For those that actually read and understood the source article, Torvalds talked about the power and stability of the 2.6 kernel line, and the current vision of incrementally improving it rather than making radical and disruptive changes. He also noted the industry-wide trend of giving “sexy names” and new version numbers to software releases, which amount to relatively minor improvements in real function. New releases of applications and operating system software are largely comprised of feature bloat, with the underlying purpose being to create sales by replacing perfectly good software with newer and different (but not necessarily better) software. Windows Vista is a perfect example of this, with many users and major companies currently electing to downgrade back to Windows XP, or refuse to “upgrade” in the first place.

Reporting that the Linux kernel will not reach version 3 creates the impression that development is stalling, or in decline, or indeed that there is something fundamentally wrong with the operating system. What is fundamentally wrong is the low level of professionalism among too many “journalists”, eager to seize the opportunity for an eye-catching headline — headlines that ‘Feed the FUD’ that already hampers Linux’s wider embrace. Granted, this spreading of misinformation sometimes works to Linux’s “advantage”, such as the widely reported news of Linux desktop use “doubling” within the last year (based on DesktopLinux.com’s admittedly non-scientific poll). But any Linux stories that misrepresent the status of Linux for better or worse do a disservice to readers seeking useful information about the OS, and to responsible journalists and tech writers that strive to maintain professional integrity.

• In addition to any outstanding antitrust suits, Microsoft has now embarked on new lawsuit frontiers for its marketing of Vista.
• The 3-dollar version of Windows in question is severely feature-limited. Yes, even more so than Vista Home Basic.
• It’s also based on seven year old technology — Windows XP, which Microsoft has pledged to stop supporting for consumers by January 2008.
• The announcement comes at a time when the Classmate PC and One Laptop Per Child projects are bringing Linux to developing countries.

Is Microsoft (a) Engaging in a timed public relations campaign; (b) Trying to make money and increase shelf life for now obsolete software; (c) Tapping into emerging markets identified by competitors; or (d) Trying to thwart the spread of Linux?

I would guess (e) All of the above. No well-considered initiative is ever single benefit.

If Microsoft were truly the benevolent entity it would like us to perceive, it would never have released Vista. Consider that the upgrade cost to even the most feature-limited edition of Microsoft’s new OS costs $100. Should you want to enjoy the benefits that one would normally expect with an “upgrade”, expect to pay substantially more. Consider also the fact that the hardware requirements for Vista are steep. Windows users looking to upgrade to Vista should have a minimum of a 1.0 GHz processor, 1 GB of system memory, and an Aero-compatible graphics card with at least 128 MB graphics memory and supporting DirectX 9 with Hardware Pixel Shader v2.0 and WDDM driver support.

The implications of this are serious. Many of the computers running XP are now functionally obsolete under Vista, and where will they end up? At best, they will find their way to a computer recycling facility where they will be resold to enterprising individuals who can use them in computers powered by more lean operating systems (like Linux or BSD). Other components and systems may be shipped overseas to run computers in developing countries — at least in theory.

Investigation by Jim Lehrer at PBS found that many of these donated systems are melted down for their metal ingredients — copper, aluminum and gold — with many toxins like arsenic, mercury, and lead released in the process. Worst of all, much of this work is done by children. A hospital in Bangalore, India found that over half of children were lead-poisoned.

And what of the computers and components that aren’t donated? They may find temporary refuge in attics and basements, wasting away the usable lifespan they still possess. Ultimately they will end up in the garbage bins behind millions of homes because there is a cost of to safely disposing of these materials. Dumping is free — though the environmental costs are high and long term.

The Utah Department of Environmental Quality estimates that 314 million computers will be thrown away by the end of 2004, containing 1.2 billion pounds of lead, 2 million pounds of cadmium, 1.2 million pounds of hexavalent chromium, and 400,000 pounds of mercury.

As of 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that 45 million computers become obsolete every year. I’m curious to see how that will change once the environmental impact of Vista is taken into account over the next 5 years.

In response, OpenBSD founder Theo de Raadt minimized the significance of the violation and criticized Buesch for making it a public issue:

Because right now, in that mail, you’ve pretty much done Broadcom’s job for them. You’ve told the entire BSD community who may want to use a driver for this chip later, that because of a few GPL issues you are willing to use very strong words — published very widely — to disrupt the efforts of one guy who is trying to do things for them. And, you are going to do this using the GPL, even. You did not privately mail that developer. No, you basically went public with it.
That is how about half the user and developer community will see it. They will see your widely posted mail as an overly strong position. And you have probably royally pissed of a developer working in parallel in the same problem space as youself. Would you be happy to receive a mail like you just sent? No, you would be really disturbed, to your soul.
So next time, talk to the specific people, so you don’t come off as being mean, ok?

Theo de Raadt who has long held a reputation for rubbing people the wrong way — formerly kicked out of the NetBSD project and also described by Linus Torvalds as “difficult” — is doing himself no favours here. In justifying a blatant case of license violation, he’s certainly not creating an impression of rationality, and looks hypocritical given his scathing public statements about the Linux operating system in the past. In a June 2005 interview with Forbes magazine, de Raadt said: “It’s terrible. Everyone is using it, and they don’t realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, ‘This is garbage and we should fix it.’”

Garbage picker.