Steve Jobs Tried to Hire Linux Creator Linus Torvalds to Work on OS X

[Xtremehkr]

OS X uses nothing from Linux so I don't know where that comment comes from.

Linus' ideas have never been about building a business out of Linux either, I don't know why you evaluate it as a business model.

Frankly, I think you're generally quite not fit to even be discussing on this topic.

----------



Which people are you referring to ? Linux has been used in literally hundreds of devices and projects, ranging from Desktop OSes, networking equipment, storage appliances, mobile phones and television sets.

Seems to me it's not so much a giant headache to use at all as far as OS kernels go. Where has Darwin been used besides OS X ?

Or are you mistaking Linux, a OS kernel, with things like Ubuntu, RedHat Enterprise Linux and other such server/desktop OSes that happen to use Linux as a kernel ?

Again, you're showing your lack of knowledge on this topic.

I never claimed to have much specific knowledge on the subject, that's why I was asking. If talking about OSX and other desktop OS variants it would be in relation to the Linux versions that are used as desktops OS's.

Specifically, even though Linus may disagree with the non open source methods adopted by companies like Apple and Microsoft, I personally enjoy the ease of use that has come with what Apple has done with OSX. So if the disagreement came down to merely that aspect then it's not as big a deal as I thought it was. OSX is doing well, and by all indications Linux is also doing well. I thought maybe the disagreement was over something that could have made OSX better or more versatile, but it seems to be just an open versus closed issue.

 

[burne]

Again, you're showing your lack of knowledge on this topic.

When it comes to bread and butter I'll trade I/O-kit for the Slowaris scheduler without thinking. I prefer, business-wise, 'this paying customer wants a response now!' over 'just wait a second while I animate a nice beachball for you'.

See previous post. What does pay for the macmini at home and the macpro at the office? Paying customers.

 

[KnightWRX]

I never claimed to have much specific knowledge on the subject, that's why I was asking. If talking about OSX and other desktop OS variants it would be in relation to the Linux versions that are used as desktops OS's.

To my knowledge, no Linux versions have been used as Desktop OSes, since Linux doesn't have a userspace component aside from the utilities to manage its kernel space components.

It has been used in desktop OSes, just not as a desktop OS. Are you getting any of this ? Linux is a kernel. Darwin is a kernel. Ubuntu is a OS. Mac OS X is a OS.

Is any of this registering ? I think I've repeated it enough times in this thread now that if you still don't get it, you should simply bow out.

Specifically, even though Linus may disagree with the non open source methods adopted by companies like Apple and Microsoft, I personally enjoy the ease of use that has come with what Apple has done with OSX.

What non open source methods does Linus Torvalds' disagree with exactly ? Are you per-chance mistaking Linus Torvalds with the likes of Richard Stallman or Eric S. Raymond ?

Again, showing that confusion about open source, free software, OS kernel projects, OS distributions and all the people that revolve in that world...

So if the disagreement came down to merely that aspect then it's not as big a deal as I thought it was.

As pointed out before, the reason Linus Torvalds' dislikes Darwin is because of its micro-kernel roots, not its use in a proprietary OS desktop distribution.

OSX is doing well, and by all indications Linux is also doing well. I thought maybe the disagreement was over something that could have made OSX better or more versatile, but it seems to be just an open versus closed issue.

Where did you get this idea after it has been pointed out many times in this very thread that the issue is Monolithic vs micro-kernel architectures.

Here, start here on your path to actual knowledge about this topic :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum–Torvalds_debate

 

[fermat-au]

I wonder what Jobs' motivations to recruit Torvalds were? In 2000 Apple was committed to Darwin/NeXT as their future, so they can't have wanted him to work on the Linux kernel directly in Apple's interests.

It seems that Jobs wanted Torvalds to work on the Darwin kernel. Was Jobs so ignorant of the state of kernel development that he was unaware of Torvalds' views of kernel development - that monolithic was better?

Could have Jobs wanted Torvalds at Apple so did Torvalds was not working on Linux. In the early 2000's OS X and distributions of Linux were the main choose for people looking for UNIX on the desktop. Slowing Linux development could help Apple in the scientific/film/UNIX geek markets.

 

[burne]

Slowing Linux development could help Apple in the scientific/film/UNIX geek markets.

