Slashdot Mirror
Gates, Jobs, Torvalds: Who is Most Important?
Ian Wilson writes "silicon.com has launched its latest Agenda Setters poll which puts together a list of the top 50 people influencing tech. I remember Slashdot carried last year's poll - which was won by Steve Jobs. The full top 50 includes many of the usual suspects. Last year's winner Steve Jobs has slipped down to second place, but perhaps most interesting is the fact that the panel of judges couldn't separate Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates - they are tied in seventh place."
And the most depressing thing is that there's only two chicks in the top 50. Tho someone named "Tata" oughta count.
"Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
I am the customer.
I am the most important...
Think again
I disagree about Steve just filling a role. When Steve left Apple, Apple started to suffer. It wasn't until Steve returned in '97 that the 'new Apple' really started to kick ass.
I've got more mod points and GMail invi
Who said they were limiting it to a good agenda? Kind of like the Time Man of the Year. Plenty of the winners have not been good men, just powerful...
May no camel spit in your yogurt soup.
Bill Gates and Linus are not as much involved in everyday development as they used to be, so they are not so influential anymore. Now Steve Jobs, on the other hand, still has his hand in the development of new products (for example, he helped personally simplify the iPod's menu system in terms of usability, IIRC).
Also, Apple seems to lead the innovation in many areas, with Windows and Linux behind (I am mainly talking about things like usability of the operatig system, etc).
I realize the heading of this is "Agenda Setters", but c'mon! The majority of the reasoning behind Gates' placement is based on vaporware:
whether that be seamless computing, the much-awaited Longhorn OS or the promise of 64-bit chips.
Gates continues to make security an agenda
I realize PHBs suck this crap up, but you'd think there would be good _technical_ reasons to give Gates such a high placement. The article read more like it was apologizing for the man.
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
Perhaps this list needs some garbage collection. DEK (Donald E. Knuth) is an elder statesman of technology, but he isn't the 30th most influential person in technology. Isn't.
Well, there was GNU before there was Linux. Maybe it wouldn't be as popular, but there would be OSS. Thank Richard Stallman for that.
Please, please, this post isn't meant to start a flamewar of Richard Stallman vs. Linus Torvalds, I'm just saying OSS would probably exist without Linus.
I'd hardly say that Gates is non technical. I doubt he could have acheived to head one of the largest money making coorporations without starting from somewhere, and he dind't have millions of programmers when he started with BASIC back 30 years ago. Not that I'm saying he's any better than Torvalds but Gates does have great technical abilities.
If you're talking about who's been most influential in holding back computing by about 10 years.. I believe Mr Gates wins hands down.
Before I get modded down to oblivion (or up, this is slashdot), look at where the real innovations come from; it isn't Microsoft, unless you count the small companies that it assimilates once they come up with something promising.
An example: with the iPod, Apple is setting a new standard for mp3 players, and there's healthy competition. What is Microsoft setting the standard in? (apart from it's own standards..)
I don't think Mr Gates can be considered influential, next to others who are actually shaping rather than strangling the industry. My opinion, YMMV etc.
London's finest organic fairtrade coffee
"Linus is much more important than Bill Gates!"
Why?
I'd say Gates is more important. Mostly because if Gates died tomorrow, it would affect the economy a lot more than if Linus died tomorrow. Plus, Gates has given more to charitable organizations than Linus will ever make in his life.
Whom do I prefer? Linus. Whom do I think is a nicer guy, and a better tech? Linus. Who is more important to a larger percent of the population? Gates.
I agree with you that Gates should be the lowest of the three. He is, after all, only there because he owns a monopoly large enough that it can bastardize standards created by other people.
But I think Jobs and Linus should be tied, and higher on the list. Everything you said about Linus is true - he has helped spearhead the OSS movement. But Jobs has generally set the agenda that others follow. Linux has made great strides in making computers accessible to the extremely computer litterate who know what they want their computers to do. Macs have done an equally good job of making computers accessible to those who don't know so much about computers, but would really like to use them. Both men are equally committed to their respective causes.
I get the sense that Microsoft is not necessarily the reflection Bill Gates or his ideas. I think it does whatever amounts in the most profit. On the other hand, I think Jobs and Torvalds are both driven by idealogies. When asked why they made decisions, they respond with the term "should." As in: computers should do this, or operating systems should not behave like this.
I think that makes both of them better leaders and very high on this list.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
I asked everybody in my house a question
"who is more important, bill gates or linus torvalds"
bill was the winner because none of the people knew "the other guy".
