News: 1755160209

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

The plan for Linux after Torvalds has a kernel of truth: There isn’t one

(2025/08/14)


Opinion The Linux kernel is a remarkable creation. It has achieved a fundamental status in the industry, and thus the world, unmatched in scope, stability, and reputation. It powers lightbulbs to supercomputers, not to mention the billion-plus global army of Android. It covers a host of processors, a massive array of supported devices and an unparalleled choice of distributions.

You know all this. You also know, but most probably rarely think of, the regular cadence of new versions that come along more regularly than the seasons. You may not know that each accumulates around 20,000 updates, some from future versions, some for code more than a decade old. The kernel development and maintenance system has evolved to manage whole classes of virulent ills, such as dangerously insecure and deeply embedded CPU design flaws. People laud Apple for making four hardware architectural transitions between the Motorola 68K in 1984 and Apple Silicon in 2024. Linux currently supports a dozen or so. It’s hard to keep count.

Torvalds' typing taste test touches tactile tragedy [1]READ MORE

The most startling Linux kernel feature is none of the above, but what’s missing. There has been virtually no drama, at least none visible to those who depend on the tech. It is both rapidly evolving and stable, and almost entirely invisible. It is entirely user-focused and built by volunteers. It is virtually inconceivable that it works, and totally inconceivable that anything else could come near.

It is also unthinkable that this would have happened without Linus Torvalds. How and why this came to pass is a story of a resonance with the mysteries of how low-level code and hardware come together to infuse life into both, the drive to do it properly, and the superpower to herd the ubergeek. The tech was right, the time was right, and… — well, that story is still being written.

Yet it must end. At some point, [2]Torvalds will no longer be the Penguin Emperor . It may be a peaceful abdication far in the future. It may be neither. The unthinkable will have to be thought. Succession will have to happen, and there’s no plan for how that will work.

[3]

That’s not quite true. Torvalds has said that there’s no need for formality. Who is in line to step up when he steps off changes, and that’s fine. What matters, he says, is the trust earned over time among the community for the top tier of maintainers. The next benevolent overlord will appear naturally. It’s true that many decisions are made throughout the community by those other than Torvalds, and the degree of open discussion about absolutely everything from small details to major innovations is naturally far more open and communitarian than humanity normally enjoys. Torvald’s moral authority pervades, and others have already inherited it. That’s the plan.

[4]

[5]

This is dangerous. Succession is always a time of uncertainty for those who like the way things are, and opportunity for those who do not. The Linux kernel project has many tensions that are themselves remarkable for being universally agreed but with little urgency about fixing them.

This [6]discussion of the Linux Kernel Report by Jon Corbet of LWN.net from the Open Source Summit has lots of reassuring stats with a very frank analysis of the project’s long term challenges. It’s a conservative, risk-averse community, which is a good thing, which makes necessary innovation, like moving to Rust, hard. Such difficulties are magnified by how overstretched developers — but more critically maintainers — are. Many are in effect doing two jobs, the one they’re paid for, and the Linux kernel work. It seems the $100bn companies who need Linux are happy for their employees to contribute, as long as they don’t have to pay. That gets old faster than you do.

[7]

This leaves the project vulnerable. Companies such as Red Hat are keen to twist open source to their commercial advantage, while fears of benchmark manipulation have gone towards rejecting innovations in configurable scheduling. Maintenance is frequently thankless, and under ever-increasing pressure as fuzzing and AI produce bug reports in huge quantities for triage

[8]Torvalds blasts tardy kernel dev: Your 'garbage' RISC-V patches are 'making the world worse'

[9]Linus Torvalds offers to build guitar effects pedal for kernel developer

[10]Linus Torvalds: 90% of AI marketing is hype

[11]Combustion engines grind Linus Torvalds' gears

Experienced volunteers are motivated by many things, but everyone has a limit. When Torvalds goes, the sense of discontinuity will be hard to bear, and the opportunism of commercial interests to grow influence will be non-zero. These are problems now that need addressing before they are ripened by events, and this is where succession planning should take place.

They can be every bit as formal and open as everything else — they have to be — and they can and should be iterate, experimental and focused. How do you create an environment where wise greybears can share experience with fresh-faced youth, while the fresh-faced youth takes on workload? If you can’t manage a transition without documentation, what then? How, at heart, do you build mutual trust between generations who don’t speak the same language?

The Linux kernel is an amazing creation with an amazing creator, and both have demonstrated the ability to transition at their own speed and in good time. Succession can work that way. It can also be far less accommodating. Hope, as they say, is not a strategy. ®

Get our [12]Tech Resources



[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/20/torvalds_typing_taste_test_touches/

[2] https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-muses-about-maintainer-gray-hairs-and-the-next-king-of-linux/

[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/oses&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aJ2zsyyOs7CxP-czG1E8xQAAAMs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0

[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/oses&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aJ2zsyyOs7CxP-czG1E8xQAAAMs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/oses&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aJ2zsyyOs7CxP-czG1E8xQAAAMs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[6] https://youtu.be/VaA8LGPT3U8?si=yzOhd13fZmOLbUZF

[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/oses&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aJ2zsyyOs7CxP-czG1E8xQAAAMs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/11/torvalds_blasts_tardy_kernel_dev/

[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/13/linus_torvalds_guitar_pedal_offer/

[10] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/29/linus_torvalds_ai_hype/

[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/30/linus_torvalds_ev/

[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/



jake

If Linus goes TITSUP[0] tomorrow, Linux will carry on.