Go to _any_ scientific event and count the ratio of thinkpads versus macbooks. Steve didn't need to 'slow' anything.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

Linux is the prime example for a monolithic OS. All the essentials of the OS in a big chunk of code.

otool -tdV /mach_kernel > ~/mach_kernel_out.txt

shows no differences. The mach_kernel has also
"All the essentials of the OS in a big chunk of code."

 

[kingtj]

And for what it's worth?

Torvalds was probably right.... As much as I love OS X on the whole, the Mach kernel does stink compared to what Linux did with theirs.

Most notably, the Mach kernel has always had a lot of scaling issues where disk performance plummets when you exceed a certain number of simultaneous accesses by multiple users or multitasking applications.

I don't have all the technical details in front of me (nor am I a software developer), but it's all documented on the net if you care to Google search on it.

Essentially, OS X works fine for the typical workstation scenario (single user running maybe 5 or 6 apps at a time, some of which aren't doing a lot of disk access in the first place). As a server for many users and/or serving large databases, it really stumbles.

Linus would have been a good fit at Apple. In some ways, he's like Steve Jobs: he insists on correct solutions, even if they are harder to do. He knows what he wants, and he's not afraid to push people to get it. And yes, he can be a bit of an ass.

But he basically hated OS X. But his personality would have been a good fit. And there's no chance that he would stop working on Linux.



Oh, it seems we have a new uber-negative person in the forum. Good luck with Ubuntu.

 

[fermat-au]

Go to _any_ scientific event and count the ratio of thinkpads versus macbooks. Steve didn't need to 'slow' anything.

It is easier to judge history in retrospect. In the past decade the Mac has been very successful in the scientific community (particularly for laptops). I would say more successful than many would have predicted.

P.S. The photo is from a college were all students were strongly encouraged to have a Mac. Not a good random sample.

 

[wikus]

This is, of course, why Android is by far the most popular mobile platform out there. It's also why OS X has a growing marketshare of at least 10% in the US! Right? Of course.. because using a unix-based architecture is a sure sign of failure.

It's unfortunate that OS X isn't being given credit for being a good operating system (where it's due), rather you guys only use it because it's good looking and the "apps". Yep. I mean, the 20+ years of R&D in OS X is nothing against a pile of trash "app" such as Instagram.

This.

It so surprises me how 30+ years of effort to bring the Macintosh to a respectable number in market share has been incredibly overshadowed by iOS, easily apple's weakest product. I've only been a Mac user for about 10 years and I've been addicted to OS X. I've seen the iPod explode in dominance and iOS do even better in sales. But what I don't understand is why are people STILL not adopting OS X if theyre buying into the iToys market on a friggin' tablet like the iPad? It does a fraction for what a Macbook does and costs not a whole lot less (unless you go with the cheaper one). On top of that, Apple seems to be slapping iOS onto OS X and has basically abandoned the Mac Pro, put aside OS X in terms of catering to professionals (like myself).

I really dont get it.

 

[damir00]

Presumably Jobs is happy with his side of the outcome, and Linus is happy with his choice.

Still, a bit of a shame, Linus could have been building the best, most consistent and most widely used Unix variant ever created. Instead he (more or less) presides over the most fragmented. Figure there's gotta be a couple of "what if" regrets in the back of his mind somewhere, regardless of what is said publicly.

In the end, virtually nobody gives two hoots about what kind of kernel is underneath the skin.

 

[Macist]

But yes, Ubuntu IS getting there - and, sadly, OS X is losing it rapidly. It's apparent that OS X is nothing but an afterthought for Apple and that iOS is their future. And that won't be my future. I'm preparing to migrate the Macs in our house to Ubuntu.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Linux, while I love the idea of open source, just sucks for day to day use. And the main 'commercial software alternatives' suck badly too and only get praise because they are open source.

Scribus is a terrible DTP program (I had something better on the now dead Acorn platform in the early-mid 90s). GIMP isn't much better. Inkscape is the same. Yes, they show promise but you wouldn't want to do much serious work on them right now.

Linux on the desktop has been 'coming real soon now' since when? 1999? Before? And it still sucks. Looks easy at first then something breaks and you are lost without serious technical knowledge.

 

[KnightWRX]

Instead he (more or less) presides over the most fragmented.

What's fragmented about Linux, the kernel ? That's what he presides over...

----------

Linux, while I love the idea of open source, just sucks for day to day use.

