallst.com/2008/02/linux-founder-c.html

roland.g
Feb 6, 2008, 09:17 AM
Actually he called the file system utter crap, not the OS. But the headline makes that decieving.

mkrishnan
Feb 6, 2008, 09:25 AM
Here's a larger snippet of the two questions in which this topic was discussed... and in which he is notably less incendiary about OS X. I don't personally see how EXT2 and EXT3 are remarkably better than HFS+, but I will admit that I think that Apple and Microsoft create a lot of incompatibility by not fully documenting how their filesystems work. It's silly that, today, if you buy three computers, one each running Vista, Leopard, and Ubuntu 7.10, out of the box, there is no one filesystem that all three support read/write that can manage files larger than 4GB and other modern features.

Q: What do you think about the regular hype about the release of a new version of Microsoft Windows or Apple OS X?

A: 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 ******* about it except the technical people.

It's stupid - when you make a big deal about something like Vista or Leopard a lot of it is about things I don't consider to be the operating system. It's about the visual shell around it. The fact Microsoft tied the two together so much actually caused them problems, not just the legal problems. If you manage a thousand clients, or a hundred thousand

clients which is not at all unheard of, you sure as hell don't want to point and click at them. In many ways Microsoft has had to fix the design mistakes they made when they thought the graphical approach should be a very intimate part of (Windows).

To Microsoft and Apple the o/s is important as a way to control the whole environment, from a marketing and money-making standpoint, to force people to upgrade their applications, and your hardware.

Q. Do you have a favourite between Leopard and Vista?

A. I don't think they're equally flawed. I think Leopard is a much better system. On the other hand, (I've found) OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is scary. I think OS X is nicer than Windows in many ways, but neither can hold a candle to my own (Linux). It's a race to second place!

operator207
Feb 6, 2008, 09:26 AM
From the Article: "Since Linux competes with both systems, he may be biased."

Ya think?

I have seen interviews with Linus and other big tech names do this a few times in the past, and its with articles like this. The article is maybe 100 words, and seems to be a generalization of the interview. The journalist's generalization that is.

If you look at the quote, where he says its "utter crap", its not the entire sentence being quoted. Who knows what the first part of the sentence is. It could have been 4 paragraphs of praise for OS X, and this *part* of a sentence was quoted.

Gotta love sensationalist media!

Soulstorm
Feb 6, 2008, 09:33 AM
I think that the title is misleading.

He said that OS X is better than Vista. However, I see that he is not the first to complain about OS X's filesystem. I believe him.

And it's stupid to think that OS X is better than Vista in every single thing.

Cromulent
Feb 6, 2008, 09:34 AM
Well he is right. HFS+ is utter crap. I think Apple need to pick the speed up a bit on ZFS. At least make sure it is the default filesystem for a clean install of Mac OS X 10.6 (whenever that is released).

Evangelion
Feb 6, 2008, 09:52 AM
It's silly that, today, if you buy three computers, one each running Vista, Leopard, and Ubuntu 7.10, out of the box, there is no one filesystem that all three support read/write that can manage files larger than 4GB and other modern features.

Um, ext3 has max filesize of 16GB-4TB (depending on the block size). Well, Windows (and maybe OS X, I'm not sure) don't support ext3, but that's not really the fault of ext3 itself.

mkrishnan
Feb 6, 2008, 09:56 AM
Um, ext3 has max filesize of 16GB-4TB (depending on the block size). Well, Windows (and maybe OS X, I'm not sure) don't support ext3, but that's not really the fault of ext3 itself.

That's exactly my point. NTFS, HFS+, and EXT3 all support large files. But Windows cannot read/write EXT or HFS out of the box, OS X cannot read/write NTFS or EXT out of the box, and Linux cannot read/write NTFS or HFS out of the box. Linux is the least to blame of the three "empires," because their filesystem actually is well documented and available. Apple and Microsoft use proprietary systems, which has led to the current state where there's no format you could put, say, a large flash drive in, put a big file on it, and then walk up to anyone's computer and read/write the file without having to install any additional software.

