Linus Torvalds Officially a Hero

CortoMaltese writes "The European edition of the Time magazine has selected Linus Torvalds as one of the heroes of the past 60 years. From the main article: 'In the 60 years that Time has been publishing an Atlantic edition, extraordinary people have emerged from the churn and turmoil, creativity and chaos of a period that witnessed the aftermath of world war, the toppling of communism in Central and Eastern Europe, the vanquishing of apartheid in South Africa, the advance of women, the failure of old certainties and the rise of new fears. These people are our heroes, and in this special anniversary issue, we celebrate them and their many achievements.' The article on Linus is titled 'By giving away his software, the Finnish programmer earned a place in history.' Linus is cited in the 'Rebels & Leaders' category along with Nelson Mandela, Mikhail Gorbachev, Margaret Thatcher, and others."

Comments

Heroes

[Anonymous Coward]

If giving away Linux earned him a place as a hero, imagine what would happen if Bill released Windows for free!

Re:Heroes

[EllynGeek]

That would make him a terrorist, by magnifying the problem of windoze botnets, spams, phishes, malware of all kinds, fraud, and identity theft a hundred times worse. We wouldn't even be able to get on the Internet at all- all the world's bandwidth would be devoured by warring malware bots.

Re:Heroes

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, the bots would fill the tubes? I guess the internet is not something you can just dump something on, like a truck.

Re:Heroes

[_Sprocket_]

If giving away Linux earned him a place as a hero, imagine what would happen if Bill released Windows for free!

He would be an "innovator".

Re:Heroes

[Abreu]

Haha, this confirms that the difference between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist resides only on who gets to write the history books afterwards.

Re:Heroes

[s20451]

imagine what would happen if Bill released Windows for free!

He would be poor.

Re:Heroes

[jimwelch]

Bill would not be poor! (Neither would M$) They make most of their money on the other software, Office, etc. At least that is the rumor I keep hearing in the trade press.

Re:Heroes

[Sergeant Beavis]

I guess Bill giving away all of his money isn't good enough.

Re:Heroes

[Gospodin]

That'd be an interesting marketing strategy. Use our free OS so that you can buy our not-as-good-as-WordPerfect word processor. Wait...

Re:Heroes

[smittyoneeach]

Probably knighted or something. No, wait: that's been done.

Re:Heroes

[pilgrim23]

I have heard of Linus, after all he is a a Hero. Time Mag says so, and he will be remembered as such. Who is this "Bill" of which you speak?

Re:Heroes

[Mateo_LeFou]

As for heroes, I can't decide between the cheerleader and the hottie from Final Destination (the latter uses Linux as we all know, but -- ick -- KDE. Any hope the cheerleader uses GNOME?)

Re:Heroes

[LiquidCoooled]

No he wouldn't.
Apart from the fact all his existing money will remain, just giving away windows won't close the company.

There is support, bespoke software, office, the xbox, all the hardware and patents available to them.

Re:Heroes

[Gerzel]

It depends.

Remember Linus didn't release the entire package we know as linux in one blow. In fact he didn't even write most of it.

What he did was he helped to manage the release and development of linux. It is hard to say how Linux would have developed had he used a non-free model. Different developers would have contributed with different ideas. The same goes for Gates and Windows using a "Free" model.

Re:Heroes

[MikeFM]

Giving native Americans blankets would have been a good thing. Giving them blankets that infect them with small pox was a bad thing. That's the difference between giving away Linux and giving away Windows.

However, I think major good would come out of a totally open Windows - patent and copyright free - if it was released because it'd let Linux code merge into Windows, Windows code merge into Linux, and of course code merging with other free software. If Microsoft could open all it's file formats and protocols and ask hardware developers to release full specs to their devices it'd be a huge thing that I think would earn Bill an equal status as a hero.

I think everyone that makes an effort to do things for the good of others, or especially for the good of the public at large, is a hero. Maybe a need to help others is just as selfish as any other need on some deep subconscience level but at least you leave the world a little bettr for having been there.

Re:Heroes

[sp3d2orbit]

Osama would be happy to see that you've swallowed the Islamo-Facist-Propoganda hook, line, and sinker. Most people understand that a freedom fighter, well, fights for freedom for themselves and others. Most people understand that freedom fighters don't fly planes into buildings, they don't behead those who don't share their ideology, and don't shun the diplomatic processes that could actually lead to freedom. See, most people understand that there is a huge difference between someone fighting for freedom and someone who calls themselves a freedom fighter to win the support of the mentally weak and susceptible.

I guess the term "most people" doesn't include the parent or the moderators that promoted this dribble to +5 insightful.

Re:Heroes

[Total_Wimp]

No, that was Bill's friend, Warren Buffett. Bill gave a nice percentage, but he kept far more than he gave.

Bill is awesome for giving as much as he did. Don't mean to put him down. Just wanted to give credit where credit was due to Buffett, who's giving away basically everything.

TW

Re:Heroes

[q-the-impaler]

Good point. I'll bet my karma on it.

Re:Heroes

[JazzLad]

Has XBox turned a profit yet?

Not trollin', just askin' ;)

Re:Heroes

[Anonymous Coward]

Selectively reading Time I see. Gates has been in TIME and on the cover far more than the mention of Linus.

How sad and pathetic is it that the creator of an OS is labled a hero. Linux is good, probably even great, but that doesn't make Linus a hero and diminishes the real heros in the world.

Re:Heroes

[TechForensics]

I wonder whether there is a chance Bill might actually do this in his will. He has enough cash to take Microsoft private if he wants, I imagine.

Re:Heroes

[Cheapy]

Playing the Devil's Advocate; I agree with you otherwise:

I don't understand one thing. What's so mutually exclusive about blowing up buildings of your declared enemy and fighting for freedom? The Revolutionaries of America used to burn down the buildings of Tories, kill their sons and daughters, tar and feather adult Tories, and all that stuff in the name of freedom from the crown.

Re:Heroes

[FST777]

1. Embrace
2. Extend
3. Fork
4. No profit

(Lack of ??? point is intentional)

With an open source Windows the FOSS movement gains mass recognition, thus devaluating every single software package for which a good FOSS alternative exists. If Windows (whatever edition) is open sourced, the FOSS movement will (unintentionally) kill Microsoft by making better forks.

Re:Heroes

[smitingpurpleemu]

Ronald Reagan back in the 1980's called the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan (and by association Mullah Omar and Osama himself) freedom fighters for fighting against the USSR.... I'm sure that's what the poster was referring to. Those then-freedom fighters are now the terrorists that are fighting the Americans in Afghanistan.

Re:Heroes

[Forseti]

So, under your definition, George Washington and the American revolutionary army could not qualify as freedom fighters since they did not rely solely on diplomatic measures and took up arms, right? Yet, no one can deny that they were fighting for the freedom of themselves and others. I personally don't think they were terrorists, but I can see how the Brits might have seen them that way...

Is that the point you were trying to make? I think your chosen distinction between the two concepts puts the Taliban and the American revolutionary army in the same boat, and I don't think that's necessarily fair to the Americans.

Re:Heroes

[maxume]

If you count the money that the foundation actually already has, Bill has given far more than Warren, but Warren has made a very large pledge.

Re:Heroes

[Hatta]

See, most people understand that there is a huge difference between someone fighting for freedom and someone who calls themselves a freedom fighter to win the support of the mentally weak and susceptible.

Are you sure? Most people reelected Bush.

Re:Heroes

[Ed Avis]

It's pretty straightforward: terrorists try to work using _terror_, that is, by frightening people. So they blow up buildings and behead civilians and do other things which are frightening but not necessarily that useful from a military point of view. Washington didn't try to terrorize the British or the American loyalists into giving up. He just fought them on the battlefield. (if my facts are wrong here please correct)

Of course, nowadays people like to attach the label 'terrorist' to anybody they don't like; others do the same with 'fascist'; please don't pay much attention to these silly mislabellings.

Re:Heroes

[Baloo Ursidae]

You learned nothing from the free software movement and Linus Torvalds.

Re:Heroes

[GNious]

So, if I rob a lot of banks, liquerstores and pawnshop, and then give away 33%, I'm a hero? Kewl!
. /G

Re:Heroes

[sp3d2orbit]

I'm glad you brought up the American revolution. I can't think of a better example that shows so clearly the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. Start by comparing the opening salvos of the American revolution with the Al Qaeda's initial moves. Two events are most commonly associated with the start of American revolution: 1) The Boston Tea Party 2) The Declaration of Independence. Our founding fathers got pissed off and threw some tea into the ocean. Then they got together and wrote a document talking about how all men were created equal, signed it, and waited for the British to attack.

Compare that to Al Qaeda's initially moves. Instead of tossing tea into the ocean, they murdered >2000 innocent civilians. Instead of taking credit for the attacks and standing up for his principles, Osama cowardly denied that he had anything to do with it. Al Qaeda has no Declaration of Independence; they have no founding principles of equality or liberty.

As the war went on, American diplomats were actively engaged with the other world powers of the time. We talked to France and secured their assistance (though only after we had demonstrated the ability to win battles). We had concrete demands for the end of the war: simply our independence. On the contrary, Al Qaeda makes no effort to engage in politics (only war). They have no demands for an end of the war (only death to Israel and the infidels).

See, while both parties engage(d) in violence, only one of the two groups had (have) an interest in ending the battle and making the lives of themselves and others better.

Re:Heroes

[fireballrus]

If he releases src code - he'll still make license so strict that it's never GPL compatible. And, even more - releasing src code may threaten projects like ReactOS http://reactos.org/ or Wine http://winehq.org/, because of possible legal concerns of developers gaining knowledge from that code (which might be considered as a derived work and thus copyright violation).

Re:Heroes

[sp3d2orbit]

Ye with short memory forgets that the 1980's were completely different than today. The cold war and the Soviet Union were so much more important than Afganistan or Iraq or Vietnam. It was a time when entire countries would be given up to the other side to make sure the entire world continued to exist. If you've seen "13 Days" about the Cuban missle crisis you'll know what I'm talking about. To solve the Cuban missile crisis and avert nuclear war we basically abandoned our friends (Turkey) in return for Russia doing the same (Cuba).

Getting back to the Mujihadeen, they were instrumental in helping to bring down the Soviet Union. The cash and man power that the Russians had to spend to keep fighting in Afghanistan helped to bankrupt the Soviet economy. Add Afghanistan to Chechnya, Cuba, Nicaragua, and the other proxy wars of the time, and you get the conditions that allowed us to win the war on communism.

However, just because the Mujihadeen was an awesome bullet sponge for us doesn't make them our friends. Stalin was instrumental in bringing down Hitler, but no one would be dumb enough (in the US at least) to call him a freedom fighter. And, on the flip side, no one would be dumb enough to claim that we should have refused Stalin's help.

Back to Regan's words. He may have called the Mujihadeen "freedom fighters" and they may have been dumb enough to believe it. But the, real tragedy isn't that they believed that the US president actually backed their Islamo-Facist ideals -- its that you still believe it.

Re:Heroes

[hdparm]

You guessed right. The way you make billions must count for something, too.

Re:Heroes

[undeaf]

The original xbox lost $4 billion. Not sure about how the 360 division is doing overall, but AFAIK the consoles are losing something like $100 each.

I don't think bill gates has the authority to release windows for free, and even if he or a bunch of people at microsoft did, he/they would be lynched by shareholders for it.

Re:Heroes

[Stalyn]

I don't want to defend Osama bin Laden but he did issue a fatwa in 1998 listing all his grievances. Plus he has offered a truce several times. I think though you are missing the larger point. History is not a science in which you can determine who is ultimately right and wrong. The people who survive and create the power structures thereafter are those who write the histories and those histories reflect their biases.

Surely if we Americans had lost the Revolutionary War, George Washington would have been looked upon as a traitor and a rebel. He would have been hanged and the fickle masses would have cheered it.

Re:Heroes

[carl0ski]

it's not impossible various TRojans like Blaster Worm and MyDoom launched DOS attacks from Windows Machine grinding the Internet in some countries to a trickle

Re:Heroes

[rapidweather]

Bill Gates is a hero too.
Without the easy-to-use Windows (I'm talking Windows 3.1 here), preinstalled on millions of computers, we would not have all these boxes to run Linux on.
The key is the lowest common denominator, turn the box on and it boots to a colorful desktop with Solitare, Notepad, and Paint. Out the door it goes, money in the merchants pocket as the excited owner drives off.

Thank you, Bill Gates for my PS-1 with Windows 3.1 preinstalled. I bought it for $5.00 at a thrift store when the original owner tired of it, quickly, I might add. I stayed up all night putting Red Hat Linux 6 on it, with a 25 mhz bus, it did take that long.

Linus would not be a hero if there were no easily-affordable Windows computers out there. Only Main Frames, I suppose, programmed with colored wires in the back. No one knows if the program works until the next morning.

Now, with the Intel Dual Core boxes hitting the streets, I wonder if my livecd linux will run on one.
May not have a driver in the kernel for the wifi setup, but who knows. I'd rather swap ethernet cards than recompile the kernel to put a driver in there.
Anyway, I do have something to work with, thanks to Bill Gates.

(Side note to Bill himself, who reads all on Slashdot: I'd appreciate a copy of Vista when you have time...)

-- Rapidweather

Re:Heroes

[sp3d2orbit]

One could put the American revolutionaries and Taliban-Qaeda into the same boat if the Americans had sailed to Britain, blown up Parliamant, and then claimed that there would be no peace until Britain and had been wiped from the face of the earth.

But, that's not what happened. Instead, we dumped some tea into the ocean, wrote a document that was crazy enough to claim that all men were created equal and were entitled to life, liberty, and happiness. Then we told the British that we were a sovereign nation and if they wanted to do anything about it they would have to come fight us for it. At the same time we sent diplomats to the world powers of the time to pursue a non-military approach.

George Washington was a freedom fighter because that's exactly what he fought for. Don't be confused by the fact that both Al-Qaeda and the Revolutionaries pursued the military option and lump them together.

Al-Qaeda-Taliban has made no declaration of freedom. In fact, they declare that all who do not share their believes should die. To them, there is no idea of freedom or tolerance or liberty. Moreover, there is no diplomatic solution they are pursuing. Most importantly, there is no amicable end game for anyone involved. If the Taliban/Al-Qaeda wins no one will be more free because of it.

Re:Heroes

[sp3d2orbit]

Surely if we Americans had lost the Revolutionary War, George Washington would have been looked upon as a traitor and a rebel. He would have been hanged and the fickle masses would have cheered it.

Maybe. Joan of Arc was burnt as a witch in front of the cheering hoards. However, we are more likely to look at her today in a positive light than a negative -- and not because the French haven't had a say in history.

I don't want to defend Osama bin Laden...

Then stop defending him. ...but he did issue a fatwa in 1998 listing all his grievances. Plus he has offered a truce several times.

Cool. Awesome. So he took those grievances before the UN? He offered a formal written truce? How many other world powers have backed that truce?

I understand your point about the biases of history. And, if this were a conversation about the impartiality of the observer I would have to agree 100%. But it's not. The parent poster, in an underhanded manner, tried to attach the label Freedom Fighter to the terrorists. I pointedly and firmly disagreed and have made the point over and over again that they have absolutely no interest in freedom -- only death and religious intolerance.

People tend to get hung up on strange things like the fact that both the revolutionaries and Al-Qaeda both use(d) military tactics to achieve their goals. Its unfortunate that those same people can't take it one step further and look at what those goals actually are.

Re:Heroes

[donscarletti]

To solve the Cuban missile crisis and avert nuclear war we basically abandoned our friends (Turkey) in return for Russia doing the same (Cuba).

