ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ก.ย. 2014
- 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. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
"So that I can get on with my Life, which is mostly the Kernel" lol
ONE YEAR LATER: My kernel is better than yours!
@Apjal Guruji found the snowflake
His life be like: cat /etc/shadow | grep “wife” >> /dev/null && sync
@@MaghrebProductions Wow how many people can understand that great joke... hehe I like it.
@@MaghrebProductions I got most of it. But why is his wife in the password file and why sync the dumpster aka /dev/null
Wonder if he's ever caught the kids sneaking windows on a dual boot
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 🤣🤣🤣
@@emmettbrown6418 Yeah yesterday only I fcked it up with Ubuntu 😑😑 Now cleared the whole disk
Definitely, they just want to play games..
@@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
I thought he'd sarcastically answer, "I'd rather write my own OS from scratch than install a distro"
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.
They didn’t give up. They just felt it was pointless to reinvent the wheel when BSD did the job.
Dex4Sure What about Alpine Linux? :P
@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
th-cam.com/video/1rnA6wpF0o4/w-d-xo.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.
yep. My eyes bleed every time I see my programmers friends use their computers.
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.
@@channelname8775 F
@@channelname8775 are u on arch now? I'm on PopOS
@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
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 Unix is being phased out in many places
@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?
@Brad Allen mac os server? are you intoxicated?
@Brad Allen seems legit
How does Linix keep the internet running?
Give me sources.
> Creates Linux
> Can't install Linux
(In all truth, raw Debian can be a pain, so I see where he's coming from)
WolfireGaming That should be, "Create Linux Kernel", "Cant install some Linux distributions"
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.
his time is expensive anyway.. so the hurdles are not worth it..
@ Stan. I had a good laugh :D Not only for the comment but for providing it as an option for Linus Torvalds
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.
It would be hilarious if he said: "Debian is hard to install...Btw I'm Arch user.
Linus Torvalds = An asshole who made a kernel that's it.
i downloaded debian onto my laptop, thought it was going to die but realistically it was pretty easy o_O
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.
@@RachidWasTaken well, that's certainly progress. Now, where do I click to make my Arch install an LTS distribution?
@@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.
He uses the best OS, TempleOS.
The OS of God
F Terry.
The 2mb distribution specifically
RIP Terry
sarcasm alert
Linus Torvalds:Debian is hard to install.
Arch Linux: Hold my beer.
Gentoo: Hold my beer.
LFS: Hold my water, hops, yeast and barley.
Gentoo: "Hold my problem"
101 reasons I fell in love with Fedora Xfce
People who have a life:
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.
Preach! I blame movies/TV for making every programmer also a hacker.
Cuttlefish N.W. I wish I could like your comment more then once
@john doe FFS, you troll, why don't you just crawl back under the rock you crawled out from. Nobody here is interested in your trolling.
Ah, I see you know how to change your car tyres. Could you maybe look at my cracked piston?
@@cr-yi7ep what did they say?
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!
Yep. And especially designing an engine (=kernel) is not the same as building a whole car (=distro).
@@ClemensKatzer thats a nice metaphor to understand the difference between the two
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?
Terry Davis is smarter
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.
its very nice to hear humility in people that do great things
Oh you have no idea XD
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.
Ubuntu is a Debian based distribution of Linux, you should know about the three main Linux families
ubuntu IS debian... so he doesn't have to mention it
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?
This is wisdom. With age I'm understanding more and more the true meaning of your statement
You can't let a system sit. It has to be updated. At some point the hardware won't support the hardware which is rather late with debian...
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
We are stuck with windows because of this crap
@championchap distro hopping exist because of this.
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 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.
Living legend.
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.
He definitely had something against Debian. And then hasn't retried it since.
this man should receive a nobel price of information technology ...great Mind .
Linus, you're the best ahahaahah, really funny, humble, intelligent and great person.
Don't ever change!
ا
"Humble." I... are we talking about the same guy? He's like... famously unhumble.
Not humble
I didnt' hear him mention Ubuntu?
maybe it is?
It's a confusion mark
It's called clickbait!
The guy asking the question was wearing an Ubuntu shirt, I guess that was enough to put it in the title.
Because he don't. The title is fake...
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.
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.