It's more than clear bill has had more influence in our world at this moment than linus has (though linux/oss might influence the world to new business models, but thats tomorrow and maybe)
Artists against online scams http://www.aa419.org/
This is simply not the case, as I think most of us realize. We may all despise Microsoft, and we may all love Linux, but we're simply ignoring the truth if we think Linus Torvalds has been more influential than Bill Gates.
The issue is this: Linus may have ushered in the creation of a better product than Bill Gates. But quality doesn't necessarily correlate to influence. The very fact that the Linux-loving Slashdot crowd grumbles about how everyone uses MS even though Linux is better should be the first indication that Bill Gates is more important. He may be ugly, and he may have created the most evil company with the worst software, but his work has been influential. Without him and DOS/Windows, I'm not sure computers would have become a common household appliance until much later.
I guess I am probably not showing the proper amount of obesiance to those at the top of the hierarchy, but I just have to know why humans spend so much time pondering the minutaie of those at the top of the hierarchy?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
enuff said.
- these are not the droids you are looking for -
Actually, OSS software existed before stallman started the GNU Project. A lot of software was open source, distributed through local computer users groups. Programs were shared amongst people in the group. So even without Stallman's pushing, there would have been OSS.
Slashdot...it's like Fox news, but without the biased sl...or maybe not.
1) Steve Jobs runs a big successful computer company, envied by many for its impeccable style and cutting edge innovation and product design.
2) Bill Gates is an effective caretaker for the largest money-printing machine in the world. His products are not innovative and are far from perfect. He has no style and this is reflected in his products, but they are extremely popular. He's a good manager and an excellent card player.
3) Linus wrote a UNIX kernel and released it freely to the world. An innovative even important move, but other than that what does he do to garner such awe?
Sam
So all this is about top 50 people influencing tech.
Then this all should go to Bill Gates. Why ? Because usually (and sadly) it's mostly not the guy who has the largest influence, but the money. This meaning if you can't persuade them, buy them or pay them.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
That is a sad thing, but true. To the general public, Bill Gates is the personification of 21st century technology. All through the 1990s, all I heard from my mother was "don't you want to get a good job and become successful like Bill Gates?" Uhhh, yea, by falling ass-backwards into a lucky opportunity that happens once every century to someone? There will never be another Bill Gates in our lifetime... Microsoft was a fluke. He was in the right place at the right time and screwed the right people to make it all click.
OSS *DID* exist before Linus, he is just a great posterboy. To be honest, if Linux had not come around, the Hurd would probably be much farther along. I don't think the Hurd would be as developed as Linux is now, but many of the same people that are spending time on Linux would have spent time on it instead. The Hurd does predate the Linux kernel (can't remember how long).
The biggest advantage Linus had at the beginning was the ability to get others to pitch in and help, building a very large network of contributors. It appears he was better organized back when Linux was less developed than the Hurd, and organization matters.
Part of this may be because (right or wrong) people see Linus as non-political, whereas RMS's views seem to be more political. My bet is this attracted people who were neutral about the GPL and Free software, as well as the zealots. A bigger tent attracts more contributors.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Otherwise, it would be prety easy to aruge that Tim Berners-Lee is more important than Linus.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Jobs - Still visionary, still a good business man, still leading his company. Apple definitely won't be the same without him. Apple is what it is today because of him. Most importantly, he's Steve Jobs - of Apple. People listen to him.
Torvalds - Still visionary, still a good coder. Still has influence over Linux kernel, but not so much as he used to. Linux will continue without Linus. Linux is what it is because he started it and gave it to the community.
Gates - Bill Gates and Microsoft are no longer synonymous. The culture at Microsoft won't notice when Bill is gone. The only thing significant about Bill now is his bank account. Microsoft is what it is today because of lawyers, marketing, more lawyers, other people in MS, and even more lawyers. Bill Gates hasn't been relevant to Microsoft for some time.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
Linus Torvalds makes a convenient representational symbol for the Linux community (it's named after him, after all), but is he really an Agenda Setter?
Every interview I've read with him gives the impression that Linus has no plan to achieve world domination, or even knock Microsoft down in the marketplace. He's just an engineer who's trying to make the best operating system he can.
Credit for "the Linux agenda" (if any) more rightly belongs to the RMS'es and ESR's of the world, the business brains at IBM and RedHat and Fedora and the other companies that have taken Linus's work and packaged it as something that's enterprise-ready.
Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, John Vlissides, Graddy Booch, James Rumbaugh, and Ivar Jacobson to name a few.
Gates was influenced by technology more then he influenced it. He'll be remembered as the guy who made a lot of money from technology not as someone who created anything.
