Elon Musk is “too stupid to work in a tech company”, claims Linux developer

[Redaktion]

Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux operating system, shared his thoughts on the future of open source software in an interview with Linus Tech Tips. When asked about measuring a programmer's productivity by the number of lines of code they write, Torvalds did not hold back, calling such metrics "simply incompetent."

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Elon-Musk-is-too-stupid-to-work-in-a-tech-company-claims-Linux-developer.1178775.0.html

[Petr]

And he was right.

[Ahab]

Torvalds correct yet again.

[TruthIsThere]

Nah. What's stupid is; an OS that has lurked around for ~34-years; has not yet broken through for the simple users like our grandparents/elders who values simplicity, familiarity, & out-of-the-box functionality.

The perception that Linux is "for geeks" still persists; deterring users like our elders who are unfamiliar with the CLI or system-level configuration.

This perception is reinforced by the fact that most popular software; that our elders are familiar with; such as Adobe Creative Suite, Microsoft Office, & many tripe-A games; is not natively available on Linux, requiring workarounds like Wine or virtual machines, which can be complex for average users like our elders; all alien language to them.

Also, hardware compatibility remains a challenge, as drivers for certain printers, graphics cards, & laptop components often require manual installation or are not available at all; another dark area for the unfamiliar; completely undermining the "plug-&-play" experience that these vulnerable users expect from Windows or macOS.

Aww-man... let's not forget; the sheer number of Linux distributions; such as Ubuntu, Fedora, Arch, Linux Mint, ect; creates great confusion for newcomers/elder users who struggle to choose the right one, contributing to a fragmented user experience. This terrible fragmentation also discourages software & hardware developers from investing in Linux, as they must support multiple versions & desktop environments.

Now, while modern Linux distributions are now user-friendly & do not require CLI expertise for basic tasks, the learning curve increases with more complex use cases.

Perhaps, LT needs to take hold of this advice & fast... how the saying goes... oh yeah:

Sweep around your own front door before sweeping mine! 😏

[Merc Fredis]

Bit of a stretch, Linus didn't say "Elon Musk is too stupid to work in a tech company."  Then again, being accurate wasn't your goal in the first place, right?  Way to go, "tech journalist."  Sounds like your entire background in tech before landing this prestigious position was fuckin' video games.  What do you know about anything?

[A]

Nah. What's stupid is; an OS that has lurked around for ~34-years; has not yet broken through for the simple users like our grandparents/elders who values simplicity, familiarity, & out-of-the-box functionality.

That's an odd thing to say when linux is the #1 operating system in the world. I mean you do know that Android is linux right?

Linux of course is also used in chromebooks, routers, car infotainment systems, servers, almost all the super computers and etc.

The only place linux has been behind on is just the desktop market, and mostly because most vendors didn't even offer it as an option.

The perception that Linux is "for geeks" still persists; deterring users like our elders who are unfamiliar with the CLI or system-level configuration.

This perception is reinforced by the fact that most popular software; that our elders are familiar with; such as Adobe Creative Suite, Microsoft Office, & many tripe-A games; is not natively available on Linux, requiring workarounds like Wine or virtual machines, which can be complex for average users like our elders; all alien language to them.

Actually, the reality is that most people don't need those. Most people just need a web browser. The biggest thing holding linux on the desktop back is it not being preinstalled by default. Most people don't install their own operating system, they won't even reinstall windows to get rid of oem bloat.

Also, hardware compatibility remains a challenge, as drivers for certain printers, graphics cards, & laptop components often require manual installation or are not available at all; another dark area for the unfamiliar; completely undermining the "plug-&-play" experience that these vulnerable users expect from Windows or macOS.

If the computer comes preinstalled with linux, then no need to worry about drivers and stuff. Everything should work out of box.

Even without that, 90%+ of hardware works fine with linux these days. And if you go for a beginner friendly distro, it will handle installation of gpu and other stuff. The reason why some distros don't include stuff by default is because they aim to be 100% open source with no proprietary components. This forces people to install proprietary components manually. A new user friendly distro just includes everything

PS Linux uses CUPS for printing, same CUPS used by MacOS. If it works on MacOS, it works on linux.

