Subscribe to our weekly newsletter: www.tfir.io/dnl Become a patron of this channel: / tfir Follow us on Twitter: / tfir_io Like us on Facebook: / tfirmedia Linus gives the practical reasons why he doesn't use Ubuntu or Debian.
Then I need some tips from his kids, because later distributions always want to murder my windows Partition. Installer: Do you want to use the whole disk? Me: NOoooo! Not that disk! I have a disk over here. See? Nice Linux partitions. Installer: Thank you for your input. Installer: Now destroying Windows.
@@emmettbrown6418 You might want to not just look at the partition that's used but also where the boot manager is being put (obviously no bueno if the native Windows one gets overridden, hence why these installers typically ask where you want to put it) I've seen some distros actually take that into account in their installation routine by detecting previously installed systems and giving you options to keep these alive
Dex4Sure Doesn’t matter. Writing a Kernel IS A HUGE THING. It’s not something you easily do even if you’re a programmer. Even companies like Apple gave up on their own Kernel.
@Dex4Sure you talk to much, the guy is the one who invented Linux and till now Linux foundation still paying him to maintain the kernel. Even Apple, Microsoft, Google, ibm, Oracle still paying him through Linux foundation and to maintain their Linux kernel machine. If he wants to make his own os he can, but what for?
@Dex4Sure you talk to much ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1rnA6wpF0o4.html He had many teams under him, if he want he can, do you think people's in Debian is smarter than him?
I really enjoy that he says he is not technical. A lot of people tend to associate any mastery in a branch of IT as having absolutely or professional knowledge in other areas. He knows the kernel space, probably almost better than anyone else, he doesn't need to know distro's or architectural level systems design. Similarly, an architect or an end user doesn't need to know about the kernel space. He's a master at what he does, and what he does, doesn't involved the distro space.
I think he's being humble (for once). Linus also wrote Git, which means he also knows a great deal about distributed development and distributed systems in general. On the linux side, he did a great deal to make Linux usable, not just write the kernel. That said the distributions took what he did and ran with it. It's fair that he doesn't know a great deal about them. I'd still say he's very technical though.
@Clinton Reisig Linux distros nowadays are easy to install. I even find windows more difficult to setup because of 1000 questions about security, my personal data usage and whatever else they come up with
WolfireGaming That should be, "Create Linux Kernel", "Cant install some Linux distributions"
5 лет назад
OpenBSD is far more secure than Debian, and actually easier to install. OpenBSD only gives a default install, allowing the user to determine what gets installed whereas Debian installs everything including the kitchen sink. Thus, there's more security issues to be addressed.
He created the Linux kernel, and that's it, just the kernel. The operating system, C compiler, BASH, etc, were created by Gnu. It should really be called Gnu or Gnu / Linux since that's the OS that "Linux" uses, but the name "Linux" stuck and now everybody just calls it Linux even though the kernel is just a small part of the operating system.
Imagine being Linus Torvalds and every family keeps asking you to fix their computer because he's the guy who created the OS that keeps the entire internet running edit: To all of you saying the Linux isn't actually an OS it's just a kernel. I know, I just said it like this because the majority of people will understand it.
@Brad Allen you sure about that bud? Microsoft Azure runs a third of their servers with Linux based OS. So in conjunction with the countless thousands of servers that run Linux and Unix based OS, I’d say you’re probably wrong. Where are you getting you’re info?
If a distro is hard to install - it means it's creators are lazy, or incompetent, or didn't have enough resources. Neither of that is something to be proud of, and neither of that is the reason to install that distribution. The whole point of a distro is to make user's life easier. Otherwise you can just download everything from individual sites of the authors and build everything yourself.
@@m3109c1t0 An asshole who made a kernel and git and "that's it"? People rarely succeed in doing just one of the 2 things the guy contributed in the world and you're trying to sell it as a nothing.
Loved the 'not technical' comment he made in this clip. Its infuriating when people try to label others as 'technical' (primarily at work) just cos they happen to know something they can't be bothered to learn themselves, then follow it with the assumption that said person must also know everything about all the other 'computer related things' that they cannot be bothered to learn themselves as well.
For some context: Linus tried to install Debian in 1999, which at the time was way harder to install than Arch Linux or even Gentoo nowadays. To add salt to the wound, it had to be done entirely through a physical copy.
This is a 2.43 min-long footage, at which minute exactly does he say anything about Ubuntu? He comments that he found difficult to install Debian, that he's not good at maintaining machines, etc, but no mention did I hear about Ubuntu in particular. This video's stated title is deceiving & false.