Really ? I find opensource enjoyable to use on a daily basis. Perhaps you're generalizing a bit much ?

----------

Looks easy at first then something breaks and you are lost without serious technical knowledge.

Sounds like OS X. Then you try "repair permissions" and "reboot". When it's still broken, you "Zap pram, erase preferences". Which are all crappy ways to debug a problem and most of the time don't solve anything.

Linux and OS X provide the best tools to debug problems rather than try catch-all solutions. But you need to know how to use them. It's not like Windows, where verbosity in errors is limited and thus getting to actual solutions is not an easy tasks.

 

[GenesisST]

It's not like I know the guy on a personal level or anything. I just respect the idea of free information. I've done a LOT of work myself for free in return. So the idea of charging for the air to breathe if you can get away with it bugs me more than any personal idiosyncrasies. Obviously, some people have different values than me, which is why I mention the 'greed is good' mantra that I would have expected instead. It's simply not part of my belief system. Everyone wants to be comfortable, but if money was what was important to me, I would have become a lawyer. You can't take it with you, regardless. Steve made his family rich and a lot of shareholders rich. I'm sure they love him to death. But heck, even Bill Gates has shown some concern for others in this world that weren't so well off and perhaps never got a chance, being born where they were, etc. I never saw ANY indication Mr. Jobs gave a flying crap about anybody but himself or his immediate family.

I hear ya on most things. I have managers that are younger (much younger) than me... But I love what I do. I feel most people accept promotions just because it is more socially acceptable to go up the ladder than to admit your like your current position. Hey, if my salary goes up and I still love what I do, why change? I can always change later.

As for software work for free. I wish I had time to do it, but never go the chance: 2 jobs out of university, father, then mother got ill, then 2 children. Maybe one day, but then I'll be too old and tired (and mostly sarcastic) to give a crap.

That said, Linus bugs me, but I can appreciate his work (now, not 15 years ago). It is personal, not business...

 

[robbyx]

Choice, is not in Apple's vocabulary. I have a feeling Steve Jobs must have gotten the hives if that word was ever used around him. Just look at all the proprietary bull***t there is with iOS.... forced use of itunes? No replaceable battery? Only one means of acquiring software? Closed OS with limited customization? I could go on.

All of which make for a very successful and stable consumer product and experience. 99% of computer users don't care about any of this stuff. Why hasn't Linux taken off in the consumer market? Why wont it EVER take off? Gee, I wonder. Why are other vendors working towards mimicking Apple's approach? Because its successful.

I'm so sick of the "open" mantra and the way the word "choice" is thrown around. Neither of these make a system better. I have no desire to return to the days of wasted weekends troubleshooting something that should just work. I have a life and nerding out customizing my OS isn't part of the equation.

----------

This.

It so surprises me how 30+ years of effort to bring the Macintosh to a respectable number in market share has been incredibly overshadowed by iOS, easily apple's weakest product. I've only been a Mac user for about 10 years and I've been addicted to OS X. I've seen the iPod explode in dominance and iOS do even better in sales. But what I don't understand is why are people STILL not adopting OS X if theyre buying into the iToys market on a friggin' tablet like the iPad? It does a fraction for what a Macbook does and costs not a whole lot less (unless you go with the cheaper one). On top of that, Apple seems to be slapping iOS onto OS X and has basically abandoned the Mac Pro, put aside OS X in terms of catering to professionals (like myself).

I really dont get it.

It's not that hard to understand. The majority of the people buying these i-Devices don't care about computers. Your condescending attitude is ridiculous. A lot of people just want to access and share information. That's it. What you call an iToy many people consider to be more than adequate for communicating, looking up information, firing off an email, etc. The iToys do these things a heck of a lot better than any computer and they are not intimidating to a newbie. Not everyone is a big nerd who relishes customizing his or her OS and wasting weekends troubleshooting or tweaking his system to boost his nerd cred.

 

[robbyx]

This is, of course, why Android is by far the most popular mobile platform out there.

Android's popularity has nothing to do with unix. Yes, it dominates in market share, but that's largely because the phones are given away. Buy one, get one free is quite common. Can't afford an iPad? There's an Android based knock off that barely works for $100 out there somewhere.

When it comes to mobile app revenue, however, we all know that Android is a dismal failure. For having the lion's share of the market in terms of installed base, the revenue generated for developers is pathetic. Android users don't buy many apps and rarely update their phones. They just want a free smartphone. And there's nothing wrong with that. But the only one getting anything out of this is Google (data mining) and the carriers (contract lock in).