You don't really believe that missiles were in Turkey or Cuba for the benefit of either of those two nations do you? They were there simply to allow a ballistic missile to hit the capital of the other power before they had a chance to react, not for any intrinsic protection of the host nation. Also, neither country was put into danger from withdrawals.

Also, did anyone really think too much about what the Mujahideen stood for in the '80s apart from getting the Soviets out of Afghanistan? Someone must have known what they were about, since their name literally means "dudes on a jihad". Most of the west got their information from either Regan or Rambo 3, you know when Rambo is fighting Russian tanks and helicopters on horseback and when they are all blown up it ends with a dedication to them. People just thought of them as patriots trying to get an invading force out of their country rather than religious nuts.

Re:Heroes

[Yvanhoe]

Well, arguably, yes.

Would 33% of the money you robbed have been used to charity if you had not robbed it ? If not, you helped (and got rich in the process)

Bill creates a (small) stream of money from big companies to some charities and a bigger one to his bank account. I wouldn't say he earned that money, but the existence of the first stream is a good thing.

Re:Heroes

[donscarletti]

That's really stupid, I know tons of ordinary people that had computers long before they had seen windows. There were Apples IIs, Amigas, Macs, Amstrads and even a huge number of IBM compatibles running DOS before Windows came out. You have a very silly and skewed memory of history, 3.1 didn't come out until '92 at which point PCs were well and truly entrenched in the family home.

Re:Heroes

[opec]

Stalin was instrumental in bringing down Hitler

Godwin.

Re:Heroes

[hotdiggitydawg]

while both parties engage(d) in violence, only one of the two groups had (have) an interest in ending the battle and making the lives of themselves and others better.

Rubbish. Both sides always want the war to be over, but only as a victory for themselves. The only people who want war to continue is the few who stand to gain from it continuing. I'm sure Muslim extremists think all our lives would be better under a global Islamic caliphate. Personally I disagree, strongly, but I'm not that one-eyed that I can't begin see where they're coming from. They've lost countless numbers of people simply by being at the wrong end of Western (read: US) foreign policy. No doubt there's a bit of tall poppy syndrome there too, but in their eyes the oppressive regime they are fighting against is the West. I'm sure they consider that their actions and principles are righteous and Western ones are evil. You can bet that, if they won next week, the history books 50 years from now would portray suicide bombers as heroes, Western forces in Iraq would be invaders instead of liberators, and Bush would be compared unfavourably with Hitler. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist - it all depends on your point of view. ...and now that I can smell my karma burning anyway (like napalm in the morning), let me put my opinion on the table so the Trolls needn't starve - I hope the US wipes Al Qaeda off the face of the Earth. What they did in New York was inexcusable. I also hope that the Western forces get swiftly booted out of Iraq, causing the people of the Western countries to remove their respective governments, because their presence there is just as inexcusable, and is actually giving terrorists more incentive. The sooner someone knocks off all the warmongers on both sides, the better. But hey, I can say that because I voted for the other guy...

Re:Heroes

[DarkProphet]

No, most people that voted reelected Bush. And even that is still a subject of controversy. The percentage of people who DID vote for him is a minority in the US.

Re:Heroes

[a.d.trick]

freedom fighter, well, fights for freedom for themselves and others

If only life was that simple. Often there are many motives behind insurgents (desire for freedom, power, revenge, etc). We use the word 'freedom fighter' as a euphamism to describe an insurgent with good motives and 'terrorist' as a dyphamism for an insurgent with bad motives. For example, take the rebels in Chechnya a few years ago. They were fighting for the 'liberation' of Chechnya and caused a lot of collateral damage. The Russians swore that they were terrorists, but the US called them freedom fighters.

Re:Heroes

[jtull89]

UKUSA forces aren't forcing a fascist regime on Iraqis, first of all, and second of all they would never compare Bush to Hitler because they hate Jews and intentionally kill innocent people. Terrorists have stated that they want to kill the Jews.

Re:Heroes

[darkmeridian]

Freedom fighters firebomb cities and nuke entire cities. All arguments from morality are the same and simply depends on where you stand: here, or there.

Re:Heroes

[jtull89]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas This articles has "interesting" contents such as this: Hamas' charter (written in 1988 and still in effect) calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

Re:Heroes

[Xyrus]

"Osama would be happy to see that you've swallowed the Islamo-Facist-Propoganda hook, line, and sinker."

As you've swallowed the the GOP rhetoric I assume. What the hell is an Islamo-Fascist? The term doesn't even make sense! Please show how radical fundamentalists blowing up infrastructure, businesses, and people even remotely resemble fascisim.

"Most people understand that a freedom fighter, well, fights for freedom for themselves and others."

Yeah....and....

"Most people understand that freedom fighters don't fly planes into buildings..."

In WW2, the Japanese happily gave their lives for their cause. That meant becoming human torpedoes and flying planes into anything that even remotely looked American. If they were closer to us, you could damn well have bet on them strapping explosives to their planes and dive bombing into our cities.

In fact, if the US wasn't seperated from the rest of the planet by two oceans, we may have gotten a good taste of what total war actually was like. How many our heroes sacrificed themselves by doing actions that under any other circumstances would be consider insane, if not deplorable?

One could argue, for example, that "most people understand that freedom fighters don't drop nukes on cities". Well guess what, we did. Twice. How many civilians died as a result?

The typical argument I hear in return was, "Well that's different". No it isn't. We did it because we believed we were fighting for our freedom. We did it because we felt threatened. We did it because it was better than the alternative (a land invasion).

Who are you to judge someone else's beliefs. How do you know that those that flew into the Trade center felt any less strongly about what they believed in than you did after the trade centers fell?

Was it right? Hell no. Not by any stretch. But neither was our invasion of Iraq, where far more have died.

Beliefs in the hands of humans can be very dangerous things.

"...they don't behead those who don't share their ideology"

Counterpoint, the French Revolution. A lot of heads rolled in that one.

"...don't shun the diplomatic processes that could actually lead to freedom"

Uh, yeah they do. They usually do it when diplomatic methods either fail or yield poor results, usually due to the fact that the opposing entity is much more powerful than you. See American Revolution.

The other way diplomatic channels fails is if you aren't given one. That seems to happen more often than it should.

"See, most people understand that there is a huge difference between someone fighting for freedom and someone who calls themselves a freedom fighter to win the support of the mentally weak and susceptible."

Please. Osama and clan used the same tactics against the Soviet Union, with our aid. We called them freedom fighters at the time.

People wouldn't follow if they didn't think there were some merits to what Osama et al are preaching. This goes back to the whole "winning the hearts and minds" of the people, which so far we've done an absolutely miserable job. We aren't viewed as friends, we are viewed as occupiers. People are miserable, angry, and afraid. When people get to that state, they rally around someone who is a kindred, shows strength, and leadership. Sort of like how the nation rallied around GW back when the trade towers fell.

But let's change the situation. Let's say the tables were reversed, and somehow the Iraqis invaded our country and took it over. Let's say they used the same pretenses we did, were just "as careful" to avoid civilian casualties. Let's say a guided missle blew up your house, and several of your close firends and relatives were inside at the time.

Now take those fellings and add them to the fact that some foriegn force has invaded your homeland. Tell me you wouldn't want to inflict as much harm on the enemy as you possibly could.

Perspectives and beliefs. Both easily understood, both just as easily misguided. Once enough

Re:Heroes

[CaptainJackSparrow]

For the first time, exit polls could not accurately predict who would win any particular jurisdiction's race. Something got messed up between the voting machines and the paper copies. Did most voters really vote for Bush?

Re:Heroes

[bergeron76]

See, most people understand that there is a huge difference between someone fighting for freedom and someone who calls themselves a freedom fighter to win the support of the mentally weak and susceptible.

Are you sure? Most people reelected Bush.

The two are mutually inclusive.

Religion _is_ a good thing for guiding the masses. Governments have used it/modified it/adjusted it for thousands of years to keep people in check.

The scary part is when your country is guided by a President whom just "comforts" the victimized "masses" by convincing them all that America will just "find the terrorists and kill them" based solely on Religious pretexts.

Introspection and 'clear definition of terrorist' should have happened long before military action(lives lost).

Re:Heroes

[syousef]

Given your sig, thought you might be interested in looking up these ICAO airport codes:
LEMO
Sioux City
Little Rock, Arkansas
Rapid City, SD
Camana, Peru

Re:Heroes

[tade]

Well not really. He got 62,040,610 votes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_ele ction,_2004 and last I heard the population was over 300,000,000 so only slightly more than one in five person voted for mr President. And if you count only those who actually could vote then out of those only 60% showed up and half of those voted for Dubya so less than third of the nation reelected him.

Re:Heroes

[Philotic]

"If crime-fighters fight crime, and firefighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?"
-Carlin

Re:Heroes

[Jesus_666]

I think though you are missing the larger point. History is not a science in which you can determine who is ultimately right and wrong. The people who survive and create the power structures thereafter are those who write the histories and those histories reflect their biases.

Point in case: Josef Mengele is known as an incredibly sadistic and evil man, even when compared to the rest of the Nazi regime. However, his research did make modern transplantation medicine possible - if Germany had won the war he'd be a hero and the less desirable facts about him would be marginalized.

How did Command and Conquer 2 put it? "He who controls the past controls the futire." Of course everyone tries to change history to fit his own perspective.

Re:Heroes

[lifebouy]

...at which point PCs were well and truly entrenched in the family home.

Er. I'll say nay on that one. A personal computer, then, was something you went to the local library to use, for the overwhelming majority of us. Heck, in my neighborhood, in one of the most technically savvy cities in the U.S. outside of Silicon Valley, I'm the only computer owner on the block, today.

I agree, though, that Bill had zero to do with PCs being in "every" home. AOL did that. And AOL likely would still have done that, no matter what operating system came out on top, Amiga, OS2, Windows--it wouldn't have mattered.

What I hate is that Linus (who deserves a lot of credit, don't get me wrong) always gets kudos for "pioneering" FOSS, when the real heroes of this tale are people like Richard Stallman. RMS is the one who really changed the world. Linus simply latched onto the wagon for the ride. Linus is a hero, but let me point out the elephants in the room: RMS and ESR had way more to do with making linux linux than linus did. They, and many others (Bob Young, Patrick Volkerding, etc.) are the Heroes, Linus is just the figurehead. Linus just happens to be the one who controls the kernel source.

I don't mean to belittle anything Linus has done, at all, I just object to Time pointing to him and saying, "...and here's the man responsible for it all!" B.S. FOSS is full of heroes, and while Linus is an important one, he's certainly not the greatest of them.

Re:Heroes

[Ash Vince]

I particularly aggree with your point about religious intolerance. Any government that pushes one religion is probably doing it to further there own ends and is certainly morally corrupt if they try and prevent you from learning about other points of view.

Hang on a minute, though. President Bush seems to be spouting an awful lot of stuff about Christian values (Think - Creationism vs Darwinian Theory) and the US openly support Israel which is a country based on a single religion and total intolerance toward any other.

You might have had a point if you weren't blatantly ignoring all the pro-creationism shite your own govt is forcing on its population through the education system.

My personal opinion is that all religions are made up to maniplulate the people daft enough to believe in them.

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Probably badly quoted but the same sentiment expressed by both Jesus Christ and Karl Marx.

And incidentally as a British citizen I still resent the fact that the US govt used to ignore people and companies in their country funding the IRA in their quest to blow us Brits up. The american M16 (aka Armalite) killed plenty of British sqauddies in Northern Ireland until Clinton finally made funding the IRA a criminal offence.

In short - History and most of our News is biased towards those who write it.

Re:Heroes

[jc42]

Bill is awesome for giving as much as he did.

Of course, sometimes it's wise to carefully examine purported generous gifts from Microsoft. They have a bit of a history of giving "gifts" that cost the recipients more than they were expecting.

Not that Bill's gifts are always like this, I suppose. But this sort of thing has been reported often enough that one might want to do some careful investigating before accepting anything "free" from him and his colleagues.

It should also be noted that the purported value of such gifts is often wildly exaggerated. It's generally calculated by deciding on a "list price" for the software that is often a lot more than any customer has ever actually paid for it. The actual cost to Bill & Co. is generally quite a bit lower than claimed. In some cases, the actual cost of a multi-million-dollar gift has turned out to be a couple hundred dollars for the CDs and shipping.

As far as I can tell, Warren Buffet actually gives out money, not free software licenses. But I could be wrong. In the case of Bill Gates, one should try to verify that the recipients actually received money, not some "in kind" gift. I've found that it's usually extraordinarily difficult to verify this from the new reports.

Re:Heroes

[Total_Wimp]

In this case, the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation is giving vaccines, scholarships, HIV research and the like. More people are likely to not die and the ones who live are likely to be better educated, so you could say Microsoft could profit from selling them more software. But other than that, it's completely the opposite of self-serving. Its true philanthropy on a global scale, and really one of the nicer things any single individual has been able to accomplish.

TW

Re:Heroes

[Millenniumman]

Gates got all his money legitimately.

Re:Heroes

[jasonjacks0n]

So, if I rob a lot of banks, liquerstores and pawnshop, and then give away 33%, I'm a hero? Kewl!

I've always tended toward the anti-MS camp, myself, but your post reminded me of Robin Hood, who is popularly considered a hero, and that got me thinking..

I'd never thought of it this way before, but Gates could be seen as a kind of Robin Hood: just as Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, Gates gouged the wealthier parts of the world with unethical business practices, and then donated a lot of the money he gained to the poorer parts of the world.

From that point of view, Gates really is a .. hero! *head asplode*

Re:Heroes

[MikeFM]

I don't think you can play both saint and devil at the same time. I see his charity work as trying to buy himself out of Hell (and into the better graces of the public and politicians). Not that it isn't good but I think he needs to change his business practices before he can earn full kudos for that charity work. You don't get credit for robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Re:Heroes

[MikeFM]

Gates stole from rich and poor alike to give to the poor - taking a nice chunk for himself along the way. That doesn't really qualify him as a Robin Hood in my opinion. Gates behavior towards free software would be like Robin Hood attacking Friar Tuck for giving food to the poor.

Re:Heroes

[sp3d2orbit]

You're 100% right. I couldn't agree more. You might like Richard Dawkin's new book, if you haven't already read it: The God Delusion. One thing he brings up early in the book is that many of the founding fathers loathed religous zealots, feared them intensely, and would be horrified by way religion (christianity) has entangled itself in US politics.

All Hail

[thejrwr]

All Hail King of the Geeks! Linus! Linus!

Re:All Hail

[CrazedWalrus]

Linus, King of the Gurus

And

[Konster]

RMS screams out loud, "No, that is GNU/Hero, damn it!"

Re:And

[One Louder]

Yeah, I'd hate to be a chair in Richard Stallman's office right about now - assuming he actually uses a chair and doesn't just levitate.

Re:And

[bogado]

Does gnu/hero reimplement this closed source application?

http://stella.sourceforge.net/game-images/hero.png

Re:And

[ClamIAm]

Actually, this is more on point than you might think. From the article:

Torvalds has achieved fame as the godfather of the open-source movement, in which software code is shared and developed in a collaborative effort rather than being kept locked up by a single owner.

The title of "godfather" probably more accurately describes someone like RMS or Theo de Raadt, who are both very, uh, ideological with their software. Linus, on the other hand, is simply the chief hacker on a very important piece of software in the Free/Open ecosystem. He himself even says that he's more a coder than any kind of revolutionary.

Personally, I think it's a bad idea to focus too much on any one person, as no one can really claim to be the most important. Sure, the kernel is maybe seen as "most important" in some ways, but we shouldn't forget the hundreds of other critical pieces of software that people use every day. And even within a project, there is often a core group of people who defer to one head. For example, the core kernel team: people like Alan Cox, Andrew Morton, Ted T'so, and on and on.