The reason you would look at this video is that you might think Linus Torvalds is going to say something material about Debian and Ubuntu, which does not happen. All he says is he just picked one distro to stick to to make life simple for himself, not saying that this deliberately unnamed distro is better or worse than any other distro. He only tried Debian once long ago (before 2007), and had some difficulty installing, which he only means to show why he sticks with only one distro, and how rotten he is at figuring out variant distros. Besides, it isn't interesting to him to try out different distros. He doesn't say that he didn't muddle through, like a lot of us, and get Debian installed. I am going to guess getting Debian running was not what he meant, but installing a more recent version of a program than the ten years out-of-date, but purportedly stable, one in the repo, which on account of dependencies can involve determining, searching for, and hand installing many dozens of other packages.
Thanks for your response. I take note of what you say, but if it is as you say then why title the video "Why LT Doesn't Use Ubuntu.."? It has little/nothing to do with Ubuntu *as such*, does it? LT's 'problem' is more to do with his not enjoying installing an OS. By this token, the video could've been titled " Why LT Doesn't Use Open SuSe/Mageia/Kali/Arch Linux etc...". There's no obvious link between the video's title *and* what Torvalds actually says in the footage. Clearly, the video's title is there to deceitfully draw one's attention. Hence my issue with this in the first instance.
Yes they title things this way to get views, or to get people riled up, and I was annoyed at being conned, not unusual on youtube. I think they put Ubuntu in the title because it is the most well known and widely liked distro, so it would get the most hits, and stir up the most people. Throwing a bone to the truth, they put Debian in the title, on which Ubuntu is based. A lot of commenters took the bait and started arguing about distros, using Torvalds to supposedly prove something. Torvalds, actually, is just as definite about the things he doesn't care about as the things he does, and here he doesn't care about linux distros, what so many hard core people get worked up about. IAC, Ubuntu is not just Debian with different wallpaper. True, the workings underneath are some some derived version of Debian's substrate, partly because Ubuntu sends back its development work to Debian to use if it pleases, but Ubuntu has poured loads of time and money into smoothing the difficulties of using linux, and Debian does not adopt it all, because it has its own goals. If you have trouble on Debian, it doesn't mean you will have the same thing on Ubuntu, and the reverse. That being the case, even if Torvalds ripped Debian, which he did not, that was Debian of 7 years ago, when Ubuntu had not yet done the huge amount that it has. If you have used current Ubuntu, and straight Debian stable from 7 years ago, you can tell the difference, believe me.
He's so brilliant and focused that he knows his limitations. Creating an OS isn't the same as installing one. Just like designing an engine isn't the same as installing one!
Yeah, the best engineer who create the best car is probably an average pilot. That's true for almost everything. Even g.od who created life on earth did not survive very long when He came on earth. Died miserably at the approximate age of 33?
He's just managing his time. To go with Clemens' comparison: when the engine constructors assemble cars all of the time, WHEN should they construct the engines? Nobodys time is unlimited. What I hate the most about this "can you fix my computer" situations is the "for me it's so difficult, but for you it will only take five minutes" mindset.
Thank you for describing the difference between someone who's a brilliant developer but not strong in system administration. People never understand this dichotomy
One of the things I admire the most about Torvalds is his brutal honesty. He admits, to himself and others his blind spots and doesn't try to let on like a genius in all things. He focuses on the Kernel and isn't fond of installing those other bits. Per his point, pretty much everything I've ever installed is a pain in the ass if it has any level of complexity whatsoever. I've been working with Linux for awhile now and I'm far from understanding the install process of apps but, getting better. I don't believe my level of intelligence approaches Linus or any of the legends in our business. In fact I think of all the wins I had over the years my main quality is relentless dogged refusal to give up. Anyway, Linus has some very good points. He spends his time where he sees he can have the most effective results and without any higher purpose, what he enjoys the most.
I've been in IT since before Microcosm and Apple,and agree completely with his reasoning. If you've have something that works and does what you need, why change?
It is that you can change many times also make it perfect 99/100. But there are a lot of other things to look out. So yeah this quote isn't good for development. But, it's like "If it ain't broken, Don't fix it". But it's very useful to find and spend time on other new things than just repeating over old stuff which won't give you much result for lot of time
This wasn't really him saying anything against these distros, but more that he is used to a certain one, understands how to get it up and running and doesn't need to make things more complicated by switching to something else, which I totally understand.
I used to be an OS snob but now am not. What would have horrified me about Linus' "attitude" in the past now seems to be refreshingly honest and to the point. If Torvalds doesn't want to mess with install messes, why bother with the ones that present the biggest hassles? Totally agree (even though he may not be completely on top of the modern versions of both installs mentioned).
