LinuxWorld 1999, Torvalds and Stallman [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
LinuxWorld 1999, Torvalds and Stallman [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnb_eFSnXFI
59 comments
Say what you want about RMS, he never sold out and stood on his principles. And his cause is noble. I might not agree with his methods 100% of the time, but I respect this man.
And another thing: he was right about many "controversial" things, and was ahead of his time.
I really think that him asking people to call the software GNU/Linux isn't that much to ask.
Seriously, once you understand the amount of work GNU has done.. and it's all open and free.
And another thing: he was right about many "controversial" things, and was ahead of his time.
I really think that him asking people to call the software GNU/Linux isn't that much to ask.
Seriously, once you understand the amount of work GNU has done.. and it's all open and free.
A Linux distro is much more than GNU software. A lot of things I use everyday are BSD licensed. There are distros where the only gnu code is the kernel.
Stallman cannot really make any such demands.
Edit: sorry for the confusion, I meant the Linux kernel, which is not gnu.
Stallman cannot really make any such demands.
Edit: sorry for the confusion, I meant the Linux kernel, which is not gnu.
> A lot of things I use everyday are BSD licensed.
> Stallman cannot really make any such demands.
That those programs are licensed under one of the BSD licenses doesn't have anything to do with Stallman's use of the term "GNU/Linux" and recommendation that others join him in using the term "GNU/Linux". This is not a "demand" as you claim. Stallman explains his position in brief in https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux , at length in https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html and there's a FAQ as well.
In fact the specific point you raise has been raised before and is addressed quite well across multiple questions in the FSF's FAQ on the term GNU/Linux:
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#others -- Many other projects contributed to the system as it is today, but they don't insist on calling it XYZ/Linux. Why should we treat GNU specially?
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#distronames0 -- My distro's developers call it “Foobar Linux”, but that doesn't say anything about what the system consists of. Why shouldn't they call it whatever they like?
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#bsd -- Should we say “GNU/BSD” too?
For a while Debian has distributed multiple systems where GNU was the predominant OS atop other kernels--GNU/Linux, GNU/kFreeBSD, and GNU/Hurd. It helps people understand the major components involved by naming things according to what they are. Such naming is also fair to those who ask for a share of the credit for their major contribution to the overall work, as the GNU Project asks people to give them a share of the credit for their major contribution.
That those programs are licensed under one of the BSD licenses doesn't have anything to do with Stallman's use of the term "GNU/Linux" and recommendation that others join him in using the term "GNU/Linux". This is not a "demand" as you claim. Stallman explains his position in brief in https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Linux , at length in https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html and there's a FAQ as well.
In fact the specific point you raise has been raised before and is addressed quite well across multiple questions in the FSF's FAQ on the term GNU/Linux:
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#others -- Many other projects contributed to the system as it is today, but they don't insist on calling it XYZ/Linux. Why should we treat GNU specially?
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#distronames0 -- My distro's developers call it “Foobar Linux”, but that doesn't say anything about what the system consists of. Why shouldn't they call it whatever they like?
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#bsd -- Should we say “GNU/BSD” too?
For a while Debian has distributed multiple systems where GNU was the predominant OS atop other kernels--GNU/Linux, GNU/kFreeBSD, and GNU/Hurd. It helps people understand the major components involved by naming things according to what they are. Such naming is also fair to those who ask for a share of the credit for their major contribution to the overall work, as the GNU Project asks people to give them a share of the credit for their major contribution.
Not true. GNU coreutils comes standard on most distros.
>There are distros where the only gnu code is the kernel.
What? GNU never finished Hurd kernel and that is why it is now GNU/Linux because Linux was the missing piece since they could not get Hurd working. In other words, there is no GNU kernel. Please don't just make things up.
>There are distros where the only gnu code is the kernel.
What? GNU never finished Hurd kernel and that is why it is now GNU/Linux because Linux was the missing piece since they could not get Hurd working. In other words, there is no GNU kernel. Please don't just make things up.
Nobody is talking about Hurd.
Alpine Linux for example replaces libc with musl and gnu binaries with BusyBox.
Alpine Linux for example replaces libc with musl and gnu binaries with BusyBox.
That does raise the question, can I safely not call a busybox based distribution GNU/Linux in front of RMS, particularly if it uses uClibc?
The Linux kernel is not GNU code.
> There are distros where the only gnu code is the kernel.
What, like Hurd with a non-GNU userland? Where? I know there is Debian with Hurd, but that still uses GNU userland.
What, like Hurd with a non-GNU userland? Where? I know there is Debian with Hurd, but that still uses GNU userland.
Arguably, most of the components end users care about (like desktop environment) have nothing to do with the GNU project.
The G in GNOME originally stood for GNU, actually.
