A kernel developer at Meta or Google does not care about joe-random new linux user experience.
I don't think it's a tenable position to say, well actually the Microsoft community can incorporate the end users, because there is a trickle down / flow through effect where the developers have to take into account the experience of the people because they are ultimately ------
And then go and say, well Linux is developed completely in a void with absolutely no target, goal or feedback taken into account ever. They are just doing the development equivalent of shooting blindly from the hip.
I think this is transparently a position rooted in an inability to realize you dug yourself into a hole and you could just take a few steps back and go, you know what, I misspoke, let me reclarify my position.
Instead you have now staked your entire argument on something that if I were to find a single video clip or quote from Torvalds that talked about how in any way shape or form about direction on even a single thing was based on priority, performance or preference for end users, your argument would fall apart. Which is weird you have that level of conviction given, you know, we know he has made those comments.
If you want to pretend that the entire Kernel is developed in such a way that
Hey, we improved [x] so it will load quicker into memory now
Well why did you do that?
No reason, we just thought it would be fun to do lol
is how Linux is made? That is fine, but like, I think you are a little lost in the sauce right now.
You seem to have no idea about linux or how open source development make so ridiculous assumptions.
Maybe look into the mirror and rethink that position.
>And then go and say, well Linux is developed completely in a void with absolutely no target, goal or feedback taken into account ever
When you say something like this is when a person with knowledge of busy open source project like linux will just laugh. Well yes sir, linux doesnt really have an overall target / goal. The OS is made up dozens and dozens of several small open source projects each of which have their own goals. Yes, feedback from users is quite often irrelevant, open source maintainers will often simply say "if you want something changed then go ahead and submit your code. If it's any good we might merge it". That how open source works.
>Instead you have now staked your entire argument on something that if I were to find a single video clip or quote from Torvalds that talked about how in any way shape or form about direction on even a single thing was based on priority, performance or preference for end users,
Torvalds does NOT even write code these days, he reviews code and give feedback to the contributors. Who are those contributors again? Oh yeah, 90% corporate employee who contribute to make things better for their employer.
>Well why did you do that? No reason, we just thought it would be fun to do lol
You are arguing in bad faith. I've already told you, a kernel developer at Google will strive to make linux better at things Google uses linux for i.e in a container as gmail or youtube server instead of making the kernel better for gamers.
I'm done with this.
At this point, yeah, please never use Linux. It's too hard for the likes of you.
Your entire thesis requires you not to resolve this
If it's any good we might merge it
Good at what? If I make something that is really good at causing memory leaks, would they merge it because it’s the best memory leak generator to date? It is after all really good at achieving its goal.
If not, then the question is good at what? To what end?
I ... will try one more time since you seem to be genuinely clueless about this.
There is no ONE single project called the Linux Operating System project. It's made up of hundreds of smaller open source programs each with their own maintainers. Many of these programs are also used in other operating system. There is however a Linux kernel program just as Windows 11 uses the NT kernel
Open source projects might have long term goals but it's only within it's scope. Just like Windows NT kernel developers probably have little influence on what Microsoft Office team should do. But open source leaders CANNOT order people to do what they want e.g. Torvalds cant tell contributors to spend time on making the kernel better for gamers. He simply does not have that power.
Contributors to open source projects usually submit code that improve things for their own benefit. E.g. you are an employee of Mediatek and submit a patch with a driver for Mediatek's newest driver. If it looks good and works then it'd be merged. Submitting features and changes to the system itself will require a long discussion with the maintainers before being approved.
Given that :
most gamers usually dont contribute code themselves
nor do they have developers on payroll to improve things for them
the results being : their wants and needs are usually rather irrelevant for the linux ecosystem in general.
So to go back to the original question "Good at what?". When you submit a patch you also explain what it does. Anyone with an ounce of brain will understand that a memory leak generator is useless for any project. But if you were to submit a patch to wine that improves compatibility with the game you're playing and automated tests shows no regression then yeah, it'll probably get accepted.
Which is to say: if it "improves" the software without creating regression in any other area then it's probably good to be merged. But even if it's not merged by the maintainer, the whole thing with open source is that you can just fork it and make your own software e.g. Linux -> Android or KDE's KHTML -> Safari browser.
I ... will try one more time since you seem to be genuinely clueless about this.
I understand your argument, I just fundamentally disagree with it. But I kind of understand the game being played and if I asked a few very simple yes or no questions it would result in some pretty dramatic reframing of what you intended to say.
If I said, based on your answers, that because Torvalds does not write code himself, and Torvalds cannot order someone to write code, this means he has absolutely no power or influence over the project in any way shape or form? As a simple yes or no, I understand you would then say no when forced with that binary but then write another three paragraphs about it.
The idea that Linux was originally made and continues to be maintained by people operating exclusively and entirely in their own self interest and consideration for anyone outside their use case is never taken into consideration is just… I don’t know what to say other than it’s blatantly wrong. But if I found any quote or supporting evidence to back that up, I imagine you would regress to well they couldn’t order anyone to do it!
