Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linus Shares the Millennium Technology Prize

Posted by samzenpus on from the tied-for-first dept.

udas writes "The Millennium Technology Prize is awarded every two years for a technological innovation that significantly improves the quality of human life, today and in the future. This year, Linus Torvalds, Linux's creator, and Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, maker of a new way to create stem cells without the use of embryonic stem cells, are both laureates for the 2012 Millennium Technology Prize. This prize, which is determined by the Technology Academy of Finland, is one of the world's largest such prizes with candidates sought from across the world and from all fields of technology. The two innovators will share over a million Euros. The final winner will be announced by the President of the Republic of Finland in a special ceremony on June 13, 2012."

39 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by xzvf · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think the fix was on.

    1. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by xzvf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And before I get jumped on, Linus deserves it. Linux and open source in general, created more opportunity and employment than all the politicians combined. While the wealth wasn't concentrated in his hands like the Ellison's and Gates' of the world, what he started created a lot of income for many others. Stallman deserves credit too, for the creation of the GPL and the GNU tools Linus used, but his ideology would have prevented the operating system's success and effected the ecosystem that grew around Linux. We're lucky that the balance of technical savvy and tame ego of Linus allowed this revolution to happen.

    2. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Besides, we all know it should go posthumously to Steve Jobs for his technological innovation in...well...nothing really. But STEVE JOBS!

    3. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      Actually, what really happened is that Tove threatened to kick the butt of everybody on the committee if they didn't pick Linus, because she's just that awesome.

      But seriously, well-deserved, as the guy has had a huge impact on the future of operating systems and project management.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't forget his mother—she created Jobs for a lot of us.

    5. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by openfrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stallman deserves credit too, for the creation of the GPL and the GNU tools Linus used, but his ideology would have prevented the operating system's success and effected the ecosystem that grew around Linux.

      You say one thing and its opposite in the same sentence. Linux could exist upon the principles and roots that were the vision of Stallman. You then want to speak about the attitude of Stallman, which some finds not to their taste, but this very attitude, and its concrete fruits in the continuing evolution of the GPL, has been a determining factor in the preservation and growth of this whole open source/free ecosystem.

      I find it short-sighted of the jury to have ignored this aspect of things and if I were Linus Torvald, I would share the prize with Stallman in a very public gesture. THIS would do wonders to advance open source/free software in the minds of many.

    6. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You say one thing and its opposite in the same sentence.

      He says the truth. Stallman's "You're either with us, or against us." ideology would be completely toxic in a leader of a project like Linux.

      Linus didn't set out to spread a philosophy, he set out to make something useful. He found a particular philosophy useful in the creation of this thing. Stallman is out to spread a religion.

      Note that I say this with no intention to imply anything Stallman says or believes is wrong.

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    7. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Richard now wants all references to either him or Linus to be "Stallman-Torvalds".

    8. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by openfrog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Stallman's "You're either with us, or against us." ideology would be completely toxic in a leader of a project like Linux.

      That's your mistake right there. First, your mis-characterization of Stallman's attitude does not reflect the spirit, and the very practical effect, of the GPL, at all. And second, Stallman's role and influence is not one of a leader of project like Linux. Different roles, different attitudes. You simply reaffirm old saws like "oh he just set out to do something useful without caring about such a nasty thing as ideology". My point is, and I re-assert it: without Stallman and his founding principles (call it what you want, I don't care), there would be no Linux, and without his dogged persistence and his very active and pro-active role as maintainer of the GPL, Linux, and the whole free software eco-system, would not have survived.

      I should have said it better: Linux, by sharing his prize with Stallman, would multiply the value of that prize, for both of them, by a factor of one or two magnitudes. He would make history.

    9. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by elashish14 · · Score: 2

      No, it's perfectly valid. RMS laid the foundation for copyleft and Linus utilized it in the best way for the project. Linux is still only licensed under the GPLv2. A lot of tech companies which provide major support for the kernel would be more likely to shy away from it if they had to deal with the v3 license. If RMS had maintained copyrights to the software, he probably would have never hesitated to impose stronger copyrights on it and my feeling is that this would have hurt Linux and free software, not helped it.

      On the other hand, I still think RMS played a more fundamental role in the success of the Linux kernel. There are other open source UNIX kernels out there as we all know, whether they're licensed under the GPL or not, and a few have also reached that critical mass of community support. We would have other kernels, but without gcc and the GPL, free software wouldn't be a fraction of what it is today.

      Nevertheless, kudos to Linus and the entire Linux community. Like GP mentioned, they've made the world a much better place supporting projects like OLPC, Raspberry Pi, Android, Arduino and all the other embedded systems where Linux has found itself and more. And there are many more great years to come - we can only keep going up from here.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    10. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stallman is out to spread a religion.

      I've always found Stallman's approach to be totally practical, and requiring no leap of faith or belief in intangible entities at all. In fact, there is a huge body of evidence that the tools he has created (Gnu, GPL, etc) are well-designed and effective.