Also you can blame the misspelling on my phone phones are worse at spelling then Linux is at support
In fact I was going to add that it's kind of ironic what he's saying given that he seems to be at a Debian conference...
They probably asked, or paid for him to be there. Not that he's there because he gives a rat's ass about debian
I installed debian couple of months ago ..its easy now to install and configure but network drivers are still very hard to detect in debain systems
The most amazing thing about Linus's speech here is how candid he is. Its inspiring.
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.
Richard Smith but he is responsible for the alternative OS system those are his children and grandchildren many times over thank you Linus
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.
@@Synthwave89 why not call it GiNUx
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.
0:19 what the hell was that smile
his punchline failed
The same smile a got before Bill cosby put a roofy in my Pepsi
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?
Git isn't hard at all...
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.
yea, some machine are just bad apple
He is being sarcastic u moron kid.
How is the git CLI hard to use? Seriously.
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.
I guess that is what he is not, I mean to maintain a kernel you need latest libraries and others
A solid alternative to Debian could be Red Hat.
Debian is a horrible distro to develop on because it is so ancient.
Stable doesn't have to mean old as several better distros have shown.
he's honest
olivia-J Trans ii
@@ryukblack3501Not funny, Didn't laugh.
Ur pretty
@@totalbrainfail1812 thats cause tramps aren't funny
@@ryukblack3501
there isn't such a thing. it's "Trans"
I was on Mint for 4 years, and installed Debian couple of weeks ago.
Very smooth and enjoyable.
Do recommend.
What DE, could I ask?
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.
Thanks mate, that really helped me out. 👍
i love the way he speaks!!! very entertaining and comfortable!
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.
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.
I'm happy with Mint it worked for me without any problems.
same here with Kde Neon and Kubuntu
altough Neon is the most stable of all 2
@@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'm using MX Linux very stable.
I'm using Arch because I hate myself.
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 TH-cam (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.
so you are not a developer and you see a bigger picture ... than THE developer? ok. its like saying nurse sees a "bigger picture" than doctor.
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.
Gentoo got to me. Now I track Mint and Neon.
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.
@@traveller23e *Laughs in NixOS*
Filtered
So simple and Great personality. Love him.
All I hear is a Steve Carell voice impression from the Office. Linux Revolution!
Debian is hard to install? Try install Arch linux..
try install gentoo.
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.
I did OK with Gentoo. The trick there is use ssh. Then it is just an annoying console window on your system that works.
good idea, thanks for the tip
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.
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.
I can relate to him here. "When it comes to maintaining these machines, I'm a disaster."
my definition of maintaining is "reinstall" :D
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 :)
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.
I'm using Mate mate!
"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.
@@Mr.Leeroy i know your comment is 2 years old, but the stupidity you presented in it is timeless
Depends on the hardware. Debian is my go to but it is a pain in the ass to work with on some of most common hardware.
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.
I tried to install Debian Stretch few days ago. Installer kept failing until I changed to the "expert mode" and deselected most optional packages.
Linus : Installing Debian is not easy..
Also Linux : Codes the entire Linux Kernel and GIT.😶😶😶😶
Wow very funny U indian😂
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+)
When did you start using Debian? Did you ever experience the old (early 2000s) installation, what was its name, maybe dselect?
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!!
The fact that he's standing next to a DebConf logo makes this 100x funnier
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.
когда пишешь английскими словами...
I know other mentioned arch as harder to install... but I'm not convinced. Arch is about as hard when setting things up (drivers and all), but it has far better documentation(wiki) compared to weirdly segmented and sometimes cryptic docs of Debian.
Seriously, I moved to arch because it was easier to setup and manage and in practice was more stable desktop as I wanted software that wasn't at least half year out of date. Plus I have an inkling of how things work on this distro so I know where to start were something to break.
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.
Debian in this days its easy to install, the problem start when you need to download private software, like HP wifi card driver, video card, etc. So that take some time and ofc you need another computer in order to download the drivers and supply the Debian one.
But once installed it runs beautifull
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
installing gentoo is fun
@@getgle it is ,if you're a masochist
@@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. :)
Elbarq Elsa3ek arch takes less than an hour
we waste hours on netflix... we can waste hours on anything we consider fun
But, I will not dispute with Linuz. The guy wrote the Linux kernel! And did it in C! I struggle to make a calculator in C kkk.
