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

[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

[Sergeant Beavis]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[hdparm]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

All Hail

[thejrwr]

All Hail King of the Geeks! Linus! Linus!

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

[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.

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"

[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"

[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.

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.

Now that he's a hero...

[One Louder]

I hope he saves the cheerleader.

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

[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.

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."

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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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 ?

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...

[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: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.

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:My Heroes

[Da Fokka]

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

Jim, is that you?

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.

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.

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: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: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: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.

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: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: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.

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.

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.

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.