EDIT: okay, actually, I do stand corrected on part of this (although not the part you mentioned, about which AFAIK I am correct). Ubuntu does have ntfs-3g installed by default in 7.10... so there is a filesystem that can read/write large files on Windows and Linux, but you need to install software on Macs to get write access to NTFS. I didn't realize ntfs-3g had made it into Gutsy....

nerdbert
Feb 6, 2008, 10:56 AM
Linus always had strong opinions about filesystems. I remember a very long discussion on LKML (http://lkml.org/) with Hans Reiser some years ago (can't find it right now, but it was very entertaining at its time)

Has anyone a good explanation of the HFS+ issues? I always thought the case-insensitivity default option was the major concern, but this sounds like there's more...

Lord Sam
Feb 6, 2008, 11:17 AM
Linux is no-where near as good as OS X. Torvalds wishes.

Consultant
Feb 6, 2008, 11:38 AM
Here's a larger snippet of the two questions in which this topic was discussed... and in which he is notably less incendiary about OS X. I don't personally see how EXT2 and EXT3 are remarkably better than HFS+, but I will admit that I think that Apple and Microsoft create a lot of incompatibility by not fully documenting how their filesystems work. It's silly that, today, if you buy three computers, one each running Vista, Leopard, and Ubuntu 7.10, out of the box, there is no one filesystem that all three support read/write that can manage files larger than 4GB and other modern features.

Network sharing. FTP, etc works across all systems.

ZFS is still not finalized yet. Who is going to put a brand new, non-finalized file system in an established OS?

OP, the title should be changed...

iSee
Feb 6, 2008, 12:03 PM
Just read this-way above my head-I just use it not write applications. The headline which will be the only thing most people will mis very misleading. <snip>

Yes, you are right. The headline is very misleading.

So why did you use it for the title for this thread? :rolleyes:

mkrishnan
Feb 6, 2008, 12:24 PM
Network sharing. FTP, etc works across all systems.

ZFS is still not finalized yet. Who is going to put a brand new, non-finalized file system in an established OS?

Am I really being that unclear?

Here's an exemplar scenario. If you have a video file that is, say, 10GB in size, and you want to edit it cross-platform, and actually physically carry it over to the other computer... there is no file system that you can use and assume will work read-write on your external drive on all modern computers that you walk up to. Other similar scenarios based on various filesystem needs exist.

NTFS *could* fulfill that role. HFS could fulfill that role. EXT3 could fulfill that role. But because Apple and Microsoft only support their closed platforms, and NTFS has only just become read-writable on foreign platforms in the past year, you generally need third-party software installs to gain cross-platform support.

I agree that ZFS is better than HFS or NTFS, but that's not the point. These are things that the mainstream OS of each of the major operating system flavors -- Windows, OS X, and Linux -- have been able to handle for nearly a decade. But none of them is supported out of the box on all three OSes.

That's the point I'm making. Of course I know FTP exists. Of course I know that ZFS is not really ready for primetime. But neither of those things is really relevant. The technology that existed in 1999 could handle this issue, except for the fact that closed standards were involved.

mac jones
Feb 6, 2008, 12:32 PM
OMG Torvalds speaks!

I'd better switch to Windows.

elppa
Feb 6, 2008, 02:11 PM
I like Ubuntu (haven't yet tried PCLinuxOS) and will put it on all my family's PCs once there is a decent way to install apps found on the web and a file browser suitable for newbies. Hopefully ZFS will be the standard in 10.6, and Linus will have nothing to criticise :)

He doesn't like Mach either.

Consultant
Feb 6, 2008, 02:14 PM
Am I really being that unclear?

Here's an exemplar scenario. If you have a video file that is, say, 10GB in size, and you want to edit it cross-platform, and actually physically carry it over to the other computer... there is no file system that you can use and assume will work read-write on your external drive on all modern computers that you walk up to. Other similar scenarios based on various filesystem needs exist.
...