      I'd see him more as a very focussed craftsman or artisan than a preacher.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    11. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sharing is good. The utilities that Stallman rewrote are historic, and have their origins in BSD, which is a version of Unix. The leadership in making the Linux kernel evolve stands on the shoulders of many, but riding several thousand elephants at once stands out for Linus. Stallman: somewhat solo. Linus: lasso'd a hurricane.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    12. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by xzvf · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't it be easier to recognize and appreciate you if you didn't post AC?

    13. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's your mistake right there. First, your mis-characterization of Stallman's attitude does not reflect the spirit, and the very practical effect, of the GPL, at all.

      I never mentioned the GPL in my post. I said his ideology. The GPL is a (very good) product of Stallman's ideology, but his ideology is much larger than the GPL. And it very much is an ideology that refuses to compromise and refuses to work with others who do not agree with the ideology. There's nothing wrong with that, it just prevents a person from successfully leading a project like Linux.

      And second, Stallman's role and influence is not one of a leader of project like Linux.

      And that's what I said, as well, but when the GP said:

      ... but his ideology would have prevented the operating system's success and effected the ecosystem that grew around Linux.

      I assume that's also what they meant, that Stallman could create the GPL and champion the cause of free software, but he could not successfully be in charge of Linux. And you said they were wrong, which led to me saying you were wrong... So who exactly is wrong here? :)

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    14. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by openfrog · · Score: 2

      You say that the comment I criticize is perfectly valid, while the way you formulate your comment, stating quite well the founding role of Stallman, demonstrates that you perfectly understood the gross injustice to Stallman perpetrated by the comment in question. So the comment, now moderated +5 insightful, go figure, is far from valid.

    15. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Linux and open source in general, created more opportunity and employment than all the politicians combined. While the wealth wasn't concentrated in his hands like the Ellison's and Gates' of the world, what he started created a lot of income for many others.

      Wow, that's a perspective I never considered. Linus and RMS gave to the world more in terms of absolute dollars than the combined greed of Larry Ellison and Bill Gates managed to take away. Now, who is greater?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    16. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...and tame ego of Linus...

      And whatever gave you the idea that Linus's ego is tame? Linus himself would be happy to disabuse you of that misaprehension.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    17. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Linus didn't set out to spread a philosophy, he set out to make something useful. He found a particular philosophy useful in the creation of this thing. Stallman is out to spread a religion.

      Ah, you exaggerate methinks. RMS is also responsible for many practical things, including GCC. His failure to produce a viable operating system kernel says more about his technical aptitude for that particular design problem than anything else.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    18. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Had Stallman actually produced good software (since Emacs), I would have agreed that he deserves credit here. But if it's only going to be about licenses, I'd put ESR ahead of RMS in this one - at least, the former isn't a sanctimonious fanatic moralizing about every aspect of software usage. His latest - dinging Saas, and continuing w/ his tinfoil theories on how services abuse you by getting you to voluntarily hand over your data. But hey - neither he nor his guys can write an OS - having failed to do HURD (it's now being done only by Debian and Arch) but seeing that Linus will never make Linux GPL3, the FSF in Latin America has forked Linux to one 'Libre-Linux', where they can continue to take the kernel from kernel.org, presumably replace its license w/ GPL3, bundle it w/ their 'Free' software, and continue selling it.

      I believe that Open Source deserves credit, but I'd give that to ESR, for working w/ companies and helping popularize the open source development model in ways in which companies don't have to go bankrupt while chasing utopian dreams. He, rather than RMS, is the reason that companies like Netscape, Sun and many others made available open source versions of their popular software, like Mozilla, Libre Office and so on. 'Software freedom' ain't what brought us there - Open Source is.

      Lower down the pecking order, I'd credit Tanenbaum, whose Minix provided the foundation ideas behind Linux.

    19. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2
      Actually in hindsight, much of Hurd looks remarkably prescient, especially in light of the current malware epidemics. Substantial parts of its design have found their way into other OSs:

      The GNU Hurd, by contrast, is designed to make the area of system code as limited as possible. Programs are required to communicate only with a few essential parts of the kernel; the rest of the system is replaceable dynamically. Users can use whatever parts of the remainder of the system they want, and can easily add components themselves for other users to take advantage of. No mutual trust need exist in advance for users to use each other's services, nor does the system become vulnerable by trusting the services of arbitrary users.

      http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd-paper.html

      And again, GPL3 is a solid practical response to the issue of software as a service. It's not essential in every instance, and like all other Free licenses, it's the author's right to decide how much freedom they want to grant their users,

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    20. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Problem is that the FSF/GNU has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that they are incapable of producing a kernel on their own. If Hurd has moved anywhere today, it's thanks to the likes of Debian and Arch, who are doing their own ports. Otherwise, most recently, FSF LA has taken Linux 3.3 and re-branded it 'Libre-Linux' after removing all 'non-free' software. Likely reason for it was Linus making it clear that his kernel is not going to go GPL3, so they decided to fork it to this and make it GPL3, and all the famous FSF distros - Blag, Dynebolic, Trisquel et al will at some point or other be using it, if they don't already.

      Speaking of GPL3, it's the reason that organizations which previously didn't have problems w/ GPL2 are now discarding software that has 'upgraded' the license to GPL3 - best example being LLVM/Clang replacing GCC for that reason alone. The 'issue' of software as a service is actually not addressed - even the FSF concedes that it's impossible to address it, even while it thinks of it as an 'issue'.