Then there are people who pushed free software/open source forward in other ways. People like Michael Tiemann, who pioneered the business model of selling support and development services for the GNU toolchain. Or the folks inside Netscape (including Jim Barksdale) who pushed for the release of their code.

I guess my point is that "journalists" should really try to not oversimplify things, and to get the facts right besides.

Re:And

[Darlantan]

I'd have modded you up for that post, if I had points, simply because "Theo the Godfather" fills me with mirth.

Re:And

[ScoLgo]

"Personally, I think it's a bad idea to focus too much on any one person, as no one can really claim to be the most important."

This is a good point to be sure. However, it is called Linux - not Stallnux or Raadtux. Since most people don't know where the linux name came from, it's not really a bad idea for Time magazine to make the unwashed masses a little more aware of who got this whole thing started. Anyone that becomes interested will figure out who the other players are eventually.

Re:And

[mnmn]

The best thing going for Linus vs the rest is the fact that his name lives in the OS kernel. Thats all.

But then again, I wouldnt wanna purchase hundereds of 'Redhat Coxux' licenses for the company.

Re:And

[TheRaven64]

I couldn't agree more. Linus' primary contribution seems to have been marketing. I run a few machines which use 100% Free Software, and none of them have a single line of code written by Linus. All of them rely heavily on code from projects started by RMS (I don't know how much of his code is in any of them though). All of them have benefited from activism by RMS and TdR.

Re:And

[LOTHAR, of the Hill]

He's on a different list of 50 biggest somethings...

kidding.

Re:And

[Reed Solomon]

I always Gnu Linus was a hero.

Re:And

[hey!]

Y'know, being a hero isn't all it's cracked up to be. You have to give speeches. You are sought out for your opinion on things you have no interest in. You are expected to be a role model.

It's much cooler to be an anti-hero. You get to do all the cool things heroes, but you don't have any of the responsibilities. But it ain't easy. The media is so hungry for heroes, it's practically impossible for a reasonably decent and responsible individual, thrust into the limelight, to avoid hero status.

It follows that the key thing about being an anti-hero is that you have to put most people off. RMS is well ahead in this regard, but he needs to watch some old Bogart movies to polish the act. Richard, if you want to be an anti-hero, you've got to bottle up all that hurt inside. Make them dig to find that indignation.

Reminds me of the movie "hero"

[Srin Tuar]

You have a pretty faced popular guy who gets acclaimed as the hero, and a snarling rough-edged guy behind the
scenes who is the real hero.

Linus isnt a charlatan or a bad guy, he just doesnt want to change the world.
RMS isnt entirely grouchy, but its popular to credit him with being so.
Meh, maybe its not such a good analogy.

But the main point stands: Real "Heroes" are not always the popular/friendly/nice to look at types.

Re:Reminds me of the movie "hero"

[jimstapleton]

actually, a few insightfuls would be good mods to your post:

and hence, before Linus's "heroic deeds" could even have started, we had:
In the OS corner:
-- Hurd: 1990
-- Net/1 (BSD): 1989
In the applications corner:
-- Stallmans GNU tools: 1983

Re:Reminds me of the movie "hero"

[Klivian]

The most common form of hero is the person that actually goes about to get the hard parts done, not the one preaching about doing it.

Re:Reminds me of the movie "hero"

[Lord Kano]

RMS isnt entirely grouchy, but its popular to credit him with being so.

I respect RMS as a great visionary, but he has earned his reputation. Did you see Revolution OS? When he was given an award, in stead of just saying "Thank you!", he goes off on a lengthy tangent about the FSF and "GNU/Linux".

LK

Re:Reminds me of the movie "hero"

[eldacan]

The most common form of hero is the person that actually goes about to get the hard parts done
Like (co)developing a compiler (GCC), a debugger (GDB), a programer's editor (Emacs), which Stallman did. Not the most visible parts of a working system, but quite essential ones.

Re:Reminds me of the movie "hero"

[newsdee]

Not the most visible parts of a working system, but quite essential ones.

Which is sadly a good example that most people overvalue the shiny bits in software, over the gritty details that are good precisely for being invisible... :-(

Re:Reminds me of the movie "hero"

[TheRaven64]

Well, HURD (note capitals; it's an acronym) wasn't really usable in 1990 (and only just is now). Net/1 didn't run on x86, as I recall, and wasn't ported until a few months after Linux 0.1 was released. Minix was around, but wasn't Free Software (it is now; BSD-licensed). In the userspace corner, don't forget the MIT-licensed X server and the BSD userland tools.

To really address the impact, it's interesting to see what would happen if you took a particular tool away. If you took Linux away, then you would only be able to build a Free Software system with:

1. OpenSolaris
2. FreeBSD
3. OpenBSD
4. NetBSD
5. DragonflyBSD
6. Minix
7. Others?

Now try taking GCC away, and see what you're left with. There are a couple of Free C compilers that could possibly be used, but I'm less sure about FORTRAN, C++, Objective-C, and the other languages supported by GCC. Now take GDB away too, and try developing Free Software.

It might be possible to build a Free Software system without any GNU software, but it would be really, really hard. Building one without Linux is trivial.

Re:Reminds me of the movie "hero"

[pikine]

Whenever Richard Stallman is invited to a talk, he would walk around and scrutinize whoever has a laptop running proprietary operating systems---not only Windows but also Mac OS X. He would point his finger right at your face and say "shame on you." I feel sorry for his "victims" and not so much for him. He deserves the infamy because of his attitude. On a side note, he is not only against computers running proprietary software, but he is also against PDA and cellphone running proprietary software. That pretty much means we're all "lusers" in his opinion. Who doesn't have a cellphone nowadays?

Re:Reminds me of the movie "hero"

[fredrik70]

Hurd was not usable, BSD was involved in a big court case (It'd all look different if that hadn't been the case). Minix was an educational system based on a microkernel, hence very pretty, but slow. Linux came out of an itch that needed to be scratched, Linus wanted a decent unix -like system running on a 386. Yes, without the GNU tools it wouldn't have happened, so much id definite true, so I think stallman deserves a slice of the cake.

Re:Reminds me of the movie "hero"

[drsquare]

Except Linus generally keeps to himself, whereas RMS is constantly seeking attention.

Re:Reminds me of the movie "hero"

[FishWithAHammer]

A kernel is a "shiny bit"?

Must be nice where you live, man.

Re:Reminds me of the movie "hero"

[doom]

Srin Tuar wrote:

You have a pretty faced popular guy who gets acclaimed as the hero, and a snarling rough-edged guy behind the scenes who is the real hero.

This is actually a pretty common pattern... the establishment likes to have a friendly face they can latch on to when confronted by a social movement that isn't going to go away.

For example, it's always seemed to me that Martin Luther King and Malcom X were playing a gigantic game of good cop/bad cop... Malcom's main job was to scare people into MLK's arms.

Re:Reminds me of the movie "hero"

[doom]

Now try taking GCC away, and see what you're left with. There are a couple of Free C compilers that could possibly be used, but I'm less sure about FORTRAN, C++, Objective-C, and the other languages supported by GCC. Now take GDB away too, and try developing Free Software.

It might be possible to build a Free Software system without any GNU software, but it would be really, really hard. Building one without Linux is trivial.

More to the point though, RMS came up with the idea for the GPL. Someone else might've cloned this-or-that piece of software, but the GPL is pure Stallman.

How proud they must be

[jdgeorge]

How proud Mandela, Walesa, and the others in this list of "Rebels and Leaders" must be to have been included in the august company of Linus Torvalds, a man known if for nothing else, for his unwavering commitment to the ideals underlying the successful proliferation of his operating system kernel.

Congratulations for that acheivement!

Ahem.... On a less sarcastic note, this is a recognition of the real leadership Linus has demonstrated in keeping the herd of kernel developers working together fairly efficiently. Congratulations, Linus.

Re:How proud they must be

[qwijibo]

Anyone who can get a bunch of programmers to work together has patience beyond that of mere mortals.

Re:How proud they must be

[rumblin'rabbit]

Superb point. Linus doesn't just lead - he manages development carried out over the entire globe.

Given the sociophobic nature of software developers, that is no small thing.

Re:How proud they must be

[LWATCDR]

Yea I can of thought the same thing. Kind of reminds me of the song by Rush "Nobody's Hero".
I mean it isn't like he saved anyones life, or risked his life and or freedom for his ideals.
I like his work but frankly he isn't what I would classify as a hero.
But then I don't think any actor, rock star, or sports star is worthy of being called a hero.

Re:How proud they must be

[ndogg]

Cats. I can't help but think of herding cats.

Now that he's a hero...

[One Louder]

I hope he saves the cheerleader.

Re:Now that he's a hero...

[Megane]

Thank you. I was trying to come up with something teh funnay like "so what's his special power, can he freeze time with a CVS snapshot?", but simple is best with teh funnay. They've been trying to save that damn cheerleader for what, four episodes now?

Re:Now that he's a hero...

[antdude]

Yeah, it goes like this:

Hiro: Linus Torvalds?
Linus: What? Are you doing this?
Hiro: You look different without the scar.
Linus: I don't know you.
Hiro: Not yet. My name is Hiro Nakamura. I'm from the future, and I have a message for you. I don't have much time. I'm risking a rift just by coming here. The girl. You have to save her.
Linus: What girl?
Hiro: The cheerleader. It's the only way to prevent it.
Linus: Prevent what?
Hiro: Everything. Listen to me. She must live. The painter, Isaac, go to him. He will know. When I call you, you must tell me where we meet. You told me many times how lost you felt. Before it all started. This...is what you've been waiting for. Be the one we need.
(Hiro walks away)
Linus: Wait!
Hiro: Save the cheerleader, save the world!

Re:Now that he's a hero...

[Deathlizard]

I'm still trying to figure out how you save a cheerleader that's already survived 100ft falls, being run over by a car, a garbage disposer, blunt trauma stab to her brain, her own autopsy, a high speed head on collision, multiple compound fractures over the past few weeks and no telling what else.

I guess you could kidnap her and lock her in a room until New York goes boom, but I don't see her dying anytime soon. Hell, even if Cylar pops her brain, I don't see any reason why you couldn't just stuff it back in her head and Claire's talking about the senior prom like it never happened.

Summary not quite accurate

[Wills]

In the copyright sense, "Linus Torvalds giving away his software" is not an accurate description. What happened is that "Linus Torvalds retained the copyright on his software and published it under a licence". "Giving away software" is more akin to "putting software in the public domain".

Re:Summary not quite accurate

[Maliron]

Not only that.. Lots of people give their software away. Its called freeware (or malware most the time! ;). I feel its the fact that the linux kernel, and 99% of GNU, is "Open Source" that makes Linus stand out for being revolutionary. ---- 68% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Re:Summary not quite accurate

[NineNine]

Dude, this is article is for the general public. The general public does not know, and does not care what the difference is. It's accurate enough for this audience.

The IT community is incredibly myopic in they seem to think that what is important to them is important to the rest of the world. Other groups of people tend to be a lot more realistic in their views of the world, in that they understand that what is important to them is not necessarily what's important to other people.

Re:Summary not quite accurate

[Maliron]

Actually most /.ers are on a slightly more informed level then your typical reader. I think its fair to point out the fact that he retains his right to the software, even though he is distributing the code and binaries without cost.

Article text

[Konster]

From the article:

"Linus Torvalds was just 21 when he changed the world. Working out of his family's apartment in Helsinki in 1991, he wrote the kernel of a new computer operating system called Linux that he posted for free on the Internet -- and invited anyone interested to help improve it.

Today, 15 years later, Linux powers everything from supercomputers to mobile phones around the world, and Torvalds has achieved fame as the godfather of the open-source movement, in which software code is shared and developed in a collaborative effort rather than being kept locked up by a single owner.

Some of Torvalds' supporters portray him as a sort of anti-Bill Gates, but the significance of Linux is much bigger than merely a slap at Microsoft. Collaborating on core technologies could lead to a huge reduction in some business costs, freeing up money for more innovative investments elsewhere. Torvalds continues to keep a close eye on Linux's development and has made some money from stock options given to him as a courtesy by two companies that sell commercial applications for it.

But his success isn't just measured in dollars. There's an asteroid named after him, as well as an annual software-geek festival. Torvalds' parents were student radicals in the 1960s and his father, a communist, even spent a year studying in Moscow. But it's their son who has turned out to be the real revolutionary."

Re:Article text

[raphae]

I don't see where there's anything heroic in this, in the classical sense of the word. Innovative, yes, but heroic? Seems to me like this article is just another misinformed one that happens to lie on the other side of inaccurate/misinformed than FUD ones, but no less problematic.

Stallman is the true hero and deserves recognition.

Linus deserves recognition for being very smart and having innovated a great idea at an opportune moment.

I can think of many inventions and innovations in the room around me right now which, were they not to have been made, things might be significantly different and/or worse. Yet none of the innovaters behind them should be considered heroes.

This article is stupid I think.

Stallman

[kidcharles]

Someone needs to keep Richard Stallman away from throwable chairs...

Linus the engineer, Linus the diplomat

[Anti-Trend]

Personally, I think the thing that sets Linus apart from others in the open source movement is that he has quite a bit of charisma for an engineer (I hesitate to say "free" because that often implies "cheap quality" in our day & age). Others, like our good friend RMS, contribute a huge amount as hackers and in other important respects but lack the some of the trickier diplomatic skills which are required to hold things together. I agree with RMS on almost every issue, but I think it's important to have a relatively moderate personality like Linus' in a position of such high visibility, to really humanize things for everyone. Some people may disagree, but that's what I feel on the matter.

That said, congrats Linus! You're certainly my hero, and I've been living the open-source dream for years now. Also to RMS, the FSF, and the rest of the GNU, Linux and open-source community. Hats off to you all; without your hard work and ideals, there would be no Linux!

What a crock of shit!

[RLiegh]

Sorry, but all that Linus did was to get help on his pet project. The real people who advanced freedom and the cause of free software were the folks over at the GNU project and (at the time) the CSRG. Usually I agree with the people who roll their eyes when Stallman goes on about GNU/blah but this time I can see his point... Linus winning this award actually helps to bury them, and worse yet it detracts from the ideals of the GNU movement (and remember, in 1992 if there had been no GNU, there would have been no Linux; period).

Sorry, as far as impact and influence goes -like him or loathe him- Stallman has had more of an active, positive influence on the open source movement; Linus is merely a clever student who managed to wring the most homework help out of the internet...Stallman started the movement which eventually led to Sun opening up their crown jewels.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[duh P3rf3ss3r]

I agree with the essence of the parent's comments. There is no question that Linus is a gifted and accomplished hacker. At the same time, though, there is no question that, without the GNU tools, there would be no Linux today. In one aspect, though, I do feel Linus was visionary, and that's in his finally settling upon the GPL as the kernel's licence. Without a doubt, that's his single most important stroke of genius. But, again, where did the GPL come from?

Re:What a crock of shit!

[dedazo]

And without Linux these "but GNU is teh best" arguments would simply not exist, because it was Linux that propelled the GNU project to where it is today, not Stallman's bitching or his obvious inability to ship a working kernel. So maybe they should be co-heroes or something?

Re:What a crock of shit!

[monopole]

Amen, RMS suffers from "The perfect is the enemy of the good enough" syndrome. Linus was pragmatic enough to go with the "good enough". It's on the order of Ted Nelson and Project Xanadu versus Tim Berners-Lee and the WWW. Xanadu is, in theory, vastly superior, and in practice. well... it doesn't exist, while WWW is a central tool of it's age.

In the same vein, where would GNU be without Linus and the BSD guys?

Re:What a crock of shit!

[duh P3rf3ss3r]

No, I'm sorry but you are wrong. The GNU tools were useful and were used a great deal before the Linux kernel came along. Just look at how many of them shipped with the various flavours of BSD (several of which pre-date Linux, I might add.)