I understand your point that if the drive is physically moved to another computer, it won't work WITHOUT ADDITIONAL DRIVERS, but Gigabit ethernet has more bandwidth than almost all single disk drives. Thus, disk formats don't matter if you have a proper network. A Mac can play /edit 1080p videos on a PC without even transferring the file.

Most production environments are network based, and the file system does not matter.

There are faster connections than gagabit ethernet by the way...

Add:
So what I meant to say is that drives no longer have to be physically moved to be accessible on other OS at native speed.

mkrishnan
Feb 6, 2008, 02:56 PM
So what I meant to say is that drives no longer have to be physically moved to be accessible on other OS at native speed.

Network is definitely the best, but it does seem like I hear people in video for instance always talking about needing to load up gigs of video data and go over to some off-site post-production place or something and running into issues with this. To be honest, I don't have a lot of issues related to this... my SD and USB are all formatted FAT and I get by -- they're only 4GB cards anyways. Now I have a large backup USB2/FW drive that's formatted HFS, and it would be nice if my Eee could read it, but I really don't need that.

Evangelion
Feb 7, 2008, 01:21 AM
"If I were human, I believe my response would be 'go to hell'.... if I were human."

Linux is such a hodge-podge of a system I'm amazed that he would have the testicuar fortitude to make a claim against the most widely used *NIX in the world. Apple has been able to do something that GNU and Linux have not, created a *NIX for everyone and is cheap.

Did you even read what he said?

The OSX file system is like all other *NIX systems starting at '/' and working its way down, just because Apple does something differently than what you want, does not make it "utter crap".

I believe he was commenting on HFS+, not the way files and folders are arranged on the hard-drive....

He doesn't. Linux isn't "for everyone".

And neither is OS X. And neither is Windows.

Exactly what I meant. Plus OSX is $129, whereas other UNIX systems are several hundred dollars per license, and many commercial Linux systems are nearly as expensive.

TEG

Then don't get a "commercial Linux", the most popular version out there are free.

3) Linux has a problem when it comes to UI. Gnome and KDE are just bloated window managers. We don't need something that crazy, give me something basic and *VERY* easy to use. OS X has one of the best GUIs I have ever used. Yes, I am a very long time Linux user.

GNOME is actually pretty easy to use. When I moved to Mac from Ubuntu, my wife was very confused by OS X. She preferred GNOME. Yes, she learned OF X, but still

Application management and installation also still suck on Linux and I don't see that changing.

Actually, it doesn't. It's just different from other systems. Seriously, you launch an app that lists thousands upon thousands of apps you can choose from. You select the one you want and click "install". How exactly does that suck?

Linus is becoming a jerk now that he has gained so much fame in the Open Source community.

Is he a "jerk" for stating something that most people seem to agree with? Well, apart from few ultrazealots who saw the headline about "Linus Torvalds calls OS X "utter crap" and based their comments on that.

Also, because he is a one-trick pony. After getting Linux started, he hasn't done much.

Linux is his job, what else should he have done? He's not a CEO, he's an engineer. What has Steve Wozniak done recently? I believe he designed the early Apple-computers, was part of the team who designed the Mac and then.... pretty much nothing.

Linux is becoming more and more balkanized and the community is dissolving into tiny niches revolving around particular distros.

If anything, the opposite is true. There are basically two major distros out there, Ubuntu and Fedora. Previously we had lots more. YEs, there are hundreds of distros out there, but only few have large userbases. And there's nothing wrong with having lots of distros. One size does not fit all.