Gnome is still listed as a GNU package here: https://www.gnu.org/software/software.html
Today, however, Gnome is a rather independent project, with its own GNOME Foundation.
(There was also GNUStep but it was never popular)
Gnome is still listed as a GNU package here: https://www.gnu.org/software/software.html
Today, however, Gnome is a rather independent project, with its own GNOME Foundation.
(There was also GNUStep but it was never popular)
Gnome may be (historically), but other DEs like KDE were never associated with it.
No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.
Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.
One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?
(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.
You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.
Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?
If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.
Thanks for listening.
Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.
One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?
(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.
You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.
Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?
If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.
Thanks for listening.
No, abvr, RMS never wanted anyone to name the Linux kernel GNU/Linux.
He wants people to call GNU/Linux a system composed of components from GNU and the Linux kernel. He considers the GNU part essential. He also wants that so people hear about GNU and free software, because, well, that's the whole point of his work. Whether it is a good strategy or whether you don't find it convenient is irrelevant. If you use any project, it is fair that their author expect due credit.
I do say Linux instead of GNU/Linux, but it does not make it right. I do speak about Free software though. And I will certainly not argue against one of the author of GNU/Linux on how he wants people to name the project. You can give your opinion, but show some humility and respect. What you write as truths are in fact just your opinion, to which I happen to not agree with.
Windows is not comparable to the Linux kernel, the Windows NT kernel is, and your system is full of GNU, whether you like it or not. Starting from the libc, the bootloader and many other important component. Nobody argues about how which or which part of your system is essential or not. Everything is useful and needed. That is just not the point.
And Linus is not above RMS, and RMS is not above Linus. No authority is involved.
He wants people to call GNU/Linux a system composed of components from GNU and the Linux kernel. He considers the GNU part essential. He also wants that so people hear about GNU and free software, because, well, that's the whole point of his work. Whether it is a good strategy or whether you don't find it convenient is irrelevant. If you use any project, it is fair that their author expect due credit.
I do say Linux instead of GNU/Linux, but it does not make it right. I do speak about Free software though. And I will certainly not argue against one of the author of GNU/Linux on how he wants people to name the project. You can give your opinion, but show some humility and respect. What you write as truths are in fact just your opinion, to which I happen to not agree with.
Windows is not comparable to the Linux kernel, the Windows NT kernel is, and your system is full of GNU, whether you like it or not. Starting from the libc, the bootloader and many other important component. Nobody argues about how which or which part of your system is essential or not. Everything is useful and needed. That is just not the point.
And Linus is not above RMS, and RMS is not above Linus. No authority is involved.
> No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler.
And glibc. And the coreutils, findutils, make, screen, bash, gzip, and grep. Those are just the things I used in the last 10 minutes. Other notables off the top of my head include flex, bison, guile, and emacs.
You are selling the FSF extremely short if you draw the line at GCC.
And glibc. And the coreutils, findutils, make, screen, bash, gzip, and grep. Those are just the things I used in the last 10 minutes. Other notables off the top of my head include flex, bison, guile, and emacs.
You are selling the FSF extremely short if you draw the line at GCC.
Yes, settle down, I did it merely to initiate some fun banter on folks here, but it looks like we are getting some valuable insights and I am interested in what people of this time have to say on this topic. This is a copypasta after all.
This is a famous reddit copypasta. Could you please not do this in HN? This is not reddit. We're trying to have valuable conversation here.
I did not know that, and I did not know r/copypasta. This is from October 2017 or earlier. I have been successfully trolled. Thanks for the heads up.
https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/7lt7i0/no_richar... https://pastebin.com/hjagCZpK
https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/7lt7i0/no_richar... https://pastebin.com/hjagCZpK
I think this is much older than October 2017: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/linux
KnowYourMeme.com claims it's from 2011. I don't want to spend time checking it, but I remember seeing this copypasta during my entire experience in reddit (since 2014/2015 ish)
KnowYourMeme.com claims it's from 2011. I don't want to spend time checking it, but I remember seeing this copypasta during my entire experience in reddit (since 2014/2015 ish)
"You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?"
If RMS would worry too much about bothering others, he would never have started the Free Software movement.
If RMS would worry too much about bothering others, he would never have started the Free Software movement.
This is a long rant that gets rambling in parts. The reference to XFree86 before it got renamed to XOrg some time ago has me wondering if you copy-pasted from some 90s thing.
But GCC and related stuff like binutils are not the only important code contributions from GNU. Glibc and bash are two that immediately come to mind. Certainly there are others.
(Though before the late 1990s Linux had its own non gnu libc..)
But GCC and related stuff like binutils are not the only important code contributions from GNU. Glibc and bash are two that immediately come to mind. Certainly there are others.