 

[thekev]

Android's popularity has nothing to do with unix. Yes, it dominates in market share, but that's largely because the phones are given away. Buy one, get one free is quite common. Can't afford an iPad? There's an Android based knock off that barely works for $100 out there somewhere.

How do the numbers compare in the US? I've noticed that many of them are quite similar in price to the iphone after carrier subsidies. They're not equal across all phones.

 

[frabber]

Ofcourse he declined . That's a no brainer. Why write closed source eye-candy and get assraped on Apples closed campus, while you can actually build better software to progress humanity.

 

[JoeG4]

OS-X deserves some credit. But, I have to say, it's not very good at for instance I/O-intensive workloads. Most of the times when you see a spinning beachball OS-X is busy trying to balance I/O with GUI. You're saving a file and OS-X is also busy drawing an animated bar showing you how far it came saving this huge file. Most beach-balls are I/O-kit fighting with Quartz for CPU-cycles.

I understand exactly where you're coming from. However, I couldn't find any sort of data to back up that argument when I was going to make it (I recall this actually being blamed on Apple's use of the mach kernel in a tech article somewhere once lol ) but I couldn't find the proof so I didn't want to make that point.

That said, I still think it's friggin awesome that Apple used a unix backend for OS X. As a general purpose workstation OS it's awesome because you can run commercial software and unix software. Yep, slower. I wish they'd fix that!

Really though, compared to iOS, OS X does not get the attention it deserves. Yea, Apple had tons of R&D in mobile devices (newtons!), but they've spent much more time (what, 40 years now?) doing work on GUIs. NeXTStep was a phenomenal jump forward (even if you compare it to something like Amiga OS) at the time. It was based on some incredibly sound and sane UI decisions (like an emphasis on overlapping document windows) - something that MS never really got, and everyone (sadly) forgot with the iPad.

I have Win8 in a VM on my laptop for a filter design project I was working on, and when I tried to read a PDF - much to my horror I watched as the included PDF reader program switched into Metro, hogged the whole screen, and didn't have any way of setting it to windowed mode. WTF? Apparently computers are being designed for people that don't need to see multiple things at the same time anymore.

The average idiot that maximizes everything on their screen probably doesn't give a damn, but for me it's a sad time in computing to see that sorta **** going on.

edit: In regards to Android, I believe it was indeed developed as a "google ecosystem" OS. (The thought of using that word makes me shudder). need to find a place? Yea, you use google! Need music? GOOGLE! Email? GOOGLE! Texts? GOOGLE! The data mining was intended to give you more accurate results. Think about it this way, since they know where you live, when you type "mcdonalds" into google, you'll get the nearest one. Creepy, right?

Actually, I'll top that. One thing I find on my Android is when I open the maps app and start typing in the name of a business I was just looking up on my computer (in google!), guess what pops up. Yep. Same thing.

Jt's subtle but very handy, tbh. The downside is they get to know a lot about you, but if you use Siri or the dictate feature on the iPad, Apple will also get to creeper status about you soon enough XD

 

[ScottishCaptain]

To my knowledge, no Linux versions have been used as Desktop OSes, since Linux doesn't have a userspace component aside from the utilities to manage its kernel space components.

It has been used in desktop OSes, just not as a desktop OS. Are you getting any of this ? Linux is a kernel. Darwin is a kernel. Ubuntu is a OS. Mac OS X is a OS.

Darwin is an operating system. XNU is the underlying kernel in Darwin. Mac OS X is the graphical user land that you interface with.

As pointed out before, the reason Linus Torvalds' dislikes Darwin is because of its micro-kernel roots, not its use in a proprietary OS desktop distribution.

XNU is not a microkernel. It is a monolithic kernel. It has extremely distant roots in mach and BSD, but both sources were heavily modified by the guys at NeXT to the point that XNU resembles neither internally.

Torvalds did not want to get in bed with Apple because of Mac OS X- the proprietary Aqua bits (including Cocoa) bolted ontop of Darwin. This is the same guy that walked out on Sun Microsystems when they tried to pitch Jini to him with that retarded "open source" license agreement (which wasn't open at all). Mac OS X is not "open source" at all (even though Darwin and XNU are to an extent), and Torvalds didn't want to have anything to do with it.