I would have started with the question of what OS do you use?
I have stuck with Ubuntu recently as, like the person in the audience, said it is easy. I have tried a number of linux versions in the past. I now have an Nvidia 1080 TI on an AORUS motherboard and alternate linux versions typically have two issues. They rarely directly support Nvidia drivers and many do not seem to support the wireless chips on my board. I would think supporting wireless chips on various motherboards would be important. Sure, I could run an ethernet cable to my router, but I do not want to do that. If you are unable to connect, to download various drivers you are stuck.
This sounds like a laugh track from some old 70's show. The audience would probably laugh if Linus farted or coughed.
it's because the audience is a bunch of nerds xD
I'd probably laugh too if Linus farted or coughed.
yeah... it's pretty sad... especially considering that he is an asshole... well. world is full of kiss-asses
yeah crowd sux
@@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.
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.
I installed a much older Slackware, around 1991, I believe. It's vi editor was named elvis. 8o)
@@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
What distro does he use?
Fedora
What is MIS?
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.
Installed Ubuntu alongside Windows on my computer yesterday. Very simple and straightforward.
Install Debian you will need the motherboard contracts (like full amd and full 64).. But, most of all, wait the stable,(who still depending of contracts) or live install multiarch (to netbooks, notebooks and all 64 and 32 pcs). Analizing contracts is alawyer thing...
I agree here. I've always told my friends I appreciate a distro that works out the box.
What is MIS? And how could linus do it better?
management information services (IS for short most known as IT (Information Technologies))
THANK YOU I WAS WONDERING THE SAME THING
I find Debian 8 to be pretty easy to install (coming from Windows)... pretty fun to use as well... awesome OS...
+Eduard Karesli you dont have any problems with debian ? because youre coming from windows background
+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.
in the details. when you get stuck, roll back to the beginning and start over. The other weay is to focus entirely on one set of commands
what do I do if my soft doesn't add up to the correct length of the loop? and I have so gap at the end because the notes aren't the
Personally I have always found that the Debian Installers were always the ones that performed the best for any of the hardware I ever used.
Agree.
try OpenBSD installer.
That's right !
Same.
True
Well, Fedora 30 installation was not that different from Ubuntu 18.04. The installer guide was pretty much same.
Only thing i hated about Fedora was that I needed to download Fedora Media Writer to download the ISO and Fedora Media Writer took like 2 - 3 hours.
Though, afterwards I've realised that the ISO can be downloaded separately too, without Fedora Media Writer.
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
Take a look at aptitude, a console-based "high-level interface to the package manager".
Is there a link to the full version of the video?
I'd be interested to know what distro he uses.
That's the only way to use GNOME3. Dash2Dock, Places menu and so on and so forth
He uses mostly Fedora.
The guy who posted a duckduckgo link...lmao
MacOS
He runs Windows 10 so he can game.
Debian is indeed a pain to install, but I like my debian-based SolydXK installation.
I agree with him, Just pick a good one (the one that easy to run.
) and just use it
Respect for changing the title ❤
I've had nothing but buggy installations of debian derivatives on nearly every PC I've installed them on. It doesn't take a lot to break Ubuntu and it's interface is very awkward. I switched to OpenSUSE recently and it's been incredibly stable. Virtually no errors. Installing packages and dependencies generally easier (the amount of support for OpenSUSE is astoundingly good) and I've not once had to touch a terminal while using it. OpenSUSE deserves more of a spotlight. It's a fantastic distro. Never had a great experience with Ubuntu.
Linux Mint: Hello 👋
So his argument is that he wants an OS that is easy to install regularly because he's always switching machines. I find this a very interesting argument. If Debian doesn't cut it for him, I wonder what he does recommend. People in the comments and in the video want to pounce on the why argue whether it's true or not, but if he thinks it is difficult, which one did he think was easy? Also, he says he hasn't tried it since 2007, so whatever operating he went with in 2007 is one I would like to hear about. Which was it?
+Leonidas Prime Linus doesn't install.. He images his systems.. So when he gets a new machine, it's like a drag n drop, kinda.. A very efficient way to maintain your computing life.