(Though before the late 1990s Linux had its own non gnu libc..)
[deleted]
Linus keynoted last month at KubeCon + CloudNativeCon + Open Source Summit Shanghai, if you want to compare his views after 20 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjR1Ht__9KE&list=PLj6h78yzYM...
(Those baby daughters on the stage in 1999 are in college now.)
(Those baby daughters on the stage in 1999 are in college now.)
> The open source movement focuses on practical advantages that you can get by having a community of users who can cooperate on interchanging and improving software. (Stallman)
...
> Freedom to cooperate with other people, freedom to have a community, is important for our quality of life, is important for having a good society that we can live in. And that is, in my view, more important than having powerful and reliable software. (Stallman)
...
> Freedom to cooperate with other people, freedom to have a community, is important for our quality of life, is important for having a good society that we can live in. And that is, in my view, more important than having powerful and reliable software. (Stallman)
I mean, it shows (in Hurd, for example).
I was there. Man, how things have changed. I'll never forget the feeling of getting Linux booted on my old 386 the day Linus posted about it to the minix-list .. what a rocket-ride its been!
If only that ride was towards better personal desktop computers where people have control over instead of towards data farms controlled by a handful of multinational corporations meant to be accessed by locked down mobile consumption terminals masquerading as social devices through supposedly open standards which are so complex as to only be implementable by said multinational corporations... it'd be nice.
Strange comment for a video about the 1999 LinuxWorld.
The comment is for the comment i replied to, not the linked video. If it was for the video i'd post it as a top level comment.
(though if anything around 1999 things were most likely looking towards desktop use, it wouldn't be until a few years later that computing would turn away from desktop and towards the web and later towards mobiles)
(though if anything around 1999 things were most likely looking towards desktop use, it wouldn't be until a few years later that computing would turn away from desktop and towards the web and later towards mobiles)
The ideal desktop is out there, you can find it and use it - there are certainly Linux distributions that fill your requirements.
Then again: systemd. Grrumphh! :P
Then again: systemd. Grrumphh! :P
I think you missed the point of my comment a bit :-P.
It was about how mainstream technology today focuses on web-based stuff, data harvesting, mobile phones (and how they are way more locked down than your typical desktop computer - even when taking Windows into account), complexity of all these things, etc and desktop computers have fallen to the wayside (ironically everything mentioned is power by Linux).
FWIW i think desktop peaked around Windows 2000 and on Linux around GNOME 2 and KDE 3.5, since then everything has becoming progressively worse. But -IMO- that is a consequence of the lack of focus on the desktop in general.
It was about how mainstream technology today focuses on web-based stuff, data harvesting, mobile phones (and how they are way more locked down than your typical desktop computer - even when taking Windows into account), complexity of all these things, etc and desktop computers have fallen to the wayside (ironically everything mentioned is power by Linux).
FWIW i think desktop peaked around Windows 2000 and on Linux around GNOME 2 and KDE 3.5, since then everything has becoming progressively worse. But -IMO- that is a consequence of the lack of focus on the desktop in general.
> FWIW i think desktop peaked around Windows 2000 and on Linux around GNOME 2 and KDE 3.5
IMO the peak of KDE was version 2.2... 3.0 was already a step backwards, although it did become quite good again by the time it reached 3.5. Then with 4.0 everything was reset once more (how many times can you break the ecosystem until application developers and users have had enough of it?)
IMO the peak of KDE was version 2.2... 3.0 was already a step backwards, although it did become quite good again by the time it reached 3.5. Then with 4.0 everything was reset once more (how many times can you break the ecosystem until application developers and users have had enough of it?)
TBH i never used 2.x, after KDE1.x i mainly used Window Maker (and still use that when on Linux) with the exception of a couple of years when i used Ubuntu as my main OS back when it had GNOME 2. I used KDE 3.x (not sure if 3.5 or earlier though) as a secondary system via a tiny Knoppix CD.
Yes, I think the OS vendors are asleep at the wheel, or they're drunk/high on the moolah to be made by putting the user out there in the data-harvesting markets.
If we had still real OS vendors, there wouldn't be Dropbox or Facebook - these services would've just been folded in as user-controllable, user-centric services that the local OS manages .. I think the general public have been betrayed by those who should have been building better user-controlled operating systems, rather than exposing it all ..
If we had still real OS vendors, there wouldn't be Dropbox or Facebook - these services would've just been folded in as user-controllable, user-centric services that the local OS manages .. I think the general public have been betrayed by those who should have been building better user-controlled operating systems, rather than exposing it all ..