Yes, the Linux kernel filled a huge void on the road to a completely GPLed operating system. But it did not create the concept of a free OS nor did it create the concept of freedom. Those concepts pre-date Linux and were embodied in the GNU project.

I'm not trying to get into a RMS/Torvalds flamewar -- we've had too many of those. But I also don't accept revisionist history that says that GNU would be nothing without Linus's kernel. If you truly believe that, perhaps you can explain to me how the GPLed parts managed to exist for almost a decade before the kernel came along. Do you think that, once the kernel appeared, someone said "Oh, yeah, there was a bunch of mouldy stuff in the bottom of the drawer over there that was invented nearly a decade ago and we couldn't figure out what it was for -- let's try it here!"

Re:What a crock of shit!

[thelost]

So? A hero is *never* just the man who rings the changes, it's those shoulders he stands upon, the help & support he receives and many other factors - it doesn't stop him being a hero.

Winston Churchill is a hero, but he directed an army in the defence of Great Britain - is he any less of a hero because the army did the dirty work?

Re:What a crock of shit!

[Chandon Seldon]

If there were no Linux, the popular free Unix clone would be FreeBSD. If there were no Gnu, the BSD guys would have had to write a C compiler, which would have cost the free Unix would a couple years. Linux is great (I run Linux), but we've got other free kernels - some of the Gnu tools have no good free alternative.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[diegocgteleline.es]

and remember, in 1992 if there had been no GNU, there would have been no Linux; period)

And if there had not been Linux (GNU was already developing Hurd at that time...) there would have been GNU? Yet another chicken/egg stupid question.

I'm sick of this "linus sucks, RMS rocks" attitude, and the contrary. The reason why FOSS is success is because of the COMMUNITY. Both RMS and Linus made possible FOSS. No one was better than other. FOSS is about COOPERATING, about community progress. It's shocking to find people forgetting such important thing FOSS forum trying to put all the success under the back of a single individual. Linus has also made a lot of efforts to make FOSS possible - like not accepting jobs from redhat/suse/etc just to be "fair" to the linux environment, which forced him to keep maintaining the linux kernel despite of the lack of time (which annoyed lot of kernel hackers because of the undermanagement of the project), and so on. He worked hard to make FOSS succesful, so did RMS, so did I, so did you, so did everyone involved.

Yes, time thinks linus did all the job. Everyone thinks the same. Linus didn't search it, history is such a bitch. Just deal with it.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[RLiegh]

>And if there had not been Linux (GNU was already developing Hurd at that time...) there would have been GNU?

Yes, because the GNU tools were preffered (to vendor supplied ones) on most unix platforms at the time, and many of them were incorporated into 386BSD when it was released in 1990/1991.

There was a ton of corporate sponsorship of the FSF before Linus submitted his homework request to the net because the GNU tools were considered superior to what was shipped with most Unixes.

So yes, virginia; if Linus had never come along the GNU movement would have been just fine.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[dedazo]

If BSD were the popular free Unix clone then this whole thing would have died long ago because companies like IBM would have had no incentive to give back their changes and the OS as a whole would have stagnated quickly. And the people associated with GNU are not the only ones in the planet who are capable of creating a C compiler. It would have been a question of "when", not "if".

It is the combination of the GNU toolchain, the kernel and the GPL which have created the phenomenon. Drop any of those and you have a quaint niche operating system with a few wacky fans. So Torvalds owes Stallman as much as Stallman owes Torvalds, but not more or less. Stallman's mistake is to strut around claiming the Linux folks owe him more than he owes them. That's disingenious at best and dishonest at worst.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[dfghjk]

"(and remember, in 1992 if there had been no GNU, there would have been no Linux; period)"

While I don't disagree with you otherwise, you can't say that this is true. It certainly would have taken a different path, but Linus wanted to do a kernel and may well have done so anyway (period ;-) ).

Re:What a crock of shit!

[dfghjk]

BSD already had a C compiler! If there were no Linux and no GNU, there would be a lot of developers available to do similar things with different names (assuming there's a comparable free software movement at all).

The opportunity for Linux to come into existance at all was due to GNU not making progress on a kernel and BSD being tied up in their legal battles. Had history unfolded differently it's not clear we'd be any worse off. Frankly starting with the experienced codebase of BSD would seem better IMO.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[Perdo]

No one will deny René Descartes' contribution to establishing a framework for the scientific method, but Einstein's work is never attributed to Descartes.

Linus knows he is standing on the shoulders of giants, including RMS's shoulders. RMS's clear lack of self esteem prevents him from knowing he is a giant, thus his campaign to co opt attribution of Linus's work.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[Chandon Seldon]

If the Linux kernel had never been written, a GNU/BSD-kernel system would have been released at some point. There's no reason why that wouldn't have ended up in the same niche that GNU/Linux is in now. The license difference is somewhat relevant, but then we can bring up Hurd and whether or not that would have actually seen usable releases if Linux hadn't existed. Trying to get into it too much further and we'll write ourselves an alternate-history fiction novel.

Very simple, the GNU tools *are* more important to the present-day existence of a usable free Unix operating system than the Linux kernel is. My evidence is that, in 1992, there existed a fully functional free Unix kernel other than Linux (BSD) that the GNU system could have used. There was no alternative to GCC. Today, it's possible to run a free Unix system on a whole bunch of different kernels (Linux, BSD, Solaris, Minix, Hurd). Off the top of my head, I can't think of another free C compiler today.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[Antiocheian]

all that Linus did was to get help

This is precisely what heroes do.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[gfxguy]

I agree with you - I certainly won't belittle the guy that created the OS I'm using to type this reply on, but GNU was around longer, and while it might not be in the spotlight, GNU would certainly still be around today if Linus didn't create Linux. Can we say that Linux would be here today, the way we know it, without GNU?

Re:What a crock of shit!

[RLiegh]

Your main point is dead on, but there are a few other projects working on open-source compilers; off the top of my head I know of:

TCC, written by the guy who created QEMU
BCC, "Bruce's C Compiler", which spits out 16-bit code (for embedded machines?)
OpenWatcom C compiler which is only for OS/2, DOS and Win32, but they're porting it to *nix Real Soon Now.

There's also one I'm forgetting which has been talked about in the OpenBSD mailing list as a free alternative to GCC; but I forget the name of it.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[diegocgteleline.es]

Yes, because

In the same way, I can argue that Linux would have succeded because Linus would have written a crappy compiler and a shell interpreter himself...

Re:What a crock of shit!

[TheRaven64]

If BSD were the popular free Unix clone then this whole thing would have died long ago because companies like IBM would have had no incentive to give back their changes and the OS as a whole would have stagnated quickly.

You mean like how FreeBSD has stagnated? Of course companies don't give back to FreeBSD. Well, except people like Yahoo, who actually use it... (Yahoo, for example, employ half a dozen full-time developers to work on FreeBSD).

The only reason people like IBM are contributing to Linux is that Linux has brand recognition and it allows them to sell more hardware by being able to advertise that they are active Linux developers. If Linux didn't exist then they would find some other bandwagon.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[dedazo]

No, I'm sorry but you are wrong. The GNU tools were useful and were used a great deal before the Linux kernel came along.

I'm not saying that's the case, of course the GNU project and the toolchain predate Linux itself. What I'm saying is that Linux is what has brought the FOSS thing to where it is today, and it brought everything else along for the ride. Without GNU Linux would have taken a lot longer to push out; without Linux GNU would not have had the visibility and maturity that it has today. The FSF would not have nearly the same pull as it has today. It's a symbiotic relationship, and the "you must call it GNU/Whatever" crap from Stallman doesn't help. That's all.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[urbanradar]

There would definitely be a Linux (as in, just the kernel). There wouldn't be a GNU/Linux, however.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[fredrik70]

yeah,there were used alot among unix peps, but linux brought it out to the people, I think there's a symbiotic relationship here, they both needed each other, on their own they would have been stillborn.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[fredrik70]

>So yes, virginia; if Linus had never come along the GNU movement would have been just fine.
oh yes, just fine, running on propitiate OS like Solaris and AIX.
oh Hurd you say? still not finished.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[WilliamSChips]

And how would it have been licensed?

Noncommercially. Which would have prevented it from getting nearly as far as it did today.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[RLiegh]

>>So yes, virginia; if Linus had never come along the GNU movement would have been just fine.

>oh yes, just fine, running on propitiate OS like Solaris and AIX. ...and BSD, my friend, and BSD.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[fredrik70]

indeed, but ask RMS how much he likes the BSD licence

Re:What a crock of shit!

[RLiegh]

He considers it a free license; just not one that guarentees your freedom. Anyway, the main point is that a BSD OS and GNU userland would have worked just as well as Linux + GNU has while we wait for the HURD to come along.

Re:What a crock of shit!

[johansalk]

Linux is just a kernel. I use KDE, bash, and lots of GNU stuff and, to be honest, I never think of the kernel and wouldn't care if someone would replace it with something else. It's also, as far as I know, not a particularly good kernel compared to the BSDs and Solaris. What made it special though was that it was, unlike them, licensed under the GPL, and that what made people willing to contribute to it. Now who came up with the GPL? Stallman did. I think it's completely ludicrous that Linus would get so much credit. It just happens to be a more Hollywood-type story to credit Linus; this Scandanavian kid in his bedroom who made something and the internet and the world flocked to it, "you can do it too if you try" inspirational BS. An MIT 1960s Weirdo is just not Hollywood enough for the media to latch onto.

What now?

[mapkinase]

Now he has to get his own comic strip, graphic novel, a movie and a computer game.

Re:What now?

[prelelat]

I think the game is tux racer or what ever it is that comes with some distros. Or you could consider linux to be the ultimate game dun dun dun. They should make a pirates of silicon vally 2 where they have linus and the internet bubble crap or something. Though I don't think linus lives in silicon vally :(. As for a graphic novel they should have linus be a ninja fighting pirates, and they could have a type of magneto character in bill gates where they are going for the same goal but ones crazy. Linus would be like a professor X guy. Cool. NOW GET TO WORK.

Re:What now?

[DaveM753]

> "...and a computer game."

Will it run on XBox?

[/justkidding]

Re:What now?

[AndrewNeo]

Of course it will.

</notkidding>

Re:What now?

[mapkinase]

I see amazing movie prospects. Steve Ballmer as the Roman centurion, the crowd of geeks saying "I am Linus", "No, I am Linus", "No, I am Linus".

Re:What now?

[doti]

http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/show-them- the-code

No Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer in the list!

[Marcion]

Its brave but correct to go with Linus over Microsoft. Just because you are a huge company does not always equal innovation or contribution to the human race. I personally would have also plumped for Tim Berners Lee (The WWW) over J.K.Rowling (Harry potter) but thats just me...

RMS would a better choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, if you were to only pick one person from the whole Free/Open Software world, it would have to be Richard Stallman. I give him 'hero' status because he's the man who spelled out the four freedoms of software which are more important than the GPL(any version).

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
         
• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
         
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
         
• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  

Re:RMS would a better choice

[ClickOnThis]

Frankly, if you were to only pick one person from the whole Free/Open Software world, it would have to be Richard Stallman. I give him 'hero' status because he's the man who spelled out the four freedoms of software which are more important than the GPL(any version).

Agreed. If someone is going to be called a hero, they ought to have done something heroic. RMS might just manage to belong in the same league as Nelson Mandela or Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, but surely Linus doesn't. Linus was clever, effective and (dare I say it) opportunistic, but hardly a hero.

Re:RMS would a better choice

[dfghjk]

They probably wanted to pick someone who showers. As I understand it, Linus doesn't claim to be allergic to water.

Re:RMS would a better choice

[turly]

Poor old RMS has been getting a bit of a bad press recently. He'd want to have a thick skin.

Here's Forbes Magazine's David "Incontinentia" Lyons' latest hatchet-job on him.

Some quotes:

Stallman is "a cantankerous and finger-wagging freewheeler", and "He is corpulent and slovenly, with long, scraggly hair, strands of which he has been known to pluck out and toss into a bowl of soup he is eating."

Of course this is that bastion of corporatism, Forbes Magazine. And of course this is David "Incontinentia" Lyons.

Re:RMS would a better choice

[snarkth]

I wonder what, if any, weight public recognition had to do with the decision.

  In my experience more of the general public know who Linus is (Linus, oh, linux! oh yeah, heard of that) than know who RMS is, in the US. I don't live in Europe, but I'd imagine it's even more so there.

  snark

Double Hero

[oever]

This is old news: Linus is a Hero

Of course, we can't say it enough.

In related news, Richard Stallman is a Hero.

Of course he's a hero because.....

[8127972]

.... if he didn't give away LINUX, then the terrorists win.

Linus, a hero, such as...

[Anonymous Coward]

Margaret Thatcher!? Wtf?

Oh, it's a US-owned publication. No wonder it's on the extreme right-wing.

Re:Linus, a hero, such as...

[meringuoid]

Ayn Rand, who was the sole rebel against the single universal (and wrong) human conviction: the idea that morality consists of serving someone or something "greater" than ourselves.

Not the sole such rebel. IIRC, Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, had similar contempt for such ideas.

Re:Linus, a hero, such as...

[mackyrae]

Is the AC British? If so, you just reminded me who she is. She's who the Specials (or Special AKA, whatever) meant when they covered "Maggie's Farm" and when they wrote "The Lunatics are Taking Over the Asylum" and their point of blame for "Ghost Town".

After all...

[Black Parrot]

How many people do you know who have an operating system named after them?

Re:After all...

[krell]

"How many people do you know who have an operating system named after them?"

Looks like StalinDOS never really made many inroads, did it?

Re:After all...

[pandrijeczko]

Well, there's my great old uncle AmigaDOS for starters...

Re:After all...

[ACDChook]

Well, Bill Gates named his company after a part of himself. Micro - small Soft - not hard I think that pretty much sums it up.

Re:After all...

[4D6963]

How many people do you know who have an operating system named after them?

Do distros (Knoppix) count?

Favorite Larry Wall Quote

[truckaxle]

True greatness is measured by how much freedom you give to others, not by how much you can coerce others to do what you want. ~ Larry Wall

Re:Ok...lemme get this straigh

[Otter Escaping North]

Is there a bias here? please clarify.

Oh god, where to begin?

What *kind* of hero is Linus?

[slightlyspacey]

From the dictionary definition of "hero"

hero
-noun
1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.
2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child. .....

5. a large sandwich, usually consisting of a small loaf of bread or long roll cut in half lengthwise and containing a variety of ingredients, as meat, cheese, lettuce, and tomatoes.

I vote for number 5 myself with mayo and mustard.

Re:What *kind* of hero is Linus?

[schtum]

This probably goes without saying, but would that be an open-faced sandwich?

Who?

[delirium of disorder]

Linus has done a great amount to advance freedom, as has RMS. Their actions, however, were quite safe. They certainly are not in the same category as those who have risked their lives for human rights. However, the fact that a reactionary authoritarian like Thatcher is on the list totally discredits it. So, I guess Linus's inclusion is a non-event.

Re:Who?

[B11]

While Linus didn't save a sinking schoolbus of children from drowning, I believe they he is being deemed a hero for two reasons. The first is that his contributions to technology has empowered a multitude of people to go on and do good works, like, for example, the "one laptop per child" project. The second is that Linus is a hero via context. Linus is a symbol, a figurehead of the FLOSS movement and ideals, even if he himself doesn't embrace EVERY aspect of it.

Re:Who?

[Reservoir Penguin]

I'm against Gorbachev's presence on the list, for me he's the man who destroyed the country I was born in which led to a pletora of ethnic conflicts.

what really happened ..