Yeah, I used to mess with Linux distros a decade ago as a college kid then I got a job and my spare time was used for gaming so I stuck to Windows. Now I have no job and wanted to try running multiple distros in my laptop. I got about 5 in a multiboot USB. Start with Garuda, then Linux Mint. And it's a week later and I'm just happy with being stable and not chasing and analysing every distros. Life's too valuable.
@@maskednil Honestly Garuda is not worth it in my Opinion. NO offence to the def teams but it looks like some script kiddies threw some RGB LEDS at Linux... And there is no too big Difference between the Debian based Distros like Ubuntu, Linux Mint and there of - so the only things I would try are Debian based distros and Arch-based distros. Theres also Red-Hat based distros - but they are for professional use, therefore not in the Mix. (EDIT: meaning try only one of the different kinds: so try one debian based, one arch based ect) For Arch-based Distros there are some pitfalls too: My geeky internet friends told me for example that Manjaro uses it's own packages and therefore introduces new bugs ontop of shipping the packages later... In my Experience: Gaming on Ubuntu worked just fine.
Honestly the choice of Desktop-Environment feels bigger to me, than the choice between e.g. Linux mint and Ubuntu. For Arch-based I got reccommended EndeavorOS and will try that next. Or maybe if I feel super geeky I will install Arch the "usual" way over the console (for braggin rights haha)
And the only big difference between Arch and Debian based distros is: Arch uses rolling-releases, meaning it will always have the newest features, but updates are more likely to break something. For me personally I had never had an update break something for my Ubuntu in the three years or so Ive been using it for Gaming and productive work.
As an Admin, I use whatever is the most consistent. I have too much to do to "fiddle" with why this OS doesn't run this software. I use Windows for everything I can and Ubuntu LTS releases for anything else.
What better distribution to use if you don't want to spend time "maintaining" your machine than Debian (stable) ? It doesn't change hardly at all, only receives necessary updates / security patches.
Considering that he’s at a Debian convention I’m sure his is trying to be as nice as he possibly can. But I’m guessing he’s frustrated with many Linux distro’s compatibility issues and comparing it to Windows.
3 года назад
The liberty is both nice and infuriating. Fragmentation is the infuriating part.
Linux makes some really good operating systems. The problem is support. They have the worst support I have ever seen in my life. It's like these people simply do not understand human beings.
What people do not understand is the distribution scene is not Linus's, it is a consequence of his work, but that means nothing for his knowledge or experience on that subject. I can tell here that he is trying to be careful not to reveal his ignorance on the subject, but really, he shouldn't need to, that isn't what he does.
Linus wrote only the core kernel. Still required extensive use of command line (bash) and didn't have a very well designed GUI for your average entry level Linux user.
And this is exactly why people over at GNU want to call it GNU/Linux and not Linux. (Which I honestly find stupid). Linux is not the "operating system" in the old fashioned sense of the word (1990-2000), where it meant all programs that come with it as well. Just a kernel. As such a system that uses GNU programs on base of the Linux kernel should be called GNU/Linux.
@@Littlefighter1911 I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
The man writes *Git* and finds Debian hard to install. Oh, I've seen it all... I find it easier to install Arch Linux than to use the Git command line. Oh and did I mention he wrote it in C?
I don't think he meant Debian is hard to install by nature. I think he meant that it failed on his machine(s) so he quickly gave up on it. I've had that happen from time to time with everything I've installed including Windows.
From Wikipedia: A *Management Information Systems (MIS)* focuses on the management of information systems to provide efficiency and effectiveness of strategic decision making. The concept may include systems termed transaction processing system, decision support systems, expert systems, and executive information systems. The term MIS is often used in the business schools. Some of MIS contents are overlapping with other areas such as information system, information technology, informatics, e-commerce and computer science. Therefore, the MIS term sometimes can be inter-changeable used in above areas.
The concept of a professional, master, etc just wanting a simple solution to get on with their life in their field extends to pretty much every field. I repair clockwork items (mostly clocks, watches, old cameras, etc) along with tool making/machining. I've got a smart watch and for film cameras I use a Mamiya 645 Pro TL, they both get the job done well for a fair price and comfortably/no worry effort. Even for cameras I use a Fuji X-T30 or Panasonic G9, both with vintage lenses, a lot of the time anymore.
@@ShiroCh_ID how do I get into linux as a windows user? I find it difficult to download apps from the internet as it's not the usual way as downloading an exe/zip and saving it in a folder.