Remember the original Dropbox post [1]? "You can do it with rsync!". The general public seem to want this. Companies just seem to do what people want. I guess those things are ease of use, zero friction, and minimum learning curve. To do all that in Linux for example, you have to invest in learning, which might not be what people want.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
People want that because all they know is the positive aspects that are advertised to them, not the negative aspects that are kept hidden and downplayed.
my favorite memory from that event was a panel with larry wall, and a few others who i don't remember, hosted by eric raymond.
so many people attended the panel that i think it was moved to la larger hall. at the start ESR commented on the size of the audience saying something like: "[i was expecting a quiet chat but] you guys turned it into a rock concert"
so many people attended the panel that i think it was moved to la larger hall. at the start ESR commented on the size of the audience saying something like: "[i was expecting a quiet chat but] you guys turned it into a rock concert"
Me too. I remember sitting there up front(in the room @ the stage) waiting for the doors to open... and then seeing all the folks flood in. I had never been able to see what it looked like outside until now.
That show, and the times surrounding it was probably some of the best of my life. It's such a shame I didn't appreciate it as much at the time as I should have.... I took it all for granted. I remember after that show, I think we went back to Larry's house and Linus and family were there with all the kids... Such an amazing time.
That show, and the times surrounding it was probably some of the best of my life. It's such a shame I didn't appreciate it as much at the time as I should have.... I took it all for granted. I remember after that show, I think we went back to Larry's house and Linus and family were there with all the kids... Such an amazing time.
"Giving the Linus Torvalds Award to the Free Software Foundation is sort of like giving the Han Solo Award to the Rebel Fleet"
RMS always had the best sense of humor.
RMS always had the best sense of humor.
One of the best geek quotes ever.
Could someone please explain that joke. For people who have watched Star Wars series it will be hard joke to understand. I have seen the more recent Star Wars movie but not the older ones in the series, so I understand few things but not deeply enough.
Episode IV - A New Hope
Han Solo is the lovable "scoundrel" who shows up at the last minute at the first battle of the Death Star. He's an important yet minor factor in the battle which the Rebels have been preparing for, for years.
Naming the victory after him is kinda silly.
The metaphor lands "on many levels." Then Torvalds shows a distinct lack of class by doing the best he can to undermine RMS speech. I realize RMS is annoying most of the time, still it was pretty disappointing and unprofessional of him.
Han Solo is the lovable "scoundrel" who shows up at the last minute at the first battle of the Death Star. He's an important yet minor factor in the battle which the Rebels have been preparing for, for years.
Naming the victory after him is kinda silly.
The metaphor lands "on many levels." Then Torvalds shows a distinct lack of class by doing the best he can to undermine RMS speech. I realize RMS is annoying most of the time, still it was pretty disappointing and unprofessional of him.
Thank you. I understand the joke now.
Wow near the end when Linus takes his daughters on stage in the middle of RMS' speech. That's next level. Probably not scripted but it comes off as so undermining.
It’s from a documentary (Revolution OS) and is an intentional edit to juxtapose the difference in the two men. The camera pans — Linus was presumably getting an award too. He’s standing off-stage, he’s not walking in while RMS is talking.
If a person watching this closely without any knowledge of the people in this video, they may just see Linus as one arrogant brat who could care less about anything the person speaking is intending to convey.
Nope, he walks them out in the middle of RMS speech, rude².
RMS never misses a chance to tell the world why it should be called "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux". Even at LinuxWorld.
ahem GNU/LinuxWorld.
If GNU is there to signify all the surrounding tools that make Linux a usable system, then the conference should've been titled "San Jose Convention Center/LinuxWorld".
You mean to make writing the Linux kernel possible. RMS wrote gcc compiler, gdb debugger, and the shell tools first.
Edit: to say nothing about the GPL, which is what really got the momentum going.
Edit: to say nothing about the GPL, which is what really got the momentum going.
[deleted]
Man, RMS is so bitter.
Sorry all, I'm on team Linus.
Sorry all, I'm on team Linus.
Title should be LinuxWorld as that's the name of the expo.
I was sysadmin'ing a university stats department at the time, and NFS use was very important. I had been trying to use Linux on 486's, but performance of xdvi (with NFS mounted fonts) was abysmal. A 486 would take minutes to render the same page that a wimpy DECStation could render in a second. From tcpdump, I figured out it was because Linux did not do any sort of NFS caching at the time, and xdvi wandered around font files one byte at a time.
I asked Linus at the BOF when they planned to implement NFS. He told me NFS was unimportant, nobody used it, and so on.
I then attended the FreeBSD BOF where a clean shaven guy in a collared shirt was giving a power point presentation. I asked about NFS there, and was told it should work fine. When I got home from the conference, I switched the 486 to FreeBSD, and it worked just fine.
I eventually did OS research on FreeBSD, was one of a few people to port FreeBSD to the DEC Alpha, and I now do kernel performance work for a large CDN, where we run FreeBSD.