Comments by "Juzu Juzu" (@juzujuzu4555) on "Are Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds Good for Linux?" video.

Without Linus Torvalds the situation would be simple, we would have no adoption and no Linux. Only reason Linux is used is because it's kernel was build with no compromise attitude, it would have been impossible without Linus in charge. The kernel would be either not secure, not fast enough, too complex to maintain etc. and it takes semicrazy person who thinks the kernel is "his baby" to do the heroic thing and beat the billion dollar companies. It's obvious that the biggest corporations on the world would have wanted nothing more than Linux not succeeding. Also keeping NSA etc. agencies from not compromising the security is a task that needs very powerful and almost "crazy" person in the charge. And while some of Linus' popularity and public image might have been harmful, the vast majority has been really beneficial. I think Stallman has points, but his attitude gains nothing and make him harmful, and I can understand why it has driven the guy insane. But in case of Linus, I think he has been almost perfect. I can't see what he could have done to ensure Linux kernel to be better. It has to be better in almost every way to compete and survive.
174
@jsnjyn What kind of psychopathic lunatic are you? Even if I sincerely would think they couldn't get into Linux, what's so funny about it? Are you rooting for NSA etc agencies? Stockholm syndrome perhaps? I would expect the majority understand exactly my point.
6
@edwardturpin6544 No question, GNU is actually more important for the creation of Linux in the first place. But for becoming more than novelty OS, and actually conquer something, kernel becomes more important. Or more like, kernel is the place where any opponents would try to hit. Most of the other packages are not that important or could be changed/fixed or in case of failure, the blame goes for those packages, not to Linux itself. Also the kernel is the reason why one would adopt to Linux. Well, the most important reason.
4
@jsnjyn I have studied the whole Snowden package, and come to in conclusion that anything that is theoretically possible has been done and probably what theoretically is possible is much more than public science actually would let us to believe. But it's all about how much resources is required for spying you. I would assume that there are backdoors in windows for all agencies, active data collection and sending it to databases etc. As long as kernel is really maintainable, and there are people that know it thoroughly and want to keep it as secure as possible, Linux's security can be verified easier and it wont be open doors to agencies.
3
@drazpa489 Anybody who says "You do not need..." are almost certainly just telling their opinion and beliefs. And I can understand the logic behind these beliefs, however I have never seen actual evidence of how to maintain project that is certainly in under attack and infiltrators without being harsh. I can't say if his attitude has been unnecessary or not. But I have been wondering the fate of Linux since the late 90s and tried to figure out what kind of method would ensure the best change at this almost impossible task to conquer the desktop and/or survive against the proprietary corporations. Linus at the moment is the only one that has any power and recognition over media. The community doesn't have money or power, so Linus is the only person who actually has some power, and thus if they can't compromise him (which is a big if) he is making it much harder to phuck up things by a million paper cuts. Linus can't be replaced until Linux either changes it's license or that some other person does something amazing to get enough public recognition and respect from the community and users. How this happens, beats me, but I sure hope it will, because otherwise I feel that the ironically far left companies like Microsoft and Google will take control over Linux. Guess if that helps Linux to move into desktop space? And almost certainly they will find a way to monetize Linux servers. I think Satan is more reliable and trustworthy than giant tech corporations, and anyone that actually research the history of these corporations have to agree. Or just use plain logic, these corpses have no conscience and they are only about maximizing profits.
2
@drazpa489 I'm not going to paraphrase my comment, so bear with me. Giant corporations are run by people that are essentially far-left. Modern media is far left, Google is far left. Though what most understand by the left-right axis is wrong. But I wont even try to convince you for this, but I humbly suggest looking into this. While media isn't that interested in Torvalds, at least he is recognized and lots of people give credit to him, more than he deserves though, for creating Linux. At least his voice can be heard by enough people. What are the mechanisms of maintaining order in open source projects? Within corporations this is quite simple, but within open source it's a whole another story. I'm not claiming that everything Linus says is necessary, but on the other hand if we look at his accomplishes and look if there are anything that even comes close to Linux kernel, well, that says something. Also we have to remember that his mails are public, what happens in corporations and other projects is mostly hidden from us. I would argue that there is no giant in any industry that has become that way by being nice. There are many ways how corporations can phuck up Linux desktop even with GPL. Microsoft is not contributing to Linux to help it become popular desktop. Microsoft has history of hijacking companies, like Nokia, it's what they have always done. While the exact same methods wont work with Linux, they have many other long term possibilities. I'm hoping everything will go great with Linux, no matter if Linus retires or not, and no matter of corporations in the mix. I really do, because I don't want to use anything but free and open software and services.
2
Whenever I hear someone calling people or their behavior etc toxic, I think, why didn't far left invent start to use radioactive instead of toxic. The fact is we just can't know what kind of environment developers have. At most we might know how we ourself feel if we were part of that community. If the environment is toxic for people that are not up to standards, then it's a good thing. Not up to standard devs cause more harm than good. But I just can't understand, because of Linus' emails the environment is toxic? I feel that media as a linked corporations are happy to attack Linus and RMS to throw shade on Linux and GNU. Anybody who has really researched how media works is quick to turn down TV and commercial media outlets, or at least limit the time with them. Now that Microsoft and google are in bed with Linux, I would think want Linus out the way. Think about who has any public recognition beside Torvalds, and who has any actual influence beside him to defend Linux? If someone actually thinks that Microsoft is not there to destroy the possibilities on Linux desktop, then ask about yourself, why would stock holders allow this to happen, do they want Microsoft to lose it's business?
1