@@scaramouche768 The best way to get into Linux is grab virtual box and download some ISO of a linux distribution you find interesting. Some of these have curated app stores like discover on KDE neon or pop store on Pop OS. These will allow you download apps to linux. However its worth noting that many of the software offered on Linux is open source, Gimp, Krita, Libreoffice, VS code, sublime, davince resolve, etc so you will probably not find your regular paid apps like you find on windows or mac, but instead free alternatives. Keep in mind some of the distributions will require you to activate repositories in the terminal command line, and use a get function that will install the intended software. Hope this helps.
I've only ever had trouble with Debian on absolutely bleeding-edge hardware. It's a highly stable OS that takes a while to get kernel updates and obviously, drivers are integrated into the kernel. This can especially be tough if you want to use LTS releases on brand new hardware.... You better hope someone has backported the driver you need. Overall though, I still use Debian more than any other distro.
So refreshing to hear Linus' admission of not being good at maintaining or MIS! So often I feel like I must learn EVERYTHING technical to steer my career towards the tech world. Very Impressed Linus Torvalds!!
@@inemanja in the full video from this conference, there have been miltiple people who called him out for his behaviour. He just doesn't care... Unfortunately, a great person does not necessarily mean a good person.
This has been my experience with developers. They know what they're developing but the "bigger picture" of where it fits with everybody else's systems, the printers, the backups, etc. isn't something they care about. I do devops and automated install/setup, so I can see why he'd get fixated on his distro of choice and not want to spend time support all the other computers in his house. There's a DevOps guy on RU-vid (Jeff Geerling) who got around this problem by writing automation so that his desktop and any additional laptops would be installed and maintained with automation tools. That way he can focus on his fun stuff with Raspberry Pi kubernetes clusters, kvm boxes, a cheap NAS, and doing videos on all these projects.
Yeah I made it about 15 minutes in Arch when I tried to install it. Back then they expected you to have a second PC connected to the internet so you could read the installation instructions. I found all of that out after I ran the installer. Luckily I had another install disc lying around for a different distro. Or I'd still be over here scratching my head wondering what I am supposed to do.
Sidney Soares yeah it took me a bit to come up with it. But configuring Gentoo over a SSH connection is the way to fly. I was doing something really offbeat with that install, so the install was quite time consuming. It took days in fact. Because no one knew how to change the version of Python Gentoo uses. The best response I could get out of experts was, Why do you want to do that? But to support the software I wanted to run I needed a different version installed. Gentoo totally relies on Python for system administration too. So it is a difficult switch.
Is that video old ? because old versions of Debian on early 2000 were difficult to install. too many bugs xorg server crush repeatedly. Plus it was server install only.
I don't even have kids and I think just like him.When I first new about Linux I tried lots of distros also because at that time I had plenty of time but now I wouldn't like to spend my time trying distributions.
My love for Linux started with trying out lots of distros, and I still love to discover them. There are so many flavours, and most of them are totally free. It's like a free candy-store, you can't just stop at one :)
He said it guys. He likes to install things in a short time to get on with his life. I respect that and I am like that...what is the point from taking hours trying to install gentoo or arch ?! Life is short
@@amineabdz Actually it is not that hard to install Gentoo. I would say it requires time, rather than hard, however of course it's really not for beginners. And yes, it's fun to install if you are interested in Linux and OSs. :)
In my experience, Debian used to be hard to install back in the day [10 or more years ago], but nowadays not so much. It's also really easy to use net installer that is like 242MB and install from the nearest/fastest Internet mirror. I can't remember the last time I used a CD/DVD to install it. A small, 9.95 USB stick does the job. ;) Ubuntu is also easy to install, but I somehow like Debian. I must be too used to it. Xfce Debian, that is.
"9.95 usb stick". lol. I'm not even sure why exactly you did not bother to state your currency, is it because US is so drowned in marketing BS or you just don't care if the rest of the world exists.
I can relate to an extent. During 8th grade and HS, I spent all of my time hacking bash scripts, compiling custom kernels, and all of the other fun Linux stuff we do when we start out. Then after 6 years or so of that, I just wanted something that I didn't have to screw around with so I could actually get something done. I ended up switching from Arch to Ubuntu for that reason, and I'd always been completely against Ubuntu, but Arch became too much of a chore.
I'm using Arch now, but I think I'm getting to that stage where I just want my computer to just work without having to configure something I don't understand, but that I am copying from a wiki. Although I think that Arch is a very good linux distribution for those who want to start familiarizing themselves with the terminal and the system configuration.
