Slashdot Mirror
Linus Torvalds For Nobel Peace Prize?
An anonymous reader writes "I'm as much of a Linux fanboy as anyone else, but I've never thought of anything in computing as being worth a Nobel Peace Prize. Apparently, there are those who take global collaboration seriously, though..." The suggestion has been bouncing around the Portland Linux community, where Torvalds lives. Is it worthy of wider attention and discussion?
Lets see Obama's as well...
I've always been interested in seeing how computers get used in the far-flung parts of the world, and between OLPC and websites showing off pics of tribemen using Linux on laptops to check prices, weather info, etc., it would seem that Linux has made a difference both in the "developed" world as well as the places where computers may not be as prevalent.
Certainly it stands to reason that not everyone needs access to email, say, but everyone would like to know whether it's going to rain tomorrow, and there may not be a local radio or tv station to provide that info, but a computer with some sort of internet access could. So if I'm only going to use a computer once in a blue moon, or if I'm one who provides computers to folks who only need an extremely limited data set, why not be Linux? It's totally dependable and, most importantly, it's free. This is critical when the local economy may rely more on bartering and the exchange of physical goods for services; I can't imagine Microsoft would be willing to sell Windows for a few dozen eggs.
So yes, I'd be behind such an honor; the whole point of the Nobel Peace prize is to award people who have made other lives better, and providing the platform on which anyone, anywhere can build upon to provide anything, at the most local level, I can't see how this *doesn't* qualify.
Political satire lost all meaning when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Maybe not the Peace Prize, but I can see him getting the Economic Prize for Linux's economic impact on the business world & Internet.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Why not? I mean, sure Torvalds isn't exactly a Ghandi (who ironically never got one, IIRC)...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I tend to agree, though I wouldn't discount Linus that much. He wrote the first versions of the kernel and has been its guiding force ever since, so it's not just a matter of being some random guy in an age long gone. Still, the whole movement in which Linux blossomed was by and large Stallman's creation and initiative, and even though he's a bit loopy and can be a major prick, if anyone deserves it, it's Stallman.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
For normal humans that would be correct, but this Dali Lama is the reincarnation of the last 14 Dali Lamas.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
They'll give a Nobel Peace Prize to ANYBODY these days...just look at the last guy who got it... Don't flame, I like Obama a lot, but I'll be damned as to why he won a peace prize for stuff he is 'going' to do
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
It is given specifically for improving relations between nations, reducing standing armies, and promoting peace congresses.
That sounds really nice, but doesn't explain Al Gore receiving it. Even if you totally buy into global warming hysteria it still doesn't work. It also doesn't, if you are going to be honest, explain President Obama, who despite all the hype, has never accomplished anything of substance, leave alone improving international relations or anything promoting peace.
The truth is that Nobel Peace Prize is given by 5 guys in Norway to whomever the hell they want for whatever damn reason they want. Lately, that reason has amounted to little more than "Not being George W. Bush". Now, to a lot of people, "Not being George W. Bush" is a laudable accomplishment, but the Nobel Committee cannot pretend they are anything other than another bully pulpit for promoting their preferred flavor of politics.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
If anyone, it should be Stallman, for writing the GPL, for starting the free software movement and spreading knowlege of the existence of free software and for explicitly backing a public cause, and basically dedicating his life to it. In comparison, Torvalds is just an above average software engineer/project manager, who doesn't care about the public good so much as writing good code and getting the credit.
That is the point. Stallman founded a religion, and Torvalds gave us a tool. Yes, you needed the religion first, but a lot more people were willing to work on the tool. That was the real tipping point for FOSS.
I'd hate to see the guy who calls his co-opetition "masturbating monkeys" get a peace prize. :)
That aside, I firmly believe that the GPL is the reason for the success of the Linux kernel and of GNU/Linux. Compare the success of Linux and GNU/Linux to other systems which are more stable and have better documentation (like OpenBSD). There are many reasons why this might be, but I think that there would have been far fewer contributions to the Linux kernel if its license did not provide equal access for all contributors. A substantial part of Linux was written by commercial entities who would undoubtedly not be willing to invest in a product which their competition could build upon without contributing likewise in return.
We all owe a tremendous debt to RMS that I doubt will ever be repaid.
Agreed. Those were my thoughts as well. Stallman's insight to see what was coming and draft the GPL has contributed immeasurably to the freedom and variety in the current software landscape. I honestly think it was a stroke of genius to use Copyright law itself in such a way as to create a code base that cannot be bought-out/subverted by corporations. Stallman had the vision to make it possible.
The problem is that without Linus I have a feeling that Linux would now be where Hurd is. Sometimes the people who have the best ideas are not necessarily the best people to implement them.
Is there any reason they can't just give it to both of them?
I dont read
That is the point. Stallman founded a religion, and Torvalds gave us a tool.
Really? Maybe you aren't aware of the tools Stallman wrote? Stallman wrote the first versions of gcc, gdb, emacs, etc.
So if you still want to oversimplify it, this is more accurate: Stallman created tools and created open source. Torvalds created a tool.
No. It was Stallman who gave us the tool; the GPL. This licence is the magic ingredient that makes open source software possible. Without it, without Stallman's contribution, we'd still be stuck with mostly BSD style licences. Private companies would be mooching off and appropriating the work of FOSS programmers, people would be cynical about writing software for nothing, and we wouldn't have a fraction of the fantastic array of software we all have running on our desktops, including the Linux kernel.
We'd all be paying $500 per operating system, and our program suites would mostly consist of massively duplicated pay to use, single function programs or else expensively licensed monolithic program suites like MS Office. Programs provided by private companies with lots of scope to monopolise, little incentive to innovate, and with general contempt for their users. Ask yourself, how would you encode a CD in windows, how would you compile a program, what email client would you use if you couldn't use open source software?
This is what Richard Stallman rescued us from. Restrictive, expensive, bug ridden and often vindictive closed source software. Perhaps you do not like stances. That's fine. But you had best acknowledge that the reason you have a modern web browser to read this site with is largely down to the efforts he made probably before you were even born.
May the Maths Be with you!
My thoughts exactly. I once saw Stallman talking about what he envisions for GPL and freedom of software in the future, and it really looks like he's aiming at a more collaborative and free society. Not only that, but he has taken positive and large steps in getting there, by turning copyright against itself and actively advocating free software and its benefits.
Genius indeed.
I see it as unfortunate that he doesn't get the recognition he deserves. If he were more "accepted", his ideas would probably have an even stronger impact.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
I'm not knocking Linus Torvalds' achievements, but I don't see the connection here.
Stallman set out with a vision and objectives (freedom of expression) that are consistent with the merits associated with the Nobel Peace Prize.
I'm not sure Linus' motivations were ever more than an itch to scratch to satisfy his own needs (the lack of a suitably available kernel). He has stated that if either the GNU or 386BSD kernels were available at the time, he likely would not have written his own. It just snowballed from there and he was a better project manager than Stallman in making it happen. The success of Linux may largely be attributed to Linus' technical skills as well as his dictatorial style, which may effective in managing a largely distributed open source project, but is hardly representative of the traits and merits of the Nobel Peace Prize.