[rs232]

"Hero? Why? Because someone wrote a piece of software and decided to give it away instead of charging money for it? I guess that would make Microsoft's IE browser team heros back in the 90's. Cue the Linux fanboys please"

The someone who wrote the browser was Spyglass and was based on code licensed from the NCSA. MS first tried to get an exclusive deal with NCSA then went to Netscape and finally Spyglass. The deal was for royaltees to be paid on every copy sold. MS then proceeded to 'give' it away. Spyglass then went broke.

was Hero, why?(Score:1, revisionism)

Re:what really happened ..

[levork]

Spyglass then went broke.

Uh, no, Spyglass was bought out for $2.5 billion. Granted, this was a stock exchange at the height of the dot com boom, but it's hard to call that going broke.

Re:Ok...lemme get this straigh

[cutepinkbunnies]

hmm...Gates and Ballmer are giving away VS2005, SQL2005, IE7, WSUS, and a ton of other goodies. Several BILLION to foreign countries, Time Magazine Man of the year...but nope, on /. he's the enemy.

It could've been confusing...

[Mateo_LeFou]

...i.e. they might've put him in the category "Inpirations and Explorers". Time magazine can't afford proofreaders?

No Ferris Bueller?

[fortinbras47]

Ferris Bueller, you're my hero!

Re:Hero, why?

[Lord Kano]

Because someone wrote a piece of software and decided to give it away instead of charging money for it?

Well, that and that his software has been ported to every major architecture and none too few minor ones. Because even people who don't know who Linus is or have ever heard of Linux are using the software on their set-top DVRs and cell-phones.

LK

Oh, f%$^ng snap!

[Mateo_LeFou]

"Torvalds has achieved fame as the godfather of the open-source movement, in which software code is shared and developed in a collaborative effort rather than being kept locked up by a single owner"

you know that stings...

Torvalds a "Hero?"

[writerjosh]

This is the same magazine that awarded YouTube "Time's Invention of the Year for 2006" (source)

Forget any medical inventions that actually save lives, Time would rather lavish praise on Asian boy-band lip-syncers and blows-to-the-crotch videos. So, should we really take it serious when Time calls Torvalds a "hero?" Again, has Torvalds really saved any lives or made the planet any better by giving out a free OS? Yeah, I know, down with Bill Gates and all of that, blah, blah, blah. But Torvalds a "hero?" Come on. Let's get our priorities straight.

Re:Torvalds a "Hero?"

[King_TJ]

Someone modded your post "funny", but I think you make a valid point. On the other hand though, without a relatively charismatic "face" to attach to the "concept" of the Linux OS - how far would the project really have gotten?

Outside the realm of software developers, students and computer enthusiasts, it takes some kind of actual "marketing" to create awareness and legitimacy for a piece of software. Torvalds, by retaining the rights to his kernel, while still allowing unlimited free usage of it, became the de-facto authority behind the whole project. He gave the mass media a figure to interview and question about Linux.

And as for proclaiming YouTube "invention of the year" - maybe they were just exercising some foresight? Personally, I think YouTube has the potential to change the way people watch television ... only not in the immediate future. Essentially, it forces some issues and makes media conglomerates seriously consider the potential value in letting 3rd. parties repost their content on the Internet for public viewing. Without the financial backing of a business the size of Google - it would just be legislated away, without a second thought. But now, it becomes a possible "driver" of change. Networks have to actually consider concepts like allowing unlimited reproductions of their copyrighted content to be made and hosted on a web site, in exchange for a flat up-front fee. Maybe this model will finally become "the norm" someday, allowing cheaper channel subcriptions on cable/satellite, and eventually, moving the networks onto broadband Internet.

Re:Torvalds a "Hero?"

[blake3737]

But remember what Homer said?
"But football in the groin has a football in the groin!"

Now canonize RMS...

[chepati]

and we have ourselves a religion, complete with folklore, script(ure)s, saints, and heroes. A step closer to world domination...

chepati

Re:Now canonize RMS...

[mackyrae]

The Gospel of Tux?

Re:Not So Funny: Abuse of the Term, "Hero"

[quill_n_brew]

OK, I'm biting the scorchingly off-topic bait... Point of fact: Mother Theresa died within a week or so, if memory serves, after the death of Princess Di, for whom the world gloriously mourned, as you observed. And for the few hundred million or so of us who genuinely care about matters spiritual, the ugly woman who took care of lepers in Calcutta was indeed mourned silently -- but widely. Why? To find the answer to that, you'll need to look beyond your own nose... ; )

Re:Ok...lemme get this straigh

[spun]

There is nothing wrong with doing things to make a profit. There is also nothing heroic about it. Torvalds is a hero because he did something for the greater good rather than persuing selfish ends. Doing something for the greater good with little thought towards personal profit is pretty much the definition of heroism.

Ballmer not only does everything for personal gain, he actively suppresses those who do things for the greater good, because they cut into his profits. That is what makes him a bad guy.

The difference between a hero and a villain is in the means, not the ends. In the end, there is no altruism, and everyone does everything for their own selfish reasons. Gates and Ballmer have actively harmed others for profit. Linus wrote a free operating system as a brag to the world: see how great I am, I can give the fruit of my labor away and still be a success. Both were selfish acts, but society benefits from one sort of selfish act without rewarding it, whereas the other sort of selfish act is rewarded with riches. So we should laud Linus and not Gates or Ballmer as a hero. Those two have already gotten their reward from society in the form of wealth, they shouldn't be called heros as well.

Don't forget old Bill

[kentrel]

Bill put a desktop on every desk, in every home.

Re:Don't forget old Bill

[Aqws]

Um, yeah Bill Gates is a hero, but definitely not for that. He is a hero for his contributions to, and management of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Re:Don't forget old Bill

[DaveM753]

...and they all crashed.

Re:Hero, why?

[0racle]

BSD was a free and open project before Linux and GNU existed. The term hero has become so diluted because it is thrown around at anybody someone has a fixation on.

Oh, and Linux wasn't created with some grand altruistic project in mind, it was created because Linus wanted a Unix-like environment for his PC. He just gave it away after that thinking nothing would come of it.

At long last...

[denttford]

Linux vs. Minix is resolved.
Take that Andy Tanenbaum!

Thanks to TIMEeurope for resolving that.

Heroes of the past 60 years?

[daybot]

What about CowboyNeal?

Troll ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on mods !

You may or may not agree about what parent says, but it raises a good point. I know this is Slashdot, but if you RTFA, you will see that this article is fully biased (even the author says that "I am proud to be a Thatcherite.").

Saying that Margeret Thatcher is a hero because she played a major role in the falldown of the former Soviet Union is as relevant as saying that G.W. Bush is a hero because he played a major rôle in the war against terrorism by invading Iraq. And refusing to compromise doesn't prove anything and is not always heroic. Sorry to invoke Godwin's law, but Hitler also didn't compromize with anybody, which doesn't make him a hero neither.

Anyways, there is no reason to compare Linus Torvals to neither Nelson Mandela nor Margaret Thatcher. One did computer stuff, another spent years in jail and the last ruled a country with an iron fist. Apples and oranges anyone ?

Re:Troll ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if you would have read the article correctly, you would have seen that each profile is written by a different author.

The Thatcher article, in particular, was written by a Czech Prime Minister, who believes that Thatcher provided a successful political model for post-Communist countries, like his own, to follow. Who else would you get to write an article to praise Thatcher but a Thatcherite?

I'm also puzzled by your comparison of Thatcher to Bush. Why not compare Thatcher to Churchill or Roosevelt? It's a more apt comparison as the article is celebrating Thatcher for being being on the winning side of a struggle to end the worst totalitarian regime of the twentieth century, not being stuck in an uncontrollable millitary situation for no good reason.

Se

Sad...

[madhatter256]

This is sad. They award people like him, compared to people volunteering in central Africa risking their lives for refugees. People like those deserve such awards. Nelson Mandela, Gorbachev, Thatcher are very prestigious people. With Linus on the list, he really didn't contribute to anything except for corporations having a "free" option. Linux does not feed people in Africa and other poor nations, no sirey. His presence on that list dilutes the other recipients prestige.

Re:Sad...

[eipipuz]

I'm gonna take the hook. Yes, Linus isn't giving food to poor children in Africa, nor did he started the Open Source, but he is a symbol. And as such, it does't matter how historical reality reflects. He is the perceived pebble that made a revolution. It doesn't matter that there are thousand others. The thing is, Time is recognizing that there's a role in mankind which deserves admiration. Linus' hero-ship means, Time recognizes the value that a man commited to free software brings to society.

And if you think for it a moment, take a step back. Nations come, nations fall. And it may sound raw, but kids die all the time. And yet, humankind will be better, now that open source is in our minds. It isn't so fantastic to praise a leader of a time, when you compare with a "new" kind of person. A person who believes the tragedy of the commons isn't the only choice.

Re:Sad...

[SEMW]

>People like those deserve such awards. Nelson Mandela, Gorbachev, Thatcher are very prestigious people... Linux does not feed people in Africa and other poor nations, no sirey. His presence on that list dilutes the other recipients prestige.

Absolutely! Let's all get together and admire the great work Margaret Thatcher did to improve the plight of the poor; both in Africa, and through greatly improved social welfare programs in Britain. And lets not forget her stellar work on the NHS, without which it may not have been the well-funded bastion of easy access to essential healthcare for rich and poor alike that it is today!

. . .

...Oh, wait...

Re:Ok...lemme get this straigh

[truthsearch]

Yeah, and how did he get those billions? He's not Robin Hood.

About time they did this

[unity100]

During the course of history, people who did great service to 'the people' have always been acknowledged 4-5 generations after, and even after they died. This was generally due to short-sightedness of community those days.

But we are living in a more cohesive, more in-the-know and connected civilization these days. So it is natural that good things are recognized in their due time.

Now Budweiser has a new commercial theme

[LeedsSideStreets]

[passionately sung] Real Finnish Heroes!

Today we salute you, Mr. Open Source Kernel Developer

[sung] Mr. Open Source Kernel Developer!

Re:Hero, why?

[Dilaudid]

God I love trolls. They really do help me understand the basics. IE is not and never was given away - you are permitted to use it if you like, but the copyright and the source remains with Microsoft. Can anyone help me explain using that natty "free as in beer" argument?

Furthermore - ever noticed they give you free peanuts on aeroplane journeys? They make the money back somewhere...

Linus--HERO!

[dtzWill]

I for one welcome our linux overlord! :-D

Re:RTFA

[east coast]

Finland is in Europe.

I get it now! No wonder all the people in Pittsburgh laugh at me when I tell them that "someday I'm just going to get in my car and drive to Finland".

I always thought it was just north-west of Wisconsin. Damn.

I'll get torched for this but here goes....

[Churla]

In my book a hero is someone who risks themselves to save others. Many great political figures qualify because of taking stands which put themselves, and sometimes many others, at risk in order to accomplish the greater good.

Has Linus done this? Not that I don't think he's done great things, and any list of the major players in the history of computing would be remiss without him. But who exactly has he saved? And from what?

To me it seems a lot more like the magazine in question is just running out of people who could really be heroes stepping up and being heroes. So they're kinda grasping with this one.

Re:Not So Funny: Abuse of the Term, "Hero"

[hondo77]

When Mother Teresa died, no one cared.

WTF? You mean other than a full state funeral and a rush to beatification?

While I'm bashing you :-), which of your main achievements (money, fame, beauty) has Linus achieved?

shit with no crock is a pile

[gosand]

Linus winning this award actually helps to bury them, and worse yet it detracts from the ideals of the GNU movement (and remember, in 1992 if there had been no GNU, there would have been no Linux; period).

But where would GNU be these days without the Linux kernel? Yes yes, I know about all the technicalities of calling it GNU/Linux, but the kernel is the heart of the system. Without it, you don't HAVE a system. At least, that is the way I hurd it. [ snicker ]

Re:shit with no crock is a pile

[TheRaven64]

But where would GNU be these days without the Linux kernel?

Using a different kernel. Currently the GNU system runs on Linux, FreeBSD and NetBSD kernels. It might run on an OpenSolaris kernel now (I haven't looked). HURD might have taken off, but even without it there were other Free UNIX-like kernels. Even before Linux, a lot of people were using GNU tools on top of BSD and commercial UNIX kernels (remember, in the past compilers used to actually cost money). Once the AT&T lawsuit collapsed, and BSD was ported to i386, you could even do so on commodity hardware.

Re:shit with no crock is a pile

[gosand]

Using a different kernel. Currently the GNU system runs on Linux, FreeBSD and NetBSD kernels.

Well, the GNU system still runs on those other kernels... so how come Linux has become so popular. I can name several Linux companies, and different distributions. BSD just isn't the same. (I'm not going to get into which is better/faster/smaller) Where would GNU be without the Linux kernel? It wouldn't be as far as it has come with it.

Re:shit with no crock is a pile

[duh P3rf3ss3r]

The only difference is the licence. That's what I said way above -- Linus's stroke of genius was choosing the GPL as licence. The GPL (share and share alike, essentially) is a lot better at recruiting talent than is the BSD-style (do what you will with this) licence. That much has been established, I think.

I think it's obvious that, absent GNU/Linux we'd be using GNU/*BSD. The GNU part is the common thread. And the GNU GPL is largely the reason we're on GNU/Linux instead of GNU/*BSD. But, hey, this is exactly the point I was making here, that, apparently, engendered all this naysaying.

A Hero?

[Tainek]

Dont get me wrong, i think linus is a great guy, and appreciate his work everyday, but a hero?

IMO a hero is a Volenteer fireman, or somebody of the such, im not so sure donating free software consitutes a "Hero" status

Re:Not So Funny: Abuse of the Term, "Hero"

[Martin Blank]

There has been some growing unease about Mother Teresa and the practices that her order followed, including lack of proper medical hygiene in her hospices and baptism of non-Christians as they lay dying. There have also been allegations that her hospices allow excruciating pain to continue, on the basis that suffering is divine (as Jesus Christ suffered), and therefore more likely to get the patient into heaven. She did do some good things, especially in publicizing the plight of the downtrodden in Calcutta and similar cities, but that may have been counterbalanced by the suffering that she allowed.

Princess Diana, OTOH, was vocal about her chosen cause -- removal of mines in warfare and helping the non-military victims of them -- and raised millions for it, and much of it was directed to ease the suffering of the often-poor people who fell victim to old mines laid by any nation, without care for what side they favored or what religion they were. I don't label her a hero, but I also have my doubts about Mother Teresa.

Re:Flamebait much?

[Da Fokka]

As one of the slim majority of Americans who considers himself ethical and didn't have anything to do with Abu Ghraib I don't think your post is actually very insightful.

Of course you did not have anything to do with Abu Ghraib. But why is there no public outcry about the terrible things that are happening in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay? Why aren't more Americans angry about this? The Democrats won the midterm elections because of the war in Iraq. But it was not because of the 100,000 civilian deaths. It was not because of the atrocities and the torture. It wasn't even because of the fact that the war in Iraq has made America unsafer. It was because of the 2,800 Americans that have died in the conflict.

I can understand how families are angry that their sons, brothers and fathers will not come back. They have every right to be. But why weren't more Americans angry that president Bush practically legalised torture? The American soldiers fighting in Iraq went there to fight for the freedom of the Iraqi people. I'd say that the atrocities in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are an insult to the memories to those who gave their lives

Yes, you had nothing to do with Abu Ghraib. But sometimes not having to do anything with something is not enough. After all, Edmund Burke was right when he said: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

Truer than you know

[amightywind]

Now canonize RMS...

Done!

Re:Ok...lemme get this straight

[spun]

The fact that they play hardball makes them not bad people, just people who do bad things. Playing hardball is just a friendly euphamism for playing dirty. It means you are willing to hurt others for profit instead of finding a way for everyone to win.