@@arian_xyz I'm at that fabulous point where I have arch set up basically exactly how I like it. My only fear is having to reinstall the OS for some reason though, which would be a real PITA.
He is right, old Debian versions, and this is not recent, were hard to install. Were in 20 years ago they were a nightmare with cryptic language and default options that will make the machine not boot.
Back in the day I was a senior systems integrator and core internet architect. I've designed and built a lot of the systems you still use today. I still can't do a power point or excel to save my life.
That's funny, because IMO Debian has consistently been the smoothest install process for me other than the super ease-of-use oriented distros like Mint or Ubuntu (which, I mean, is essentially just Debian+)
@@c99kfm I first installed Debian sometime in the mid-late 2000s. I didn't ever go through the bad times I've heard about, but AFAIK _most_ early Linux was a bitch to install. Maybe Debian used to be comparatively worse, but for the last 10 years the installation process for pretty much any distro that makes an effort to streamline the process has been pretty smooth sailing, IME.
And 6 years later, in 2020, I attempted installing Debian on my 2015 Macbook Air, and the installer borks the machine to the point I had to completely reformat the internal drive from the Mac hardware's recovery mode (doesn't get removed unless you go out of your way to do so)
My first Linux distribution was Slackware 2.0 in 1997 when I was working for IBM Global Services at LSI Logic, and it was difficult to install, more so then Solaris 2.5, but I bought a copy of Caldera 1.2 at MicroCenter in 1998 when I worked at FlowWise Networks and found it to be a breeze to install with the Lizard GUI user interface.
@@byteme6346 The first Slackware release, version 1.00, was distributed on July 17, 1993, at 00:16:36 (UTC). First Linux kernel was released September-October 1991. I don't think that there was any Linux distribution active back then. Elvis is still in Slackware 15.0
I really appreciate how humble Linus is. Just goes to show that just because you're great at some things, it doesn't mean you're automatically great at everything related to that. It's not because you don't have the intelligence to do it, but you simply lack the interest, motivation, or time required to become good at another thing. Most important reason is time, because time is so limited. You can only do so many things.
Also, have you looked at apt get ? I cannot look at it , the words are all just stacked together ... dnf put entries in different lines ,put them into a table, so much more user friendly
I installed Debian 10 two months ago and if you use the unofficial iso with the non-free firmware / softwares, it's super easy... If you want a productive desktop environment, pick debian, ubuntu lts or centos... You can add an other distribution (a rolling release distribution like archlinux or fedora or a non-lts ubuntu) on a dedicated ssd just by curiosity if you want to try the lastest softwares. Actually I run Ubuntu 20.04 and it will be my main system for the next 2 years, I don't want to reinstall my OS every 6-9 months.
ive used kali linux for years and i still have problems downloading things cos i do everything from the terminal including running apps everything runs in the terminal.
See, Mr. Torvalds, in that respect, you actually ARE good at MIS. Maintaining a heterogeneous environment is more difficult. Most shops try to minimize the number of platforms they support for that reason.
Oh my god. I wish I could get that part of my life back where I tried to install debian. Granted I wasn't doing it the way I was "supposed to". I didn't have a local internet connection at the time. But still it shouldn't have been as hard as it was.
+trompowsky chess About 4 years ago, I tried Ubuntu. It was my first experience with anything other than Windows. But I didn't really like it. Then I installed Debian and I loved it. The more I used it, the more I loved it. I tried a lot of Distros but always go back to Debian or a Debian based distro. If you just want a rock-stable system that's easy to use out of the box for e-mail, browsing and school/work but don't really need the fancy stuff out of the box than Debian is for you.
NITROLLATOR ive been using ubuntu unity and its good for me except i couldnt find proprietary drivers for my graphics to play games,, but overall linux is too good for me , because you used both distros are there any good things debian has compared to ubuntu?
Ubuntu is based on Debian. Without Debian there was no Ubuntu. They are pretty similar. Debian is somewhat faster and less bloated with stuff you'll probably don't need. But Ubuntu has a better "out of the box" experience. The reason I didn't really like Ubuntu is not because it is bad, not at all. I just thought it had a lot of stuff I didn't need which is heavier on your pc. If I need stuf, I'll download it from the Debian repos. I have just done a Debian netinstall, which means you only get a command line and build up your whole system from there. I now have a fully working system on my old slow netbook that only uses 70mb of ram. It will blow your mind how responsive a 10 year old 1.3Ghz, 1GB DDR2 machine can be if you build up your own Linux with only the stuff you'll need. If you want to learn Linux, the best tip I can give you is to try different distros and read a LOT of tutorials and forums if you have any problems.