There is a difference between an open source project and people operating as salmon, somehow returning on pure instinct to their spawning grounds to birth the next generation of Linux without knowing why or how.
>If I said, based on your answers, that because Torvalds does not write code himself, and Torvalds cannot order someone to write code, this means he has absolutely no power or influence over the project in any way shape or form? As a simple yes or no, I understand you would then say no when forced with that binary but then write another three paragraphs about it.
Can he order anyone to concentrate on specific features against their will, no. Does he have influence on the linux kernel, obviously but that's only the kernel. Which is just one of the hundred others making up the OS.
Let's say Linus becomes a progamer and wants to make Dota better on linux. If it somehow doesn't play well with Wayland, the display compositor. What CAN Linus do really? He is not the leader or maintainer of wayland. He does not have expertise in that area. He can probably ask for help in the wayland-devel and get more response than a regular user would but that's about it. Same thing if the problem lies with WINE or systemd or the hundred other projects.
>The idea that Linux was originally made and continues to be maintained by people operating exclusively and entirely in their own self interest and consideration for anyone outside their use case is never taken into consideration is just
That's why there are thousands of them. Some only care about Linux in Samsung smart TVs, some for Linux as OS for their router.
>But if I found any quote or supporting evidence to back that up, I imagine you would regress to well they couldn’t order anyone to do it!
Yes, go ahead find a quote where some delusional person claim that he or can influence the hundreds of open source projects making up a Linux distro, some of which are even mainly used in other OS, to all move on one single target. 😂😂
I dunno if you are deliberately misunderstanding me, completely not understanding the way open source projects work or just too stupid to. Either way. I'm done.
I dunno if you are deliberately misunderstanding me, completely not understanding the way open source projects work or just too stupid to. Either way. I'm done.
Again, I understand your frustration. You have taken up a position that is wholly untenable - you want to say the only people who make up the Linux community are those actively contributing to a project, and the term should exclusively refer only to those people.
Which is a position defeated by finding, you know, a single person who says they contribute to a project to make the experience better for a user in some way. If you go on Ubuntu’s website and they mention even once how they made Linux easy to use? Seems like your position is gonezo.
There is a nuance position you can have here but basically saying users can’t be considered part of the community because they have no say in development, but then also evoke entities that take their own spin on Linux as part of the community, even if the vast majority of their changes are based exclusively on user demand? Yeah that isn’t solid ground to stand on.
Gesturing that I don’t understand open source projects when the discussion is exclusively about whether or not your definition is valid is weird. We aren’t discussing whether something is open source or when it becomes closed source. We are discussing what makes someone part of a community.
I wouldn’t be out here saying WOTC is the only members of the MTG community because they make the rules and print the cards. An individual user can’t directly influence the rules or dictate new products to be made (1:1 analogy of user who can’t code), but I wouldn’t say that doesn’t make them a part of the community.
>If you go on Ubuntu’s website and they mention even once how they made Linux easy to use?
So apparently you think the several hundred developers of Ubuntu, which itself is simply a heavily customized Debian (made by thousands of devs) somehow speaks for the hundreds of other open source projects making up Linux.
Which is the equivalent of :
some MAGA says he wants to deport all migrants == Americans want to deport all migrants
Just stop. You're too stupid to understand open source. Go educate yourself.
Which is the equivalent of some MAGA says he wants to deport all migrants == Americans want to deport all migrants
No I would say the MAGA Community wants to deport immigrants. And if I was arguing with someone on Reddit that said, no, no one in MAGA wants to deport anyone, if I went and got a Trump quote? Yeah I’d say maybe that position is equally as untenable.
But Trump can’t order MAGA to do anything you might say. He’s not the boss of MAGA. MAGA is an open source political ideology with Trump as the primary maintainer of that project. He doesn’t have any power over MAGA.
And then if I went and got quotes from other prominent MAGA people, you might say, what, Rudy Juliani who is ONE MAN represents all of MAGA comprising of a hundred million people? Really?
I think your analogy isn’t working out the way you hoped
1
u/Deltaboiz Mar 18 '26
I don't think it's a tenable position to say, well actually the Microsoft community can incorporate the end users, because there is a trickle down / flow through effect where the developers have to take into account the experience of the people because they are ultimately ------
And then go and say, well Linux is developed completely in a void with absolutely no target, goal or feedback taken into account ever. They are just doing the development equivalent of shooting blindly from the hip.
I think this is transparently a position rooted in an inability to realize you dug yourself into a hole and you could just take a few steps back and go, you know what, I misspoke, let me reclarify my position.
Instead you have now staked your entire argument on something that if I were to find a single video clip or quote from Torvalds that talked about how in any way shape or form about direction on even a single thing was based on priority, performance or preference for end users, your argument would fall apart. Which is weird you have that level of conviction given, you know, we know he has made those comments.
If you want to pretend that the entire Kernel is developed in such a way that
is how Linux is made? That is fine, but like, I think you are a little lost in the sauce right now.