Does OpenStack Need a Linus Torvalds?

BButlerNWW writes in with a story that speculates about the need for a marquee name to head OpenStack. "OpenStack has been dubbed by some enthusiasts as the Linux of the cloud — an open source operating system for public or private clouds. But there's one stark difference between the two projects: OpenStack doesn't have a Linus Torvalds, the eccentric, outspoken, never-afraid-to-say-what-he-thinks leader of the Linux world. Torvalds personifies Linux in many ways. OpenStack doesn't have that one central figure right now. The question is: Does OpenStack need it? Some would argue yes. Torvalds, because of the weight he holds in the project, calls the shots about how Linux is run, what goes in, what stays out of the code, and he's not afraid to express his opinions. He provides not only internal guidance for the project, but also an exterior cheerleading role. Others would say OpenStack does not need a Torvalds of its own. The project is meant to be an open source meritocracy, where members are judged based on their code contributions to the project. OpenStack has been fighting an image that the project is just full of corporate interests, which is part of the reason Rackspace ceded official control of the project to the OpenStack Foundation recently."

Re:Clouds Need To Be Free

[mckorr]

I think you might have to think this through again with the launch of Windows 8. The new interface means that a lot of people no longer "know how to use it." The desktop paradigm that everyone has been using for decades is still there, but Microsoft seems to be doing their best to hide it. But I must agree with you about the cli. I use it constantly on both Windows and OS X, but then I learned in the days of DOS. Most of my high school CS students have no idea it even exists, much less have any idea how to use it. I get a lot of looks of fascination and horror when they see me use it.