Basically, he and his personal systems are the dev for the families systems. then he "releases" to them every year.. I would not be surprised if he has a package manager, repo system, etc setup so they only get updates and packages through his repo. They probably even have him package all the software they need. Bet this guy is busy..lol
Blue Balls Matter I see your point, but there are a couple wrinkles.
1. He creates his images with an installer (still considered installing)
2. In the video and linked articles he claims to be non-technical. Basically, that he can code on the kernel, but he doesn't consider himself a competent tech support resource (he barely knows how to run an installer).
I get the family part. He does mention family members. It's just that he also mentioned those other things. I think because he wanted to solidify his reasoning to be more about him than the influence of others. Basically, IMHO he didn't want to use family as an excuse in his own defense of the distribution he uses.
Blue Balls Matter I realize in my previous comment that there was some speculation in there. I wanted to let you know this is understood. It's just my opinion (besides anything he quoted in the video and linked articles). I don't want to portray my opinions as fact.
Well, besides the entertaining part, that strikes me a little bit. If switching between the distributions is already unpleasantly hard for someone who's so much into that, how advise the move for someone coming from "the dark side"?
THANK YOU!!!! The Distro / OS is not real life. is what YOU DO USING your OS that is really important.
This.
So what OS does he use for programming the kernel?
Linux zod.
Fedora I think
Mint was very easy to install and run :)
I always had problems with ubuntu, something would always go wrong. Usually requiring more effort than it was worth at the time.
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)
Linus is just so humble, awesome
lmao nice joke
I had install ubuntu three times in Row. He never said any word on ubuntu and no one asked. Change the title. But thanks i love the way Mr Trovalds speaks
Up to 4th install.. have to reinstall everytime I restart box it seems..
That because on Debian site you need download non free iso, and link to that is hidden in text.
I am with him. It is the same reason I don't leave ubuntu. Ofc I am younger so I may jump ship, but I kind want to be able to have everything up and running in less than half hour. And I can only do that in ubuntu because I have set it up enough times now.
I'm Debian Jessie & Windows 10 user.
I find installing Windows 10 is harder.
First I must search alternative of kickass torrent. After it's founder got arrested, almost all server is closed.
Then, after I get that, I must search magnet link that covered by tons of ads, even adware.
After download Windows-10-x86.iso, I must download KMS Pico Activator. Looking for KMS Pico sometimes can be hard. Many file-hosting server marked KMS Pico as violencing terms and condition, and remove that.
After succesfully install Windows 10, then time to install KMS Pico.
Ohh, NOOOOOOOOO..
Windows Defender deleted it!! I must repeat step 3. And if we forget to deactivate Windows Defender, that will become endless loop.
This is not finished yet. Next step is installing drivers. This could be really frustrating. I have my graphic driver always crash after too long standby, and many others weird things. Take hours to fixed these things.
Total time to install Windows 10 can be 6 hours.
*sorry for my bad english
You can download the Windows 10 ISOs directly from Microsoft, no need for torrents and ads
Thanks for advice..
But I have no serial number :(
I heard that downloader need serial number before able to fetch & build *.iso from Microsoft Server
I don't really know about situation for today but back in days when free upgrade was available everyone could download .iso file directly without any keys
Adhi Pambudi no. you can download the .iso without a serial number and you can also install windows without a serial number. It will run for 30 days as a test version if you don't put in a serial number, it will stop working after those 30 days.
+0M9H4X wow, thank's.
I just realize.
next time if I need iso of windows installer,
i will download it directly.
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.
THANK YOU!! THIS WAS THE BEST AND EASIEST TUTORIAL
I have installed many distributions but I always go back to debian, it was hard at first now it's my go-to.
Plot twist, actually he uses Windows.
My favourite linux distro
So basically this explain why Linux is such a mess - the main Linux guru is not using Linux daily. I wonder if Linux would be a better place if he would do otherwise.
Debian is still a pain in the neck to install. I recently tried to install it and wanted to place GRUB on a different hard disk but every time I tried to to it, it just wasn't booting after installing.
Try installing Mandrake back in the day on a dual partition before virtualization and the operating systems goes belly having to reinstall both windows and Linux again because Linux boot loader over writes the windows boot loader