Aww-man... let's not forget; the sheer number of Linux distributions; such as Ubuntu, Fedora, Arch, Linux Mint, ect; creates great confusion for newcomers/elder users who struggle to choose the right one, contributing to a fragmented user experience. This terrible fragmentation also discourages software & hardware developers from investing in Linux, as they must support multiple versions & desktop environments.

The amount of linux distros doesn't matter when your pc comes preinstalled with linux. Use whatever it comes preinstalled with. If you are installing your own operating system, you are already not a beginner.

And what a newcommer should go with is a new user friendly distro like Linux Mint. Or if your goal is gaming, you may want something like Bazzite.

As for software developers, there is nothing complex. You can do a static build or an appimage, as long as you do it properly it'll work on every linux.

Now, while modern Linux distributions are now user-friendly & do not require CLI expertise for basic tasks, the learning curve increases with more complex use cases.

Perhaps, LT needs to take hold of this advice & fast... how the saying goes... oh yeah:

Sweep around your own front door before sweeping mine! 😏

For the record, Linux is a kernel. What people put on top of the kernel isn't his business.

[Falsehoodishere]

the sheer number of Linux distributions; such as Ubuntu, Fedora, Arch, Linux Mint, ect; creates great confusion

Many / most of these linux distros you listed don't exactly have a benevolent dictator but several or dozens of maintainers. I think that might be part of the greater problem, moreso than Linux itself.

When you've people constantly leaving and going within a project, since it's all free and volunteer work it's harder to have consistency and keep to a certain vision unless you've like the project founder stay all the way.

IMO, it's not so much the type of OS, but the open source approach doesn't necessarily work too well with respect to OS's. For this reason I prefer closed source operating systems. When it comes to apps though, open source all the way!

[Hotz]

Nah. What's stupid is; an OS that has lurked around for ~34-years; has not yet broken through for the simple users like our grandparents/elders who values simplicity, familiarity, & out-of-the-box functionality.

That's an odd thing to say when linux is the #1 operating system in the world. I mean you do know that Android is linux right?

Meanwhile you should really know it's about Desktop OS, not about mobile or servers. Also Android isn't a great example either, it's cluttered, overbloated, and not really user friendly. But at least it's less "jungle" compared to the Linux desktop jungle.

In some way Android is like Windows - it's crap, but somehow consistent across the mobile world. And as such it's still better than the Linux-desktop-jungle. Like the saying goes: "it's better to have a bad standard than dozens of different 'standards' (each doing their own thing)".

The only place linux has been behind on is just the desktop market, and mostly because most vendors didn't even offer it as an option.

Vendors need to offer an operating system that is consistent across the whole desktop world. Because that is important for software, development, troubleshooting, support. A "jungle" can't offer that. Different kernel versions, different packages, different UI themes, different out-of-box software and libraries, etc. - they all can and actually do f-ck up things regularly across the different distributions. It's a nightmare for companies. No one wants to deal with that.


For a breakthrough of Linux on the desktop it would require an agreement of all vendors about a specific Linux distro that can be installed on consumer PCs (instead of Windows). Any distro can be that one, but it has to be "one" - in numbers: 1, and only 1. Only that would provide the base and stability that is needed for companies (and btw. "enthusiasts" could still use similar distros or forks of it, if they are afraid of that 1 distro becoming a 2nd Windows).

[Hotz]

Also another point about Android: it's for mobile phones only, with very specific, limited hardware, and each company specifically tailors it so that everything works. The "Desktop" (PC) is a different beast: because it's universal, modular, must work with myriads of hardware, software, have much more use cases. And that's why a consistent and stable platform across the whole desktop world is required.

[B]

Well, the OP brought up elderly and grandparents. At this point in time, I think iOS on iPhone is more easy to use and familiar to them than any Desktop OS like windows.

Android isn't a great example

Some would also make the argument, that android isn't true linux. Saying that due to differences in kernel (although android is based on it, it does have its own modifications) many of the same programs that run on Linux don't or have serious issues on android without serious modifications being done.

But anyway, I agree with A's core point which was whenever a *nix system is bundled with actual hardware and it's not done by some small company but done on a mass scale, it does tend to be successful. So pretty much the only thing stopping it from mass adoption is this. The reason windows has become so entrenched (despite its fair share of problems) is for decades it was bundled with the hardware you bought. It definitely is an important factor.

Android: it's for mobile phones only

For now yeah. But according to reports, it seems Google are merging both ChromeOS and android.