It's all been discussed ad nauseam, starting a couple decades ago.

Look up "what happens if Linus gets hit by a bus" for just a glimpse of the total conversation, and roughly what will happen.

tl;dr version: There will be an up-to-date and modern mainstream FOSS Linux kernel available that is not under the control of any corporate entity for far longer than you or I will be around to worry about it.

[0] Torvalds Inconveniently Totally Stops User Processes

A Non e-mouse

The article is a bit click-baity.

Although Linus is the big-cheese for the Linux kernel there is a whole army of people working on the project. "All" that Linux does is act as overseer. Others are ready to step up if Linus logs off.

kmorwath

It might not be under the control of a single corporate entity, but Linux fell under corporate control long ago. It does exist only because a lot of corporate entities need a low cost kernel and OS, and thereby fund its development to avoid to pay far more expensive licenses or direct investments to build their own.

But keep on thinking it is developed by monks in a mountain monastery, for the benefit of the world...

Doctor Syntax

That makes a nice change from you telling us it's all put together by amateurs.

If you can just get over the notion implicit in the last line that that's what the rest of us were thinking...

zimzam

I guess the concern is less to do with whether someone can take the job, but rather whether they'll have the... let's say fortitude to keep the project going in the direction that it has been. We've seen many once promising organisations bend to convenience and pressure to perform.

So the question is, will the next Benevolent Dictator be able to tell an Nvidia or Google engineer to fuck off with their sloppily written/conceived code?

m4r35n357

Just a guess; whoever takes over (Poettering?) will be forced to be visibly "nice" for appearances sake (as if Linus isn't one of the nicest blokes there is!), and quality will plummet.

A Non e-mouse

built by volunteers

Linux started out as a volunteer project but it's now a collaborative corporate affair. If you look at the statistics, most Linux kernel work is by people paid to work on it. See the development stats for the last kernel release: [1]lwn.net/Articles/1031161/

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/1031161/

Doctor Syntax

When I got to that line I knew I didn't need to read any further.

Microkernel

StrangerHereMyself

After all these years I still lament the choice of a monolithic over a microkernel architecture for Linux. Even though Linux has shown the enormous latent demand for a free and open-source operating system we're still being denied many of the advantages of micokernels, like security and stability.

The stability of Linux is the result of may hours of hard work by many of the individuals involved, but it could easily become a nightmare if there's one misbehaving driver or component since everything runs in the same address space. This is especially crucial for embedded systems which sometimes need to run for decades and never get updated. In those cases it would be much more prudent to use an architecture which is more or less secure by design.

Re: Microkernel

A Non e-mouse

If you look at the way BPF is developing, you could argue Linux is heading in that direction.

Re: Microkernel

Dan 55

On the other hand if Linux were a microkernel and had a stable ABI for drivers, there wouldn't have been as much incentive to open source the drivers. Many more drivers would be like Nvidia's binary blobs shoehorned into the kernel, but modular so they wouldn't even have to be supplied as part of the kernel.

May I suggest ...

Michael Hoffmann

Lennart Poettering?

Sorry, yeah, that wasn't funny even in trolling jest. It's the sort of thing you wake up screaming about.

Re: May I suggest ...

m4r35n357

Pardon me, I posted before scrolling to this point ;)

Re: May I suggest ...

Fruit and Nutcase

Yes, we may get shafted by the insertion of Agent P by the "blob" - not sure if that would be the equivalent of a Liz Truss

Succession

abend0c4

There's a danger in imagining the future of Linux of forgetting that the world will also move on. Up to now, for example, we've had one Linux from desktop to datacentre and a small army of developers producing drivers for everything from domestic TV tuners to Fibre Channel.

I suspect we're going to see an increasing divergence between datacentre hardware and that generally available to the public with I/O in particular more heavily abstracted and quite possibly proprietary to individual bit-barn operators. We've already seen how RedHat is managing source availability for the enterprise market and it's not hard to imagine how that might go if combined with proprietary hardware.

I'm sure there will be a continuing demand for open code that supports a whole gamut of electronic devices, but history is not on the side of there being just one solution to all problems, however convenient it may be. As long as Torvalds is around, the status quo will persist. In his absence, Linux will persist - but perhaps not in the same way and it's perhaps wrong to imagine that it could or should.

I look at life as being cruise director on the Titanic. I may not get
there, but I'm going first class.
-- Art Buchwald