He didn't (doesn't) agree with the microkernel thing, but that's not why he didn't join up with Apple. It was because the proprietary desktop bits weren't open source, and this conflicted with his beliefs and one of the primary reasons why Linux was created.

-SC

 

[KnightWRX]

Darwin is an operating system. XNU is the underlying kernel in Darwin. Mac OS X is the graphical user land that you interface with.

I'll refer to it as XNU then.

He didn't (doesn't) agree with the microkernel thing, but that's not why he didn't join up with Apple. It was because the proprietary desktop bits weren't open source, and this conflicted with his beliefs and one of the primary reasons why Linux was created.

-SC

Where are you getting this ? From this very piece from wired we are commenting on :

Besides, he hated Mac OS’s Mach kernel.

Can't it get clearer than that ? This isn't Slashdot, you know you can read the linked article right ?

 

[Invincibilizer]

Can't blame the guy Mac just isn't a good operating system.

 

[ScottishCaptain]

I'll refer to it as XNU then.

Where are you getting this ? From this very piece from wired we are commenting on :

Can't it get clearer than that ? This isn't Slashdot, you know you can read the linked article right ?

Source: Just For Fun (written by Linus Torvalds and David Diamond)

Welcome to Silicon Valley. One of the first things I got to do upon landing in this strange galaxy was to meet the stars.

I recieved an email from Steve Jobs's secretary about how he'd like to meet me and could I spare an hour or two. Not knowing what it was all about, I said sure.

The meeting was at Apple's headquarters on Infinity Loop Drive. It was with Jobs and his chief technical guy, Avie Tevanian. This was when Apple was starting work on OS X, the Unix-based operating system that wasn't released until September 2000. There wasn't much formality to the meeting. Basically, Jobs started off by trying to tell me that on the desktop there were just two players, Microsoft and Apple, and that he thought that the best thing I could do for Linux was to get in bed with Apple and try to get the open source people behind Mac OS X.

I stuck around because I wanted to learn about the new operating system. It's based on Mach, the microkernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University. In the mid-1990s the Mach was expected to be the ultimate operating system, and a lot of people were interested in it. In fact, IBM and Apple used Mach as the basis for their ill-fated Taligent joint-venture operating system.

Jobs made a big point of the fact that Mach's low-level kernel is open source. He sort of played down the flaw in the setup: Who cares if the basic operating system, the real low-core stuff, is open source if you then have the Mac layer on top, which is not open source?

He had no way of knowing that my personal opinion of Mach is not very high. Frankly, I think it's a piece of crap. It contains all the design mistakes you can make, and managed to even make up a few of its own. One of the arguments against microkernels has always been performance. So a lot of people did research projects aimed at determining how to turn microkernels into something that performs really well. All of the resulting recommendations made it into Mach. As a result, it became a very complicated system with rules of its own. And it still doesn't perform that well.

Avie Tevanian had been one of the Mach people when it was a university project. It was kind of interesting, discussing what he and Steve saw as the issues. At the same time, we disagreed fairly fundamentally on technical matters. I really didn't think there was a reason for open source or Linux people to get involved. Sure, I could understand why they wanted to get more open source developers into their system; they were seeing the momentum build behind Linux. But I don't think they were seeing it quite enough. I don't think Jobs realized that Linux would potentially have more users then Apple, although it's a very different user base. And I don't think Steve would be quite as eager to dismiss Linux as a desktop system today as he was three years ago.

I explained why I didn't like Mach. For understandable reasons that didn't go over very well. They'd certainly heard the arguments before. Obviously, I was very set on Linux and Tevanian was very set on Mach. It was interesting to see how they discussed some of the technical issues. One of the immediate problems I could see was how they planned on supporting old Mac applications in the new operating system. They wanted to do all the old stuff with a compatibility layer. All the old Mac applications would run within one new tacked-on process. But one of the major shortcomings of the old Mac is the lack of memory protection, and this solution does nothing to solve that problem. Only the new Mac applications would have memory protection. It didn't make sense to me.

We had basic differences in how we viewed the world. Steve was Steve, exactly as the press portrays him. He was interested in his own goals, and especially the marketing side. I was interested in the technical side, and not very interested in either his goals or his arguments. His main argument was that if I wanted to get the desktop market I should come join forces with Apple. My reaction was: Why should I care? Why should I be interested in the Apple story? I didn't think there was anything interesting in Apple. And my goal in life was not to take over the desktop market. (Sure, it's going to happen, but it's never been my goal.)