Seriously: you people are complaining over nothing. He criticised HFS+. A piece of critique lots of people share. And you are reacting like he insulted your mother or something. He said that Leopard is a lot better than Vista, but that the filesystem sucks. Nothing more. Seriously: take a chill-pill.

wyatt23
Feb 7, 2008, 01:29 AM
The latter, he said, could be a sign that Asian hardware manufacturers were starting to bypass Western commercial operating systems in order to get more control over their products.

apple makes their own os for their hardware. he should just outright say windows. i'm also going to go out on a limb and say asus's eeePC's OS isn't quite an os x killer.

erikistired
Feb 7, 2008, 01:38 AM
Linux is his job, what else should he have done? He's not a CEO, he's an engineer. What has Steve Wozniak done recently? I believe he designed the early Apple-computers, was part of the team who designed the Mac and then.... pretty much nothing.

he invented the universal remote and wrote a book, among other things. it's a pretty good read too, the guy has lead an interesting life.

Evangelion
Feb 7, 2008, 02:24 AM
he invented the universal remote and wrote a book, among other things.

So, what are those "other things"? Fact of the matter is that since the original Mac, he hasn't really done all that much. No, I'm not trying to put him down. He's still one of the most important figures in the field of technology.

Now, about Linus: what has he done? Well, he created Linux and worked as an engineer at Transmeta (no, he's not personally responsible for the success or failure of Transmeta). Besides that, he has worked on Linux for about 360 days a year, in addition of raising his daughters. All this time, he has actually been working and doing something. Saying that he "hasn't done much" is misleading in the extreme. If someone says that "Torvalds hasn't done much", then that person must also agree with the comment that Woz hasn't done much either, he has mostly just lived off on his past success. And there's nothing wrong with that, we all want to do that :).

it's a pretty good read too, the guy has lead an interesting life.

Linus also wrote a book (http://www.thinkgeek.com/books/nonfiction/38b2/) (well, I guess it was co-authored), which is a pretty interesting read as well.

7031
Feb 7, 2008, 04:13 AM
I agree with him on a few points.

1) Filesystem, I agree HFS isn't the best option. I am not going to get into a battle of which FS is better, but HFS isn't in the running.
2) The OS should be transparent to the user. I totally agree.
3) Linux has a problem when it comes to UI. Gnome and KDE are just bloated window managers. We don't need something that crazy, give me something basic and *VERY* easy to use. OS X has one of the best GUIs I have ever used. Yes, I am a very long time Linux user.

Application management and installation also still suck on Linux and I don't see that changing. Sometimes, an open environment can be its downfall. There are actually too many options. I enjoy the methods OS X uses to install Applications. Linux needs a user library in a sense. Just some "standards" on how to cleanly separate items from users. I think Blizzard needs to learn this for WoW.

Linux is by far the best for servers and the worst for a desktop. OS X is best on the desktop imo.
So true. I actually wrote a blog post not too long ago about why we need standards, although the comments said otherwise.

dsnort
Feb 7, 2008, 05:44 AM
Meh, Torvald is a genius, but he's also an a**.

Just my "critique".

(BTW, I love Mac OSX, but I'm not sure I'd want Steve Jobs as a neighbor)

montex
Feb 7, 2008, 11:00 AM
I don't think HFS+ can really be called "terrible". Less advanced, perhaps. But terrible? Am I unable to store my files or do they randomly vanish? No. ZFS may be a more advanced system from a technological point of view, but to call HFS+ terrible is a bit hysterical and unwarranted.

Lord Sam
Feb 7, 2008, 01:08 PM
Meh, Torvald is a genius, but he's also an a**.

Just my "critique".

(BTW, I love Mac OSX, but I'm not sure I'd want Steve Jobs as a neighbor) Lol. Same here

elppa
Feb 7, 2008, 01:24 PM
Meh, Torvald is a genius, but he's also an a**.

Just my "critique".

(BTW, I love Mac OSX, but I'm not sure I'd want Steve Jobs as a neighbor)

I agree. The mortgage would be through the roof.

Infrared
Feb 8, 2008, 06:29 AM
they aren't. they've updated it since then, immensely.

i think most people would like to see ZFS implemented, but its not something you can do overnight.