When you laud Gates et. al. for employing people, you forget the concept of opportunity cost. It's as if I said, "Hey, I invested some money and got 3% return on my investment. That proves that that investment was a good thing. Why, without investing that money, I wouldn't have made that 3%!" Who's to say that things actually would not have turned out better if Gates and firends never existed, and all that effort and money had gone someplace else instead.

Bill Atkinson?

[AslanTheMentat]

Bill put a desktop on every desk, in every home.

Would that be Bill Atkinson?

The Apple II holds that claim to fame, methinks... Plus, I don't recall Microsoft selling computers... IBM PC?

Re:Bill Atkinson?

[kentrel]

Last time I checked the majority of home computers on home desks were not Apples, but PC's running MS software, and since when was the Apple II as widely used as the IBM compatible PC running MS software?????????

Re:Bill Atkinson?

[WilliamSChips]

The honor for that should go to Compaq, who made the first PC clone.

Re:Not So Funny: Abuse of the Term, "Hero"

[airConditionedGypsy]

absolute flaimbait, as the siblings have seen, but I'll bite.

Though a slim majority of American consider themselves to be Christian and supposedly tout how ethical they are (Can you say, "torture in Abu Ghraib"?), they quickly ascribe the term "Hero" to people -- like Linus, Princess Diana, Mick Jagger, and Magic Johnson -- whose main "achievement" (i.e., accruing money, fame, or beauty) has nothing to do with ethics.

By 'they' you actually mean a couple of editors of TIME magazine. Yes, I'm sure a couple of well-to-do New York snobs represent all our opinions.

What does this have to do with Christianity at all? Just be happy for Linus, who in fact conducts himself with dignity and deserves "pop" recognition for his contributions to computing science and technology.

Didnt know unionbusting was heroic

[sethstorm]

Linus is cited in the 'Rebels & Leaders' category along with Nelson Mandela, Mikhail Gorbachev, Margaret Thatcher, and others."
The lady that ended up doing the UK equivalent of PATCO firings somehow doesn't sound like it'd uplift society. Considering that those and Reagan's actions have created a very worker-hostile environment when they informally created a precedent that corporations could get away with misery.

Re:RTFA

[SilentOneNCW]

Mod parent up. Mod grandparent down.

Tagged: butcherite

[sethstorm]

If they included Thatcher, I might as well give the requisite tag for her and her supporters.

Re:My Heroes

[Da Fokka]

Linus, RMS, Tim Berners-Lee, and Jimmy Wales are my biggest heroes.

Jim, is that you?

Sorry Geeks

[jazman_777]

Solzhenitsyn is a hero. Torvalds is a good guy. Big difference.

Re:Flamebait much?

[PCM2]

But why is there no public outcry about the terrible things that are happening in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay?

You're serious??

Re:It could be worse...

[sirGullible]

I'd demand pics. Or it didn't happen.

Re:Flamebait much?

[Mateo_LeFou]

Parent was serious, I think. Well, as serious as ACs ca be. There was not 'enough' outcry for himer, so therefore any talk of morality/ethics by Americans cannot have any merit. That's where I lost interest.

AST

[sd_diamond]

Andrew Tannenbaum must be just tickled.

Re:AST

[soren.harward]

I think he's quite content knowing that his microhero status is still architectually superior.

Re:Hero, why?

[X3J11]

BSD was a free and open project before Linux and GNU existed. The term hero has become so diluted because it is thrown around at anybody someone has a fixation on.

BSD was originally a derivative of UNIX, while Linux is independent (although some parties would have the general public believe otherwise). Comparing the origins of BSD and Linux is an apples to oranges comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsd.

I do, however agree with your sentiments regarding the word "hero".

Oh, and Linux wasn't created with some grand altruistic project in mind, it was created because Linus wanted a Unix-like environment for his PC. He just gave it away after that thinking nothing would come of it.

Can you cite a reference backing up this opinion? Putting thoughts in someone else's head is generally considered a Bad Thing.

Credit where credit is due

[hubertf]

It seems a bit unfair to me to just mention Linus Torvalds in that context: Even before he wrote the Linux kernel, there were many software packages available freely already, from many areas - operating systems (BSD), window systems (X), compilers (gcc), editors (emacs) and much much more. All made by people who gave their software available freely, and who remain unsung.

  - Hubert

definition of hero?

[micromuncher]

I agree with some of the comments here; what exactly is a hero?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hero

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero

So if we boil it down to good, courageous, and noble deed...

How is giving away source code for an operating system kernel good, courageous, or noble?
A lot of people still don't have computers, and even more have no clue how to install an operating system, so "common good" doesn't seem to apply (does anyone need a computer?)

Did Torvalds put his life in harms way to implement said good? Was there perril?

And then nobility... take admirable/impressive over rank/cast... has no one ever produced a kernel before? Even a free one? Was this the bestest kernel ever conceived by man?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minix

How can any invention based on a string of memes be considered heroic?

Re:definition of hero?

[tnk1]

How can any invention based on a string of memes be considered heroic?

Just about every invention or action was foreshadowed by something. I don't think that the fact that Torvalds didn't pull Linux out of thin air should disqualify him.

Even Newton, arrogant jerk that he was, acknowledged that people before him had his back.

Not to mention that quite a few of the Medal of Honor citations I have read say something like: "Jumped on a live grenade to save his comrades from certain death". Heroism, then, probably doesn't require you to be creative about it. You just have to do something that requires real courage.

Is Linus a hero? I do think his actions were noble or implied generosity, because writing a kernel is not a trivial task and there is always the desire to somehow turn what you produce yourself to your sole benefit. Just look at the pervasiveness of capitalism, which is basically about making money for yourself or yours.

Still, while noble, giving away Linux wasn't overly courageous. It *can* be courageous to give away your work, but only if it represents a real potential hardship or risk for you. All he lost was something he amused himself with as a hobby. He may have been able to sell it or something, but chances are that without giving it out to people to work on, it would have never been worth selling. If he had kept it, the only thing he'd have given up was the potential to be what he is today. He'd still be alive and making money in some job, just like the rest of us.

I could buy that he is a role model, which I feel is often confused with "hero". Heros are role models of an extreme sort, but you don't need to be a hero to be a role model.

Re:definition of hero?

[o'reor]

So if we boil it down to good, courageous, and noble deed...

Which is certainly a precise description of Margaret Thatcher's political action. (*ducks for cover, not being a hero myself*)

Re:Hero, why?

[Chyeld]

Heroes are inventions of the beholder, it is the way we cope with understanding how normal people can accomplish such great things. Heroes are not defined by who they are, what they do, or even their worth as an individual. They are defined as how the populace perceives the individual and their actions.

A good example of this concept is probably playing in a theater near you, Flags of our Fathers. This is a mostly true story about the men who were declared heroes because they happened to have their picture taken while raising the flag at Iwo Jima. (Note: My comment is not meant to be disrespectful to them, this is the view the movie presents as the view of the men who performed did the task who most vehimately did not consider themselves heroes.)

What Linus did, may not have been individually a great feat (though I would argue otherwise), he may not have had as much to do with Linux's current popularity (though I would argue otherwise), he could even be the biggest jerk on earth (again I would disagree) but he is a hero.

Regardless of whether he was just in the right place at the right time, or if his accomplishments are actually due to his own merits, what he did was seen as raising the torch for the Open Source movement without Linux, without Linus, and the galvanizing boot to the rear that these gave the Open Source movement, we'd all probably still be stuck in a world where *nix was exclusively the providence of huge corporations and academic organizations. And without the pressure of Linux on MS's heels, we'd probably still be using WinME.

You might scoff that what Linus has done does not compare to the actions of the others on this list. And you'd probably be correct. But regardless of the magnitude of the action, his impact upon how what was became what is now and how both software and the Open Source movement is perceived now really can't be argued. You pointed it out yourself when you invited the "Linux fanboys" to start.

Thatcher

[towsonu2003]

WTF?...

Thanks for the straw man

[ClosedSource]

We enjoyed watching you knock it down.

Photographic Evidence

[Chas]

here

You are a sad little troll

[Per Abrahamsen]

(and I'm falling for it)

Corporations have a free option ... so does the rest of us. Including people in less developed countries, who is now less dependent of those corporations.

Linux is a single but important brick in a a world-wide free computer infrastructure, which has the potential of bringing more freedom and prosperity than any revolution in a single country.

Re:Flamebait much?

[Da Fokka]

You're serious??

Yes I am. I have followed the midterm elections closely and it was not an issue. Or would be so kind to point me to a campaign site of a congressman or senator that proves me wrong? There are some, but if the campaign websites of the major candidates are any indication it's not high on the list.

Re:Hero, why?

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

If you have the IE source, then please post it so we can play with it. Otherwise, go back to digg.

Notice that this is the first fleeting mention of the Linux kernel.

Re:Flamebait much?

[Da Fokka]

Parent was serious, I think. Well, as serious as ACs ca be.

First of all, I wasn't posting anonymously so I'm not sure what you mean.

There was not 'enough' outcry for himer, so therefore any talk of morality/ethics by Americans cannot have any merit. That's where I lost interest.

That's neither here nor there. I posed a very legitimate question.

and what did Maggie Thatcher ever do?

[fantomas]

(political rant and a bit cheeky)

hey well pity poor old Linus and the rest for having to appear on the same list as Maggie Thatcher ("Milk Snatcher"). Stopped school milk for primary school kids and told us "you know, there is no such thing as society" [1] ... oh we knew the national health service and public sector education was going to be in good hands after that...

[1] Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987

Re:and what did Maggie Thatcher ever do?

[VJ42]

The problem is, that we don't seem to have learned our lesson as a country, the two following administrations, have been little better than Thatcher, many would say our current dear leader is worse. Personally I'd argue that the current Blair administration is worse (loans for peerages, ID cards, DNA database 90 days imprisonment without trial etc. Admittedly all being cheered on by much of the general population), but then I'm only 23 and so don't remember all that much of the Thatcher years.

Re:and what did Maggie Thatcher ever do?

[fredrik70]

oh yes, I remember. the telegraph one of the tabloids anyway, going on about, 'why are we arresting the poor old pinochet - he might have had some issues at home, but after all, no britons where involved.' could not believe what I read.

Linus Torvalds Officially a Hero

[zaphod_es]

Good heavens! Is that all? When I saw the headline I assumed he must have saved a puppy from drowning.

Re:Not So Funny: Abuse of the Term, "Hero"

[RancidBeef]

Though a slim majority of American consider themselves to be Christian

Seems like I remember hearing that 85% - 90% of Americans believe in God and a very large percentage of those consider themselves Christians. I wouldn't consider that a "slim majority". Don't assume the people that don't go around beating people over the heads with bibles or stand around protesting abortion clinics are not Christians (although the aforementioned Christians probably don't consider them so).

Hair Splitting Festival

[quill_n_brew]

For all the name-dropping and achievement-grudging that's going on -- I mean seriously. Think of it like a movie adaptation of a true-to-life biography. Characters and events get compressed to make the story concise and interesting. If Time (or whoever) is going to publish yet another rhetorical list of heroes, take it with a pinch of salt (or lime, tequila, whatever...). At least SOMEONE from the OSS community made it! (Though how making any such innocuous list from a none-too-in-depth, populist rag is considered an honor is a touch baffling.) Take your tiny bite of shared glory and get back to your lives, citizens.

No

[G3ckoG33k]

No, he would be sued, by SCO. For what? SCO wouldn't know, but Gates would. SCO: You know what you've done!

Re:Hero, why?

[0racle]

Can you cite a reference backing up this opinion? Putting thoughts in someone else's head is generally considered a Bad Thing.

Yes

I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.

Also from an interview Linus did:

Linux wasn't initially planned to be an operating system. It was planned to be my personal project to learn about my computer, the CPU

It's Time Magazine

[jesterzog]

The real people who advanced freedom and the cause of free software were the folks over at the GNU project and (at the time) the CSRG. Usually I agree with the people who roll their eyes when Stallman goes on about GNU/blah but this time I can see his point...

I'm pretty sure this is just Time Magazine, or at least my own impressions of it. It tells people what they want to hear and reflects what a majority of people of the time tend to be thinking, but it's not the greatest source of active journalistic investigation. Opinions may vary.

Why expect Time *Europe* to honor RMS from USA?

[Freed]

You don't have to RTFA people, just look at the summary with all of the European names. Linus or RMS? Just honor the home boy. (Yeah Linus is American but he's from Europe, oh never mind.)

Re:Flamebait much?

[KnowledgeKeeper]

The American soldiers fighting in Iraq went there to fight for the freedom of the Iraqi people.
Are you serious? If that were true, why doesn't the U.S.A go to fight for the freedom of the North Korean people that starve on the streets? Or, if we suppose that American soldiers really went to Iraq to fight for freedom of Iraq citizens, why was it done under the pretense of Iraq's WMD and not the freedom of the people? I'll tell you why - because it's not true.

The Fifth Freedom

[everphilski]

That's the fifth freedom, freedom from soap and water. Apparently it is implied, he didn't feel the need to write it down.

Definition of TERRORISM (Re:Heroes)

[mi]

Haha, this confirms that the difference between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist resides only on who gets to write the history books afterwards.

Err, no. Terrorism has a fairly narrow definition, and most of the things, which are labeled "terrorism" really aren't. From WordNet

terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act -- (the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

Thus unleashing neither an insecure OS, nor the actual viruses taking advantage of that OS (which is done either for fame or monetary gain) qualifies.

Re:Definition of TERRORISM (Re:Heroes)

[Abreu]

I think too many people here missed the "haha" at the start of my comment...

Of course, I appreciate the upmodding even though I was aiming for a +3, Funny, instead of a +5 Insightful

Re:Definition of TERRORISM (Re:Heroes)

[mi]

I think too many people here missed the "haha" at the start of my comment...

The justification of the means, which your preceded with "HAHA", is seriously used by a great number of people, including /. subscribers with mod-points...

Too many people have very vague idea of what "terrorism" means. Countless millions, for example, call G.W. Bush "the world #1 terrorist", for example — even though they can not name a single Act of Terror, that Bush has committed or ordered to have committed.

For another example, a different (although largely intersecting with the first) set of countless millions consider Israel a "terrorist state" — being likewise unable to name a single Act of Terror committed by the country in the last 20 years (or ever) does not stop them. The gruesome results of the unfortunate Acts of War are appealing to emotions directly bypassing any reason...

Re:Definition of TERRORISM (Re:Heroes)

[PastaLover]

The only way you could require a source on anything he said is if you've been living in a hole for the last 5 years. Here's where you can find your source though.

Re:Definition of TERRORISM (Re:Heroes)

[mi]

I hope, you don't mind my ascribing the earlier Anonymous Cowards' quotes to you — you seem to agree with their authors' sentiment.

So, launching thousands of explosive devices into residential areas in Southern Lebanon in the hope of frightening Lebanese civilians to give up purported Hezbollah fighters was not terrorism on the part of the Israeli state?

No, it is not. Unless you can prove, that Israel deliberately targeted civilians. Can you? I don't think so. In fact some evidence points to just the opposite — the number of Lebanese killed is minuscule compared to Israel's capabilities for death and destruction. Israel's army performed much better, than even NATO did, when they were bombing Serbia to stop Milosevic's thugs.

Generally, when intent is involved in a definition of an act, making an impassionate judgment is very difficult without the perpetrators' taking responsibility and/or stating their goals. Hezbollah, for example, makes it easy to judge its "purported" (LOL!) fighters as terrorists, because it is unabashed about its deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians:

We are going to make Israel not safe for Israelis. There will be no place they are safe," Safiadeen told a conference that included the Tehran-based representative of the Palestinian group Hamas and the ambassadors from Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority. We will expand attacks," he said. "The people who came to Israel, (they) moved there to live, not to die. If we continue to attack, they will leave.