He didn't use very many arguments. He basically just took it for granted that I would be interested. He was clueless, unable to imagine that there could be entire segments of the human race who weren't the least bit concerned about increasing the Mac's market share. I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had-- or how big a market Microsoft has. And I can't blame him for not knowing in advance how much I dislike Mach.

So that depiction of what happened is kind of different from what Wired is saying happened. The above doesn't sound like a job offer at all. Actually, I'm not even sure what it sounds like. Obviously the Mac guys were dead set on using Mach (and not Linux) as their kernel, and yet they still wanted the Linux people to toss in with them? How, exactly, was that supposed to happen- if Linux itself would have no part in the Macintosh? It kinda makes no sense.

I dunno, but what I took it to mean was that Steve was trying to get Torvalds to somehow corral the Linux developers towards the Macintosh platform. Torvalds had no interest in it because the system was not open, despite the fact that Apple really didn't seem to "need" Torvalds for anything. He had his own OS (kernel + userland), they had theirs.

-SC

 

[r.harris1]

This.

It so surprises me how 30+ years of effort to bring the Macintosh to a respectable number in market share has been incredibly overshadowed by iOS, easily apple's weakest product. I've only been a Mac user for about 10 years and I've been addicted to OS X. I've seen the iPod explode in dominance and iOS do even better in sales. But what I don't understand is why are people STILL not adopting OS X if theyre buying into the iToys market on a friggin' tablet like the iPad? It does a fraction for what a Macbook does and costs not a whole lot less (unless you go with the cheaper one). On top of that, Apple seems to be slapping iOS onto OS X and has basically abandoned the Mac Pro, put aside OS X in terms of catering to professionals (like myself).

I really dont get it.

I find OS X to be a great OS for professionals (like myself). As a professional software engineer, I've used (and still use) multiple OSs (Windows, Linux, Solaris, HP UX, etc). OS X provides a great mixture of OS-level control, the horsepower to run my IDEs, databases, application servers and whatever else I need to get my work done, and provides great interface abilities with my work colleagues.

Apple continues to improve my ability to interface with colleagues, operate on the go and remain consistent whether I am on the go or not. So for me, for my workflow, they very much cater for my needs and get better at doing so. Both iOS and Mountain Lion continues the trend. I don't have the fear or hatred of the new security mechanisms and mission control that others have, or problems with the merging of certain iOS components into OS X. As a professional who treats computers of any sort as tools to get my job done, I try to be adaptable to either new approaches or different workflows (or both). If I wasn't, I'd be dead in the water. And I almost expect having to do it with Apple - they tend to take a disruptive approach to progress. And, if I just couldn't get my work done, I'd try another ecosystem. Maybe. All of them have quirks and drawbacks, one major one being cost of moving.

Can Apple do things better (in some cases a LOT better)? You bet! I let them hear about it, though in different ways than this forum.

Finally, iOS is very, very far from being a toy and is a very sophisticated OS. Try writing software for it. You may not like or have uses for the associated devices and you may not care for their ecosystem but really, that's just a personal thing and there are other ecosystems you can buy into. Choose one and have fun.

 

[KnightWRX]

Source: Just For Fun (written by Linus Torvalds and David Diamond)

You bolded the wrong parts :

He had no way of knowing that my personal opinion of Mach is not very high. Frankly, I think it's a piece of crap. It contains all the design mistakes you can make, and managed to even make up a few of its own. One of the arguments against microkernels has always been performance. So a lot of people did research projects aimed at determining how to turn microkernels into something that performs really well. All of the resulting recommendations made it into Mach. As a result, it became a very complicated system with rules of its own. And it still doesn't perform that well.

Avie Tevanian had been one of the Mach people when it was a university project. It was kind of interesting, discussing what he and Steve saw as the issues. At the same time, we disagreed fairly fundamentally on technical matters.

Still sounds to me like he just hated mach because it was basically a micro-kernel.

 

[burgundyyears]

Back to the original topic - a loss for Torvalds if you ask me. He spent most of the time in question working for the now-defunct Transmeta instead, which released about two generations of truly awful CPUs and then became a patent troll before folding a few years ago. A shame - he could have been a positive, lasting influence at Apple.