Indeed. In the meantime one can, if technically inclined, have
fun with the ZFS stuff (technical word) from here:

http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/zfs/wiki/

My USB flash drive experiment :)

101584

Chromako
Feb 11, 2008, 11:44 PM
Also, because he is a one-trick pony. After getting Linux started, he hasn't done much. How's that Transmeta thing working out? Linux is becoming more and more balkanized and the community is dissolving into tiny niches revolving around particular distros.

Notice that Mac OS X's marketshare is rocketing toward double-digits and Linux is no longer mentioned. It may have fallen behind DOS by now ;)

I honestly just don't understand this. There are Mac fans, and Mac Fanboys who don't take the time to educated themselves. Just about as annoying, honestly, as Winblows Fanboys.

Why don't we talk of the issue at hand instead of getting defensive? The issue is that Linus said that Leopard was better, mostly, than Vista. True. He also said the HFS+ system was scary, which, quite honestly, being a systems administrator, is also true.

Constructive criticism is how we see our faults and therefore know how to improve ourselves. It doesn't necessarily speak poorly for the criticiser or the critic. I see neither here. Just two imperfect entities. Or three... but I think Vista is a bit beyond imperfect.... So Apple- please get ZFS working!

willie45
Feb 12, 2008, 03:51 AM
Wow. Reading some of the posts above reminds me of the thing that made me most reluctant to swithc to mac for many years; the regrettable mentality of the "fanboys".

I do wish that people who behave like this would stop squawking on about their chosen system. I don't think they realise just how ridiculous they make mac users look and how much it puts people off trying macs. I'm glad I made the switch but I will never bleat on and take personal offence when someone chooses a different OS from me.

Really, who cares even if he had said the whole system was a big bucket of steaming crap. He is entitled to his opinion

Willie

Povilas
Jan 2, 2009, 05:40 AM
HFS+ is good FS and Torvalds is an idiot by design. How NTFS is better than HFS+ :D. For one you have to defragment NTFS once in a few months. HFS+ does that in the bacground without user interruption. HFS+ is only 10 years old and it's fine. I did some testing and found that HFS+ is faster than NTFS and ext3.

MacTraveller
Jan 2, 2009, 07:15 AM
i think Apple's problem is the conversion to such a radically different system. which by no means is an easy thing to do, which is why i believe we won't see it for some time, but they are working towards it i think.

Perhaps a consideration for OS XI ("Oh Es Eleven") ??

Compile 'em all
Jan 2, 2009, 07:21 AM
HFS+ is good FS and Torvalds is an idiot by design. How NTFS is better than HFS+ :D. For one you have to defragment NTFS once in a few months. HFS+ does that in the bacground without user interruption. HFS+ is only 10 years old and it's fine. I did some testing and found that HFS+ is faster than NTFS and ext3.

So we deduce from your post that you know better than Linus when it comes to filesystems?

Lone Deranger
Jan 2, 2009, 08:06 AM
So, what are those "other things"? Fact of the matter is that since the original Mac, he hasn't really done all that much.


Some other things:
(From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak))


Wozniak founded a new venture called CL 9, which developed and brought the first universal TV remote control to market in 1987.[2]
Wozniak went into teaching (he taught fifth-grade students) and charitable activities in the field of education. Since leaving Apple, Wozniak has provided all the money, as well as a good amount of on-site technical support, for the technology program in his local school district.[2] Un.U.Son. (Unite Us In Song), an organization Wozniak formed to organize the two US Festivals, is now primarily tasked with supporting his educational and philanthropic projects.[5]
Wozniak received the National Medal of Technology in 1985 from Ronald Reagan, then President of the United States[2]
In December 1989, he received an honorary Doctor of Engineering degree from the University of Colorado.[6] Later he donated funds to create the "Woz Lab" at the University of Colorado. In 1997, he was named a Fellow of the Computer History Museum. Wozniak was a key contributor and benefactor to the Children's Discovery Museum of San Jose (the street in front of the museum has been renamed Woz Way in his honor).[7]
In September 2000, Wozniak was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame.
In 2001, Wozniak co-founded Wheels of Zeus (note the acronym, "WoZ"), to create wireless GPS technology to "help everyday people find everyday things". In 2002, he joined the Board of Directors of Ripcord Networks, Inc., joining Ellen Hancock, Gil Amelio, Mike Connor, and Wheels of Zeus co-founder Alex Fielding, all Apple alumni, in a new telecommunications venture. Later the same year he joined the Board of Directors of Danger, Inc., the maker of the Hip Top (a.k.a. Side Kick from T-Mobile). In May of 2004, upon nomination by Dr. Tom Miller, Wozniak received an honorary S.D. degree from North Carolina State University for his contribution to the field of personal computing.