Whether or not you agree with their goal, their method is terrorism — by definition.

So "disappearing" hundreds of foreign civilians at home and abroad, keeping them incommunicado from family and friends, and resorting to abuse and torture to "make them talk", in violation of international law, is not terrorism on the part of the American state?

Of course not. Not everything you disapprove of is automatically "terrorism". However reprehensible it may be, these disappearings were not terrorism simply because the victims were not targeted as civilians. Even you state, that they were picked (legally or not) to extract information ("make them talk") — which means, their kidnappers believed (mistakingly or not) them to be connected to our enemies and thus automatically non-civilians...

It seems you have a warped definition of "terrorism such that it includes others but excludes, by definition, you and your allies.

My definition is self-consistent and taken directly from a dictionary. Yours (whatever it is — you never stated it) seems simply a bubble of passionate appeal — you are revolted by the gruesome effects of Acts of War and "terrorism" is just the worst label you can slap on it...

Re:Definition of TERRORISM (Re:Heroes)

[PastaLover]

I was merely pointing out that both cases were widely mediatized and you don't need sources to be able to discuss them. Attributing the AC's sentiments to me is rude to say the least. I have no intent to argue his points for him.

Re:Definition of TERRORISM (Re:Heroes)

[mi]

Attributing the AC's sentiments to me is rude to say the least.

Sorry, did not mean to offend at all.

Linus masterminded linux so our kids could...

[totierne]

I do not know but with a new son myself I am interested to what the next level of enablement is, away from monopoly rent...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

RMS + Linux = Electriccoolaid.tar.gz

[TwinGears]

That time article did not read well at all! Where was Richard Stallman and the GNU to be found?
For the good that Time Mag did, they might as well just handed out free packages of electric-coolaid with every copy of the article. At least when is was all said and done, a fraction of the DOSe users might have actually had some kind of thought process going on. I swear that Time either does these crap stories on purpose, or they just don't want to really tell the tale.

Sorry...

[biscon]

I forgot our opinion doesn't count

Finland Finland Finland

[DrSkwid]

So now Linus is Time Magazine hero, just like Finland's friend good old Adolf.

Or pehaps Linus is one of the Soviet war babies !!

lol

Re:Hero, why? Here's why?

[davidsyes]

Mshaft NEVER does anything "no strings attached" (Can anyone honestly name non-profits, biomedcials, local community centers who've taken ms money and got it to use Open Source Software? Does anyone honestly believe msoft will gladly non-strings-attached DONATE money (Novell doesn't count here...) to an ALL-LINUX Internet Cafe? Will ms drop the requirement for computer makers to say "X company recommends ms windows (version) for ALL YOUR computing/business/entertainment needs"?). Gates and co set out to destroy and "take the oxygen supply away from" Netscape, among others, lied under testimony, submitted two different versions of windoze to the courts hearing the cases (and got caught for it), enabled security-breaching back doors into foreign governments and corporations on behalf of a certain goverment, without informing those governments, (many of whom who "are our friends"). Mshaft and their shenanigans have wrought destruction upon innumerable well and not-so-well financed companies that could not withstand mshafts' malevolent, lying, cut-throat (well, beyond cutthroat... it was more like sword or pipe at light speed against the thorax by ms) tactics. For mshaft, it's about MONEY, POWER. And everything done to that effect is to ensure keeping top place. At what point will Karma befall ms? Unfortunately, if the longevity of mafias and corrupt governments and ramshackle, for-profit automakers (you KNOW which ones today) can endure, then I guess Karma won't be whacking msoft anytime soon.

OTOH, Linus most likely has NEVER had fame, glory, power and money on his agenda. He just got royally pissed off that he couldn't develop apps on cheap, ubiquitous hardware, and Sun was too inflexible and too expensive, so he "rolled his own" and gave it away for communal improvement. Seems pretty humble, tho not 100% liked (but who is perfect? no need to be PERFECT, just cause as LITTLE harm as possible...). Just give power to the people and let THEM decide best how to use it. His kernel was then and still is but a SMALL piece of Linux, but between him, Stallman, Raymond, FSF, Moglen and countless others, and their prescient drafting of rules/bylaws, social and legal contracts meant to promote and preserve the rights of developers, consumers and anyone else (even mshaft) to USE and adapt Linux/FSF/GNU stuff and also thanks to their timely and useful software and widgets, we have true software freedom beckoning, undulating, and threatening a megalomanical corporation and its underlings that know no ends to trickery, deceit, manipulation.... (OK, this is getting a bit too heavy AND too long for some in this audience...)

Linus is DEFINITELY a hero, especially to developing nations that don't want some foreign corporation hamstringing their sovereignty. Linus ought to be a Hero in the annals of many Asian countries, too, particularly Mainland China, Japan, and Korea. They have Asianux, Red Flax Linux, Turbulinux, and more. Implemented carefully, they can deprive ms of wrangling billions of dollars that can be spend on officials, roads, infrastructure of trains and such, even outside investment or internal investment.

So, the US or European version of Time (if it/they has/have not done so... (I did not read the article)...) might do well to have the Asia edition cover this angle... How Linus and Linux will enable West and East Asia to retain billions in otherwise lost dollars.

(Captcha: "impose")

Time Magazine - only thirteen years late. :-P

[tqk]

Linus joined my heroes gallery ca. 1993. What the fsck took Time so long?!?

Ah, what the hell. Congrats anyway, Linus, not that you need Time's seal of approval. You've had mine for thirteen years already. I'd kiss your feet if you'd let me. :-)

Re:Not So Funny: Abuse of the Term, "Hero"

[fumblebruschi]

Princess Diana, OTOH, was vocal about her chosen cause -- removal of mines in warfare and helping the non-military victims of them -- and raised millions for it

It's worth pointing out that Diana's cause was "chosen" for her by her employers, the British government. Her charity work was a clearly-defined part of her job description, which she accepted as part of her marriage agreement (it was, you'll recall, a political marraige arranged by the monarchy.) When she and the Prince of Wales were divorced, her employment with the British government also ended, and she stopped doing charity work and settled into the comfortable everyday life of European aristocracy. That doesn't make her a bad person in any way, but I still wouldn't compare her to Mother Teresa, who was genuinely ascetic and devoted, whether the allegations you mention are true or not.

Re:Flamebait much?

[FST777]

While your point is valid, the number one reason why the US won't invade NK is that they simply don't have the manpower to do so without extracting forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan. They simply can't even consider.

Re:Ok...lemme get this straigh

[Endo13]

He may have somewhat worked hard, and he definitely built a business. But he never released a superior product, and his prices have never been reasonable. All MS/Gates/et al have ever been good at is marketing.

It's quite possible to build a large profitable business without using the despicable tactics used by MS.

Re:Not So Funny: Abuse of the Term, "Hero"

[FST777]

Money and fame. While not as much as Bill Gates, he achieved far more of both of them than you, me and RMS.

Re:Don't forget old Bill and... no one will EVER

[davidsyes]

need more than 640 of RAM....

Re:Ok...lemme get this straigh

[WilliamSChips]

Wrong, kinda right, wrong, wrong, wrong.
He got lucky, grew a business, and released an inferior product with behemoth IBM's at a price that should have been considered too high but IBM was expensive so it didn't matter which consumers paid for because they wanted IBM.

Off the Office

[Doc Ruby]

Time Magazine is smart to recognize that Torvalds is a hero. But Time Magazine doesn't run any recognized "Hero Office", so they don't have the power to make anyone "officially" anything. Maybe an "official subscriber", but that comes with knighthood, anyway.

Re:Ok...lemme get this straight

[spun]

Plenty of businessmen act in ways that are detrimental to overal maximum efficiency in society. People are naturally more motivated by notions of fairness and reciprocity than pure, short sighted self interest. This is because genetics works on the level of species, not individuals, and for the species, fairness and reciprocity are more successful strategies than competition. We have to compete with every other species in nature, what sense is there in competing amongst ourselves for survival? For desirable mates, sure, but not survival. but when our society rewards self interest, or more importantly when it fails to punish lack of fairness and reciprocity, people feel they must be selfish in order to compete. People's natural inclination to cooperate is crushed.

Personally, I don't think Mr. Gates, Mr. Ballmer, or any of the thousands of other corrupt bussinessmen are to blame for the situation. They are only doing what we all do, that which we see as in our best interest. Can they help it if our society does not reward and encourage us to recognize that which is truly in our interest? No, because society is something we all build together.

But we are discussing whether they deserve to be called heroes. To me, a real hero is someone who moves society towards a more efficient way of functioning. Linus has done that. Bill and Steve have only served to reinforce the status quo. They are not bad men, merely average. They have done precisely what society expected of them: they played hardball and made lots of money. Quite frankly, any smart person could have done the same given similar circumstances and opportunities. Linus did something that reinforced cooperation. He did what he wanted to do, even when that was not what society said would make him a success. By being himself despite society, he gives courage to others who wish to be themselves as well. That makes him a hero. No one needs any further encouragement to do what society says to do and make a lot of money.

Symbol, yes. Hero? No.

[Kell_pt]

I'll try not to earn Troll points, while still pointing out that while Linus might be a symbol he is definitly not a hero. Linus is the face of Linux, but Linux is actually the cooperative effort of thousands of people (wikipedia points out that about 2% of Linux code is from Linus). Where's Alan Cox in that equation?

It is generaly a widely accepted characteristic of a hero the "willingness to sacrifice the self for the greater good". Sharing the initial skeleton of a computer program, even one as important as Linux has become (but which was irrelevant back then), hardly qualifies someone as a hero. In comparison, take RMS, who gave up his job at MIT, who gave up a lot of things for what he believes. Now, I'm not the man's greatest fan, but I'm sure that comparing the biographies of Linus and RMS you'll find it hard to find Linus a hero (or even RMS tbh). Linus is definitly a very successful engineer, and worthy of some admiration, yes, but a hero? Together with Nelson Mandela?! Margaret Thatcher?!? C'mon... get real.

So, is Linus a symbol? Hell yes! Worthy of admiration for his accomplishments? Yeah. A hero? Er... no?

Linus doesn't matter? Hmmmm....

[Kell_pt]

Unsurprisingly, some people disagree. Read this one at Business 2.0 to see Linus listed in the "List of 10 people that DON'T matter". Funny enough, Slashdot's own Rob Malda is in there, together with Steve Jobs, etc. :)

It's a good thing the world is full of contradictions. :)

Re:Flamebait much?

[Mateo_LeFou]

Sorry to confuse you with the AC who initially opened fire. I don't have to point you anywhere because I know for a fact it *was an issue. With me. The campaign websites of the major candidates might be an indication, but it's not the only indication.

Re:Not So Funny: Abuse of the Term, "Hero"

[Plutonite]

Diana I recall was also an adulteress, which in most cultures happens to be a slight barrier to her becoming a "hero". Something about being a cheap skank who lets another man screw her for his money, then tells the world about it on T.V.

And yes, her ex-husband is not much better.

Re:Linus & RMS

[TwinGears]

Nicely put ;)

Well...

[chazzf]

I view Linus as the James Watt of the (open source/free software/GNU/whatever-have-you) revolution. Linux isn't the first free operating system, and it couldn't have gotten where it did without the GNU toolset. At the same time, it is the runaway success of Linux that has made ($1) a real threat to Microsoft et. al. Consider 2006 if we'd had to wait for Mach.

I hate it when I bust out laughing...

[Tteddo]

I hate it when I bust out laughing and no one within 40 miles of here whould know why.

even if Gates gave back ALL the money

[weierstrass]

he had earned selling software, he still wouldn't repair the damage he has done to society.

Heroes

[nitehawk214]

Wonder what his superpower is?

Re:Ok...lemme get this straight

[delirium of disorder]

This is because genetics works on the level of species, not individuals, and for the species, fairness and reciprocity are more successful strategies than competition. We have to compete with every other species in nature, what sense is there in competing amongst ourselves for survival?

You aren't quite correct. Yes, it is evolutionarily better for organisms to cooperate, sometimes even at the detriment of the survival of an individual, than it is for everyone to compete to the death, but genetics does not work on the level of the species (or the "group" or the individual). Genetics works at the level of the gene, and this manifests itself in the behavior of the larger categories. An individual organism will tend to help others to the degree that they are genetically related to them (parents help their offspring a great deal, herds are basically a cooperative extended family, members of the same species are less likely to hunt each other than to hunt other species, and symbiosis can even develop across different clades). "fairness and reciprocity" are important behaviors, but in situations that reduce to the prisoner's dilemma, there is a strong incentive for an individual to cheat: to receive the benefit of a altruistic peer, but to not reciprocate. In these situations, the "sucker" organism tends to punish the cheat if they discover it's cheating, at the very least by not helping it in the future, or at most by harming it. Moreover, when it comes down to a choice between the survival of one individual and it's genes or the survival of several distantly related others of the same species--a zero sum game type situation like predators starving due to lack of prey and resorting to cannibalism, evolution will never favor an individual that sacrifices itself "for the good of the species". Please read Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene to learn more about situations where evolution must favor competition. If you are looking for situations where genetic survival is favored by cooperation, I recommend Sociobiology or other works by E.O. Wilson.

People will naturally both compete and cooperate in different situations. I do agree that our society has been shaped by the economic elite to destructively stifle cooperation and encourage competition. I don't know of any corporate leader that deserves to not be called a villain, much less a hero.

Re:Credit where credit is due

[elgaard]

Certainly, but that is what you get when you boil everything down to one person.

Apartheit produced more heroes than Mandela and communism more
than Solzhenitsyn and Havel (many of them mentioned in Solzhenitsyn books).

Buffet's keeping more than he could ever spend

[Colin Smith]

Or his children for that matter. That's the thing about money, people assume it doesn't conform to the laws of supply and demand. It does, however. Once you have a certain amount, adding more is irrelevant.

For these guys, it isn't about the money any more, it's about the social status, a competition to beat the other guy and be number one. The act of giving 10 billion and 90% of your wealth is essentially the same as giving 1 billion and half your wealth.

From wikipedia

[Physician]

"Linus is married to Tove Torvalds (born Monni). She is a six-time Finnish national Karate champion, whom he first met in the autumn of 1993." Smart move for Linus. Someone who is as big of a nerd as Linus is definitely needs protection from bullies. (No offense to Linus)

Re:not quite...

[TeknoHog]

Products named after the producing corporation? Holy shit!!111

You pointed out yourself that 'Linux' is the unixification of 'Linus'... therefore it is named _after_ him, which is not the same thing as being named equal to him. Wouldn't it be confusing to have an operating system with a person's name, such as... Bob?-)

Do you think this really grates on Stallman?

[ovit]

TSIA

Watered down honor

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Time has like four of those a year, for a total of 400 people. Started in 2000 that means he's now one of 1200 heroes time's recognized. Still, small but don't worry soon they'll expand it so Time is nothing but advertising, a single page of humerus quotes and political cartoons, and advertising laden "special health section" with in depth looks at the latest pharmaceuticals written by drug reps. You'll soon get your turn as a Time Hero, and as a drug rep.

Re:Ok...lemme get this straigh

[geminidomino]

Giving away VS2005?!

Where where where?

Re:Wrong person

[geminidomino]

He's also the one who's done more than a little to keep RMS' "vision" from completely hamstringing Linux. There's a fine line between "visionary" and "lunatic" and RMS is walking it. Which side he ends up on at any given time he's opened his mouth is a matter of somewhat divisive opinion.

MOD PARENT UP!

[B2382F29]

Just out of mod points ... argh.

Re:Not So Funny: Abuse of the Term, "Hero"

[dbjh]

[...]Mother Teresa, who was genuinely ascetic and devoted, whether the allegations you mention are true or not.

I often see people stating that as if it were fact. However, after doing a bit of research about her (skipping the sources that have a relation to the Catholic church) I got quite a different view of her. Perhaps you could support your statement by pointing me to your sources?