Granted, he was one of the pioneers in the Free Software movement, but what's he done in the past 12 months? I'd say that PJ on the Groklaw site has achieved more in the past 12 months.
I'll grant you that Gates has *had* more of an effect on the impact of the computer industry than Linus has in the past. But, Gates is a dinosaur. I'll grant you that he is a really cool dinosaur. He is a great big Tyranasauros Rex. But he is still a dynasaur.
If Gates died tomorrow, more people would sell shares of Micorosft stock, out of Fear that the company could not perform without their glorious leader. And that would impact them. But, in reality, Gates has stepped aside, a long time ago.
Linus is a like a great big meteorite that came from outer space. And right now, we are just beginning to see this dust cloud forming... So, when you ask, which is more important, the T-Rex, or the meteorite, I would got with the meteorite.
But that's just me.
The fact that all the other dinosaurs are still looking around saying,"We all live in awe and fear of the T-Rex and we have never even heard of the meteorite," is hardly a convincing argument to the contrary...
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
Where is Bruce Schneier on this list? While I am admittedly pretty ignorant on who most of these figures are on this list, I don't understand the ommission of Bruce here. He is, at least in my estimation, the single most influential figure in the area of computer security and cryptography and had a hand in developing a few commonly used cryptographic algorithms in use today (blowfish for example). With the world moving more and more online and ecommerce taking center stage how is the figurehead and most quoted individual of the information security field not listed?
The most important person in tech over the next decade or two is someone few of us have ever met. He or she will start (or has started) the company that will lead the next revolution in computing. Perhaps it will focus on atomic computing, perhaps it will be optical. Few of us realize its significance, and fewer still could guess how it will change the face of technology. Bill Gates, Linus, and Mr. Jobs are interesting, but they are the hallmark of *today's* state of the art. :)
"Uhhh, yea, by falling ass-backwards into a lucky opportunity that happens once every century to someone"
There is nothing called lucky opportunity. Unless you are smart and prepared enough when luck or whatever comes calling, you won't make it.
This isn't a popularity contest. It doesn't matter who is more famous. The people on this list are the ones that have changed the way we do things with computers. In this respect, I think Steve Jobs should be number one. His decisions at Apple spread throughout the entire computer industry. Apple decides to use USB and Firewire... now they are "standard equipment". Apple ditches the floppy drive... now you have to ask for one if you order dell, ibm or gateway. And all those PC modders are just jealous of the pretty mac cases ;-).
These lists are worthless, I don't know what draws me to them. I see it and I just have to see who is on it.
Technology isn't a one-person effort. It is the total combined efforts of a wide variety of companies, engineers, technicians, and other people doing what they do best. It is a symbiotic relationship that crosses almost any boundary put in front of it. If the plastic's people can't find an answer to a problem, maybe the ceramic's people can.
Think of the progression of the Intel processor and the hundreds or thousands of people who have had a hand in it's development along the way. Sure there are names that rise to the top, but litterally hundreds of engineers, technicians, and probably even janitors have contributed different ideas and insights into how to grow that little calculator chip into the massive CPU that we have today.
It doesn't stop there though. Someone had to take that computer chip and make it do something. Along came the hundreds of engineers from IBM and many, many other companies. They built the box that housed the chip and then found that they had something.
But what they had wasn't complete. Along came the boys from Microsoft, Digital Research and other companies. They cobbled together something that made the box do something.
What they had was a genuine invention. But someone thought they could make it do something else. They tinkered and hacked and low and behold, it did something else. And then another thing and so on and so on and so on.
By now millions of people in almost every country in the world are involved. Someone decided to make a list of the most influential people?
Isn't that like picking a few hairs out of your scalp and calling then your favorite?
I want to take my hat off and salute every single person and every single company who has ever endevoured to make something better! It is this insatiable need to improve that has taken mankind to where we are today and it is this same compulsion that will make tomorrow possible. In the grand scheme of things, Names like Torvalds, Gates, and whoever else are just figureheads for countless nameless and faceless people out there making things better.
Jobs: most influential in fashion.
Torvalds: most influential in *actual* technology.
I'm not saying that Microsoft or Apple don't have any effect on technology, but anyone who thinks that Jobs or Gates are ubergeeks are deluding themselves.
Nathan's blog
It's a list of the most influencial, not the coolest, the most innovative, or the most visionary.
The guy who is "only there because he owns a monopoly large enough that it can bastardize standards" obviously wields lots and lots of influence. There's a reason why Microsoft has been called the "800 pound gorilla" of the industry for the last 15 years or so.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
This despite the fact that she might not ever have written a line of code in her life.