In May 2004, Wozniak was awarded an honorary Doctor of Engineering degree from Kettering University, in Flint, Michigan. He also received an honorary degree from Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and the Telluride Tech Festival Award of Technology.
In 2006, Wheels of Zeus was closed, and Wozniak co-founded Acquicor Technology, a shell company for acquiring technology companies and developing them, with Apple alumni Ellen Hancock and Gil Amelio.
In September 2006, Wozniak published his autobiography, iWoz: From Computer Geek to Cult Icon: How I Invented the Personal Computer, Co-Founded Apple, and Had Fun Doing It. It was co-authored by writer Gina Smith.
Steve is currently working on three new books, one of which is on pranks.

You call that "not that much"? :confused: Might we compare it with your Curriculum Vitae sir? ;)

Peace
Jan 2, 2009, 10:18 AM
Linus is becoming a jerk now that he has gained so much fame in the Open Source community. The great thing about computing in Linux is there are so many different file systems to choose from, and I am just waiting for ZFS to be ported to Linux (they have licensing problems with doing so, but maybe we will see it happen) so I can use it on my Linux box. As for HFS, I am also waiting for Apple to get ZFS to be the default file system (that time is coming).

they aren't. they've updated it since then, immensely.

i think most people would like to see ZFS implemented, but its not something you can do overnight.

Indeed. In the meantime one can, if technically inclined, have
fun with the ZFS stuff (technical word) from here:

http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/zfs/wiki/

My USB flash drive experiment :)

101584

I've known Linus for about 10 years. He has done a lot for O/S Kernel development. The only problem with the open source community is just that. It's open source. Anybody can write something and add it to a branch. And then other coders who know less say it looks good and the snowball effect takes place.
As far as ZFS. I worked on that with Apple folks for almost 2 years and it's a very hard filesystem to implement. Even Sun has problems. As I'm sure the one I quoted using it on an external USB flash drive can attest. Attach a USB thumbdrive to an LCD connected to the Mac then try to unmount it and watch the Mac Kernel go wacky.
The NTFS filesystem ( the one compiled in 2000 ) is superior to the Mac flavor of the Unix kernel. But I digress as it's just my personal opinion.

I've never said this here before because this type of subject has never really been up for grabs here to be honest. Unix can only go so far then it hits a roadblock. It was designed when the need was different than now. Especially with GUI's. That's the reason Mac people have so many problems with graphics. And it's also the reason Linux ( Linus's little rip-off of the Unix kernel ) has problems other than being open source. Give Apple some time and they will figure out ZFS. It is the superior filesystem. It just doesn't like to be un-mounted on accident.;)

elppa
Jan 2, 2009, 11:37 AM
GNOME is actually pretty easy to use. When I moved to Mac from Ubuntu, my wife was very confused by OS X. She preferred GNOME. Yes, she learned OF X, but still

Interesting, did your wife use Windows before either at work or home?

If so then this doesn't surprise me, because GNOME tends to take more hints from the Windows UI, whereas Apple have always done their own things slightly differently for the Mac.

Povilas
Jan 6, 2009, 02:45 PM
So we deduce from your post that you know better than Linus when it comes to filesystems?


OK, tell me what is wrong with HFS+? Why it's so bad, and what other FS is better? Thank you.