I for one...

[FrostyCoolSlug]

... Welcome our 'not really a hero' hero overlord

Had to be said.

Re:Ok...lemme get this straight

[Magada]

"for the species, fairness and reciprocity are more successful strategies than competition".
What an oversized load of fertilizer. All living beings compete for the resources available in their environment. Obviously, competition is harshest where the niches/chosen resource gathering strategies of various beings overlap and guess what? Your ecological niche is the same as every other human's. That is why you are competing with other humans for a job, not with wolves for caribou meat. Not even highly social species with complex (and arguably efficient) organisation, like gorillas or bees do away with competition between peers.

Tea Parties

[jc42]

While it's silly to compare the Boston Tea Party to the World Trade Center attack, I've read a number of comparisons between the Boston Tea Party and the Iraq war.

The Boston Tea Party happpened in response to the UK government giving exclusive licenses to a few companies to trade with the colonies. This effectively locked out businesses in the colonies from engaging in foreign trade. The Boston Tea Party was to send a message like "We won't buy from your companies; we want to run our own companies that hire our people as workers."

It turns out there's a direct parallel to this in Iraq. The US government has spent a lot of money of "reconstruction", but has refused to hire local contractors who know local conditions and could do the job cheaply with local labor. Rather, the money has gone mostly to big American corporations. Part of the intent of Bush's crowd was to bankrupt the local companies, so that American corporations could buy them cheaply, and Americans would then own much of the Iraqi economy.

But it has't worked that way. The Iraqis understand quite well what's being done to their economy, and when a company has to lay people off due to lack of business, a significant number of the workers have gone into the resistance. They understand, as did the American revolutionaries, that if their local economy ends up owned and operated by remote corporations, the result will be permanent poverty and servitude. They are primarily fighting a war for their own economic independence.

American politicians see what they're doing as a "war on terror", but much of the Middle East sees it as an attempted takeover of the Iraqi economy by powerful foreign corporations. This is very much like the story of the Boston Tea Party.

Just last week, Bush made a comment in a speech that has been ignored by the American media, but widely noticed in the Middle East. He explained that the US has to control the Iraqi oil fields, because otherwise the "terrorists" will end up in control, and they'll be able to affect the US's oil supply. Actually, this remark was noticed in a lot of the world. For example, it might be a tipoff that the US will occupy the Venezuelan oil fields in the near future. (And maybe the North Sea fields after that. ;-) It's further evidence that the war is partly about the economy.

In both of these historic wars, the actual story is a lot more complex than the grade-school "us against evil them" categorization that you hear in so much politica rhetoric. Political and social independence is part of it, but people have often fought for economic independence, too.

Re:Tea Parties

[tezzawilson]

I for one wouldnt allow anyone to come to my home and let them control my life on the way i preach, eat, or drink. The fact that these wars were a matter of greed was a major issue and not the ulterior motive that belied their lies. I am as keen as the next person when it comes to my linux because that is what I like and what I want. When Micro$oft starts to hand out money to Suse then you begin to think what the heck is going on, another hidden agenda? I guess it time to learn BSD with all those nasty suprises Micro$oft would no doubt have in store for us. $$$$ green eyed monster

Re:clueless

[jc42]

[T]hey have no evidence that osama had anything to do with the 9-11 attacks.

In a lot of the world, this seems to be a conventional explanation of why the US hasn't captured Osama. With him "in the wild", he's a good propaganda target. But if they had him in a court, his lawyers would totally rip apart the prosecution's case, because the US government has no actual evidence against him, and he'd walk out of court a free man. This would, of course, be a major hit to the US's image, since years of PR would be shown false.

Actually, it would probably be even worse. He might not be allowed to walk out of court at all. He'd be held for prosecution on other crimes. It would slowly become clear that even if never convicted of anything, he'd never be free again. This would really hurt the American image, but the US government wouldn't be able back down. How often to governments ever admit they were wrong about something?

So it's better (from the US government's viewpoint) that he remain free and untried. That way, he's a convenient scapegoat any time anyone commits some atrocity somewhere in the world.

Anyway, this is a widely held theory. Maybe it's accurate; maybe not. It'd be interesting to know about actual evidence in the hands of US investigators. But we might not ever see it even if it exists. Osama is tremendously useful for PR purposes.

Complete rubish.

[jotaeleemeese]

When se went embracing people with AIDS for example, she did so during a time of great ignorance about the disease.

Nobody is perfect, but to try to micro criticize people no matter what is frankly unfair and in some cases dishonest.

Linus was the OSS's architect.

[jotaeleemeese]

Stallman was the Engineer, the ideologue and even did sume plumbing.

Of course nobody ever knows about the people doing the dirty work in a pretty building, but their peers should be there to recognize their achievements when the general public fail to see their significance.

I hope all of you write to Time just to let them know the may be commiting an injustice, if anything they should receive a joint mention whenever OSS's influence is praised.

Sorry, no.

[jotaeleemeese]

Do not try to rewrite history, please. Don't insult our intelligence.

The GNU tools existed before Linux snad is what Linus used in order to build his new kernel.

Of course that they feed from each other since then, but there is no chicken and egg scenario here, all the Interent saw who laid the egg and the chickling hatching.

Who declared independence?

[jotaeleemeese]

It wasn't Gorbachev matey.

Say what you may....

[jotaeleemeese]

.... but the unions had far too much power in the UK.

Curbing their power was a good thing.

The UK and the US are the two more prosperous and economically stable countries of the developped world, the Thatcherite foundations created a climate in which work flexibility benefits both companies and workers (UK unemplyment has been literally non existent for many years).

Re:Ok...lemme get this straight

[spun]

You forget that you have 99.9% the same genes as every other human beings on the planet. Your genes don't give a rats ass about you, they just want to be passed on. If you die but help enough of your species to pass on your genes, you have passed on your genes even if you don't breed. Funny you mention bees, you do know that most bees are sterile, right? How does a completely selfish, competitive creature ever give rise to a descendant that can't breed?

If resources were completely abundant or very scarce, you would be correct. But we live in a world of local surpluses and scarcities. In such a situation, cooperation is the best strategy.

You sound as if you are very attached to the idea of competition, and uncomfortable with the idea of cooperation. If true, that is counterproductive to your well being, and perhaps you should look at why the idea of a world where cooperation is important threatens you.

Re:Ok...lemme get this straight

[spun]

You mention only one of the three root causes of altruism specifically, while touching on another without acknowledging it and ignoring the thirs. The other reasons are mutual aid and the handicap principle. Don't forget that situations almost never devolve to the simple prisoner's dilemma, but to the iterated prisoners dilemma with knowledge of the other players past history. This leads to altruism through the possibility of mutual aid. The handicap principle says that organisms will do things that are detrimental to their well being, including such things as peacock's tail which makes him easier to catch as well as giving away resources in order to brag to potential mates about fitness. If I can survive with a huge gaudy tail, or if I give away everything I have, then I must be incredibly fit and worthy of mating with.

Your analysis is correct though, people will naturally compete in come circumstances and cooperate in others. Our system skews our natural behavior towards competition by refusing to allow fair and equitable access to justice, which is simply the ability to punish non-cooperation. It actually goes further and rewards selfishness. And further, by assuming and excusing selfishness it encourages it.

Re:Ok...lemme get this straight

[Magada]

we live in a world of local surpluses and scarcities.

In a world of local surplus or scarcity, one still cannot be in two places at once, so everything is still stacked in favor of competition.

How does a completely selfish, competitive creature ever give rise to a descendant that can't breed?

Easy. In doing so and totally controlling and ruthlessly exploiting the resulting sterile offspring, it ensures food, shelter and a healthy supply of workers and soliders for those few of its descendents which it lets become sexed. New swarms spawn each spring, each swarm with a young fertilized queen bee in it to carry the species' genes forward. These swarms settle down eventually in new hives and then compete (sometimes violently) for resources between themselves and with the parent swarm. How about if we start co-operating like the little bees? You can be my worker bee if you like. I'll make sure you are composted properly when you cease being able to work.

You sound as if you are very attached to the idea of competition, and uncomfortable with the idea of cooperation.

Not so, but I do resent these smarmy "oh it's Nature's way, let's all get along together" attitudes, because
a. Evolution and the whole history of living things is all about bloody competition
b. The way things are is not the best and should not be construed as such; rather, it's a local optimum and
c. Nature does not exist per se and even if it did, it should not be antropomorphized and said to have ways and intents.

Re:Not So Funny: Abuse of the Term, "Hero"

[fumblebruschi]

You raise a good point: there is very little that has been written about her that is genuinely non-partisan, and the non-partisan sources are generally either not in-depth (articles about her in Time magazine, for instance) or written in circumstances that don't lend themselves to impartial consideration (such as her Nobel laureate biography.)

However, I believe you mistake in "skipping the sources that have a relation to the Catholic church". For one thing, since *all* sources that deal with her are partisan in one way or another, you are simply removing one source of bias and relying on a different source of bias, which of course will skew your conclusions. For another, you're mistaken in thinking that Catholic writers are universally hagiographical in dealing with her; she was criticised by orders within the Church (particularly the Jesuits) for what they saw, with some reason, as her Catholic bigotry ("bigotry" in the non-racial sense, meaning "excessive belief in the superiority of the Catholic religion.") (Of course, there are also Catholics even further to the extreme than she was, who criticized her for idolatry, because she attended Buddhist services.)

As you suggest, it is of course best to judge for yourself after looking at all the sources: from people who were her enemies for religious reasons; from people who supported her politically but opposed her theologically; from people who considered her solely as a temporal figure; and others. Some of the sources aren't worth anything, of course, both (on one side) the people who viewed her uncritically as a living saint, and (on the other) the people who castigate her as cynical and mercenary. For Catholic views you can see the Proceedings of the Roman Curia, which is charged with reviewing her life and actions, and takes into account all criticism of her from both within and without the Church. For external views, there is a Hindu group that publishes criticism of her, beginning with Aroup Chatterjee's "Open Letter to Mother Teresa" which was published a few years ago. Hindu criticism falls under three main heads: the nuns of her order generally did not speak Bengali (the native language of most of their patients); international funds raised for her order were, ultimately, under the control of the Vatican; and (in their view) she did not show enough respect for the Hindu religion. (Chatterjee also wrote a book about her that was called The Final Verdict; it's a good source, but calling his verdict "final" is probably optimistic.)

Finally, you can read op-ed pieces about her in any newspaper from the last thirty years; people seem to give more weight to the negative than the positive, but to me they all look equally poorly-researched and agenda-driven. You can't give much credence to a writer who speaks of Teresa's "journey to your heart", nor to one who makes an angry charge that she wasn't really dedicated to helping the poor because she herself lived in poverty.

Re:Ok...lemme get this straight

[spun]

Evolution is as much about cooperation as it is about competition. And don't forget the key point here: cooperation is simply a competative strategy, and a damn effective one. Even if competition is the way things are and cooperation does not exist, according to your point b, that is not necessarily the way things should be. And a final note: the phrase "bloody competition" is anthropomorphizing nature. Nature exists, but not as a seperate entity, rather it is the law of the universe. Competition is a human idea, a category crafted out of undifferentiated experience by humanity in order to explain natural events. Caracterizing nature in the way you have is simply putting your own human categories on it.

I don't think cooperation is any more or less "Nature's way" than competition is. I have a few questions though. Do you think we should all get along together? Or do you think that's a bad idea? Do you just not want to be burdened with other people's feelings? Do you want a justification for hurting others? Is that why the idea of "Nature, red in tooth and claw" is so appealing to you?

As much as you seem to have a problem with people who advocate peace, love and cooperation, I have a very big problem with people who try to justify their own selfish behavior through the idea of a violent, competitive natural order.

No, she just isn't a saint. FAR from it.

[dbjh]

Perhaps you can explain what of my statement you consider rubbish. My problem with Mother Teresa is that she did not help people at all. Well, if you consider letting people die as helping... Or *embracing* people with AIDS... Enormous amounts of money have been donated to her order, yet in all those years there was no money to build even 1 hospital. There are people in Calcutta who help the poor, but Mother Teresa was not one of them.
I will reply to fumblebruschi later.

Re:RTFA

[Uncle Kadigan]

In case you're not familiar with Minnesota, the parent is correct.

Also a category

[teh kurisu]

I was at the magazine stand in W H Smiths today. There was a 'Linus' category. I didn't see any Linus Torvalds fanzines, they must have all sold out already.

Re:clueless

[Millenniumman]

There is undeniable evidence for many of his crimes. He would never walk out a free man in a fair court.

Also note that while he has denied having anything to do with the attacks, he has also claimed responsibility.

He's not really good for PR. The fact that he still lives makes the war on terrorism look like a failure to many people.

Re:clueless

[jc42]

He's not really good for PR. The fact that he still lives makes the war on terrorism look like a failure to many people.

Yeah, but only to the smart ones. ;-)

Re:Not So Funny: Abuse of the Term, "Hero"

[dbjh]

So, your answer to my question is: the Proceedings of the Roman Curia. As I already stated, I skip sources that have a relation to the Catholic church, effectively leaving me with no reliable source comming from you. Please don't try to defend the Catholic church as a reliable source. I don't hold people who openly declare to believe in fairy tales as if they were facts in high regard. You falsely suggest that "the Hindu group" you speak of has only the light complaints you mentioned. Since you named Aroup Chatterjee I will mention his homepage here so that other people can see how misleading your statement is: http://website.lineone.net/~bajuu/index.htm.

You raise a good point: there is very little that has been written about her that is genuinely non-partisan, and the non-partisan sources are generally either not in-depth (articles about her in Time magazine, for instance) or written in circumstances that don't lend themselves to impartial consideration (such as her Nobel laureate biography.)

You create a false dichotomy here. There are other sources. You even mentioned one yourself, namely Aroup Chatterjee. If he isn't impartial I don't know who is.

However, I believe you mistake in "skipping the sources that have a relation to the Catholic church". For one thing, since *all* sources that deal with her are partisan in one way or another, you are simply removing one source of bias and relying on a different source of bias, which of course will skew your conclusions.

Nice try, but no. You are essentially saying that by including all sources, whether they are biased or not, will result in a conclusion that comes closer to reality than if I evaluate the sources first and then draw my conclusions.

For another, you're mistaken in thinking that Catholic writers are universally hagiographical in dealing with her;

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that.

she was criticised by orders within the Church (particularly the Jesuits) for what they saw, with some reason, as her Catholic bigotry ("bigotry" in the non-racial sense, meaning "excessive belief in the superiority of the Catholic religion.") (Of course, there are also Catholics even further to the extreme than she was, who criticized her for idolatry, because she attended Buddhist services.)

I don't even want to begin commenting on that. Tell me, where is the 1 (ONE!) hospital she built?

As you suggest, it is of course best to judge for yourself after looking at all the sources:

Could you please not put words in my mouth? I did not suggest to look at all the sources. I suggested to skip the sources that have a relation to the Catholic church. Do I really need to spell it out for you what the benefits for the Catholic church are if Mother Teresa will be declared a saint? Or if only her current public image (in the "West") will stay unchallenged?

from people who were her enemies for religious reasons; from people who supported her politically but opposed her theologically; from people who considered her solely as a temporal figure; and others. Some of the sources aren't worth anything, of course, both (on one side) the people who viewed her uncritically as a living saint, and (on the other) the people who castigate her as cynical and mercenary.

You do realise you're contradicting yourself here, now do you? Let me quote you:

For one thing, since *all* sources that deal with her are partisan in one way or another, you are simply removing one source of bias and relying on a different source of bias, which of course will skew your conclusions.

For Catholic views you can see the Proceedings of the Roman Curia, which is charged with reviewing her life and actions, and takes