Linus Torvalds writes the Linux kernel, he also likes a good mailing list flamewar, not least because he has a very sarcasatic wit. Here he is, writing about various topics.
On fair use:
> When you start thinking that you have absolute control over the content or programs you produce, and that the rest of the worlds opinions doesn't matter, you're just _wrong_.
> Me, personally, I think the RIAA and the MPAA is a shithouse. They are immoral.
On virtualization:
> I think what you're seeing is virtualization proponents being absolutely _desperate_ for any reason to use virtualization.
On userspace binary drivers:
> No user-space ass-hattery here.
On turning off interrupt requests:
> You cannot have a generic kernel driver that doesn't know about the low- level hardware (not with current hardware - you could make the "shut the f*ck up" a generic thing if you designed hardware properly, but that simply does not exist in general right now).
On those arguing for userpace interrupt request handlers:
> You may be a bit simple. But I think it's more polite to call you "special". Or maybe just not very used to how hardware works.
On C++ :
> In fact, in Linux we did try C++ once already, back in 1992. It sucks. Trust me...
> C++ is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it's much much easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if the choice of C were to do nothing but keep the C++ programmers out, that in itself would be a huge reason to use C.
> So I'm sorry, but for something like git, where efficiency was a primary objective, the "advantages" of C++ is just a huge mistake. The fact that we also piss off people who cannot see that is just a big additional advantage.
On Linux Kernel version 2.6.19:
> It's one of those rare "perfect" kernels. So if it doesn't happen to compile with your config, you can rest easy knowing that it's all your own d*mn fault, and you should just fix your evil ways.
On Intel's inventions:
> The fact that ACPI was designed by a group of monkeys high on LSD, and is some of the worst designs in the industry obviously makes running it at _any_ point pretty damn ugly. And the fact that MB vendors don't test it with anything else than Windows (and sometimes you wonder whether they do even that) doesn't help.
> EFI is this other Intel brain-damage (the first one being ACPI). It's totally different from a normal BIOS, and was brought on by ia64, which never had a BIOS, of course. Sadly, Apple bought into the whole "BIOS bad, EFI good" hype, so we now have x86 machines with EFI as the native boot protocol.
On Apple OS X:
> OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is scary.
<dl class="docutils">
<dt>On You:</dt>
<dd>You are stupid and ugly unless you agree with me.</dd>
</dl>
<p>Whilst I have to admit Linus is a better programmer than I'll ever be you
have to take some of this quotes in context.
Particularly the C++ one. For context;
<a class="reference external" href="http://emonk.debianuruguay.org/?p=42">http://emonk.debianuruguay.org/?p=42</a>
His quote is in reply to someone surprised that GIT is written in C rather
than C++.
His ire at C++ seems to be;
1) OO is generally a bad idea
C++ is a multi-paradigm language, OO/procedural or both take your pick.
Actually the fact that it is multi-paradigm is usually one of the main
criticisms of C++.
2) STL et al aren't really cross platform
Maybe so but so far I haven't seen anything to this end.. and considering
he's replying to a thread about GIT which only just works on Windows itself,
well it doesn't seem that relevant a point.</p>
<p>I suppose from his point of view, once you strip out all the things that he
dislikes about C++ (which you are free do to with the language) he's left
with pretty much C anyway.</p>
<p>Linus is a smart guy and good coder, but I have to seriously question anyone
who believes that TABs are <em>always</em> 8 spaces.</p>
<p>@Brendan indeed, we know that indentation should only ever be four spaces no
tabs <img src="/static/forum/img/smilies/wink.png"></p>
<p>@Zeth No, 2 spaces...errr, can it all! Let's just make use of actual tabs
(t), and allow coders to define the width to be whatever makes their
eyes/brains function (code) well. Problem solved? Considering the religious
nature....I doubt it :-)</p>
<p>Cheers!</p>
<p>What? You don't worship at the throne of Torvalds?
Good thing your not a Mac-fan, they kill those who do not worship at the throne of Steve Jobs.</p>
<p>TAB is 8 spaces!!!</p>
<p>Wikipedia - Linus Torvalds has remarked that "Tabs are 8 characters, and thus indentations are also 8 characters. There are heretic movements that try to make indentations 4 (or even 2!) characters deep, and that is akin to trying to define the value of PI to be 3."</p>
<p>And on this he is <em>REALLY RIGHT</em> (tm)</p>
<p>Brendon ( I have just come upstairs from an argument ) with yet an other naive child with a PhD that believes that because he codes complex things 2 space is an appropriate tab break. Explaining yet again that naive solutions might require mad indented logic, but that _IF_ he knew anything he would be able to solve the problem with 8 space tabs.</p>
<p><em>RANT OVER</em></p>