Seriously, how can Bill Gates be in 7th place? Look at all he and his company has done to computers. It totally changed the way we use them and the way we live. You can badmouth him all that you want but you can't not acknowledge the importance of his accomplishments.
All right, I will bite. Why would BG's death affect the economy? He headed the company, but now adays it is in Balmer's hands. As to the technology of MS's, they are notorious for either stealing or buying it. It is only in recent time that MS has really built up a power house of inovative tech guys. But BG himself has never been that technical.
As to charity, BG has NOT given money. That was his wife and parents that pushed it. BG stayed happily out of charity (and politics). Do not get me wrong. It is his money and he is free to do with it as he sees fit. But do not give him credit for where it does not belong.
As to giving more to charity, Linus gave us Linux and one of the very best OSS projects. Prior to Linux, GNU was moving very slowly. It was only after Linux was started that GNU really took off. And Linus gave away his time, his effort, and his ideas. Not even BG did that. In fact, BG has fought against this, his entire adult life. I would mark Linus as being one of the most charitable individuals on this planet.
Finally, Linus is in his early 30's. Who are you to say what the future holds in terms of earnings? It is quit possible that Linux will do even better than BG.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The metric is not popularity. It's bringing the most to technology. You don't need to be well-known to bring anything to the technological state of the world. For example, the average user doesn't know anything about Oracle or DB2. Chances are, though, that their money is tracked in one (or both) of these. Technologically, they are very important, but both would fail your popularity contest.
Mods? I think he was making a joke.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
I bet a good 40% of the people would approve of impaling terrorists.
Hey, as long as I get to choose the terrorists, no problem...
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
It is good to see that RMS made the rankings this year. But one odd thing is this:
I think it is important to remember that if it were not for RMS, Linus could not be on the list. RMS's influence cannot be understated, and most (if not all) of the freedoms currently associated with Linux were his ideas. He should have been on the list since its creation.In any case, more exposure for him means more freedom for me and everyone, so I am happy he has finally been recognized by this ranking.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
I think the point is that God is actually evil, while Satan just encourages us to do whatever we want. What other reason is there for killing homosexuals and the like ? The whole book seems geared towards training people to tolerate injustice from those in power. That no doubt accounts for its popularity with leaders.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
People seem very confused, describing who is the most powerful or infulential.
Those answers are very different indeed than who is the Agenda Setter. While Torvalds in the end may have more of an effect on teh world, in terms of agenda for the computer industry I think you still have to hand it to Jobs.
Microsoft in playing catch-up in the OS (moving to support stuff like Rondevous, and real accellerated window systems), and is really chasing after Apple in the music industry (online store) and consumer electronic space.
There are some areas to be sure where other people are ahead of where Jobs is going, but few people get other companies chasing after them more than Jobs and Apple manage.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I once thought as you did (and I've probably read about 95% of the Bible thoroughly). I gave it much thought and thought that God is not all good. But after even more thought, I realized I was all wrong. When most think of good to compare God to, thoughts of Santa Claus come to mind (which God is not and can not be compared to): an immortal, or nearly so, working selflessly to bring joy into the world, but then rocks and coal come to mind as well, which does not seem purely good. Maybe we are so evil that we think that any bad consequences (for us or others) to our actions constitute not purely good. If there is a god who is bent towards evil, then what would he care about us doing any good or evil (nothing can harm him except for himself, which is why this god can not exist, as the smallest evil causes harm)? If there is a God who is completely good, then only He, and Him alone, could judge fairly, and prevent worse consequences down the road.
If you follow the Bible, God gave us free will, the most dangerous and awesome power we hold (even above our intelect, for history is filled with the not so bright that have changed the world, for better or worse). This accounts for the evil in the world: choices for evil (which we can not attribute to God). (A side note: all evil and sin can be summed up by selfishness.)
If God gave absolute proof to His existence all the time, then we would have no free will to choose otherwise (absolute proof, which God is powerful enough to provide, would transend free will). The last step must be faith. The New Testament has the same God, but now there is a mediator and ultimate sacrifice (if the sacrifices of the Old T. were sufficient, then they would have only had to been done once Hebrews 7:24-28). God making a way out for our evil is undeserved goodness (grace).
I do not have time to elaborate more, as these are very "meaty" statements, but they come after much, long thought. I am not a philosopher (there is no real money in that), but a software developer that gets ripped-off (so far, there is very little money in it =). So, my arguments and statements may not be perfectly formed, but these are a few reasons I believe in Christ. As my favorite series said, "The truth is out there," which implies the search to find it.