    21. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by unixisc · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Open Source movement, rather than the FSF, is the reason we have such major open source software such as Open Office, Firefox, Chromium, Apache, Android, and so on - if you notice, most of them are not GPL, and even Linus has decided not to make his kernel GPL3. If anything, companies like Sun went for things like the CDDL because it is not GPL. Oh, and before anyone says 'Android is Linux', Android is released under an Apache license and not GPL 2 nor 3.

      I'd credit the likes of the OSI in helping popularize the Open Source model and bringing it to where it is. Unlike the FSF, it is not hostile to corporate interests and prefers to promote the advantages of this development model, rather than moralizing about the 'ethics' of 'Free Software'. Speaking of which, what is this 'community' that RMS, and you are talking of? People typically buy/download for free/copy software that they want to use, and use it. Most people don't, and won't, tinker w/ source code, nor pay someone else to tinker w/ them - if a software doesn't work the way they need, they either look for alternatives or workarounds.

    22. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Problem is that the FSF/GNU has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that they are incapable of producing a kernel on their own.

      GNU needed a free kernel. They started to (slowly...) work on that and called it Hurd. Then Linux, also a free kernel, just like Hurd, came along. Unlike Hurd, Linux was ready to ship. What that means to Hurd? It means Hurd was not vital anymore, resources could be allocated to other, more pressing, problems.
      Linux made Hurd unnecessary.

      If you think I'm bullshitting, RMS said in an interview:
      "The work that is needed is at the driver and firmware level. That's why our high priority task list includes items relating to free drivers, but not the HURD."

    23. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by aloniv · · Score: 2

      Problem is that the FSF/GNU has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that they are incapable of producing a kernel on their own. If Hurd has moved anywhere today, it's thanks to the likes of Debian and Arch, who are doing their own ports. Otherwise, most recently, FSF LA has taken Linux 3.3 and re-branded it 'Libre-Linux' after removing all 'non-free' software. Likely reason for it was Linus making it clear that his kernel is not going to go GPL3, so they decided to fork it to this and make it GPL3, and all the famous FSF distros - Blag, Dynebolic, Trisquel et al will at some point or other be using it, if they don't already.

      Speaking of GPL3, it's the reason that organizations which previously didn't have problems w/ GPL2 are now discarding software that has 'upgraded' the license to GPL3 - best example being LLVM/Clang replacing GCC for that reason alone. The 'issue' of software as a service is actually not addressed - even the FSF concedes that it's impossible to address it, even while it thinks of it as an 'issue'.

      Linux-libre addresses the problem of non-free firmware (which is incompatible with the GPL license) creeping into the kernel Linux over the years. Linux-libre cannot be relicensed under GPLv3 since Linux is licensed under GPLv2 (without or later) and changing the license to version 3 would require the consent of all the developers (and Torvalds is known to prefer version 2 so it won't happen).

    24. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think you are wrong and here is why: RMS has made it pretty clear that as far as he is concerned the GPL V2 is completely broken and therefor only GPL V3 should be used, yet Linus won't license the kernel under GPL V3 nor will any of the devices mentioned like phones, TVs, and the bazillion other embedded devices that use Linux be using it right now if it had been under GPL V3.

      The problem is when it comes to RMS like a lot of groups that were also originally started with good intentions such as PETA and Greenpeace as time goes along and he doesn't see the world adopt his beliefs he is becoming more and more militant. Read the man's own words in for instance the GPL VS LGPL debates and its quite clear that all those that say "The GPL is an infection" frankly would have a supporter in RMS because that is what he wants. For him its no longer about making good software that you are free to modify but about pushing an agenda and while i'll get hate for saying this frankly in the last 5 years his anti-corporation stance has become IMHO almost Marxist in his hatred of corporations. Read the man's writings and you'll see a progression from optimism to a lot darker vision, even going so far as to refuse interviews unless you use HIS language the way HE declares it to be which if that isn't the height of arrogance and self importance i don't know what is.

      So I'm sorry but Linus would have gotten along just fine without RMS and in fact if it would have continued to follow RMS instead of refusing to go GPL V3 like he did then I have no doubt Linux as we know it today would be all but dead as the corps simply would have went with BSD or some other OS that didn't actively fight them at every turn. Linus could have easily used the existing BSD tools and I doubt Linux would be all that different than it is today and I'd argue the simple fact that so few of the mainstream projects are adopting GPL V3 just shows that RMS no longer speaks for the majority, if he ever did.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    25. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Stallman is out to spread a religion.

      Note that I say this with no intention to imply anything Stallman says or believes is wrong.

      How does that work?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    26. Re:Tech Acadamy of FINLAND!!! by unixisc · · Score: 2

      I fully agree w/ this. Had GPL not existed, Torvalds might have released Linux under a BSD, MIT or one of the many myriad licenses out there, or written his own (just like Apache, Mozilla, Sun, et al had done), and Linux may have been none the worse for it. In fact, I daresay that if he could have easily moved Linux to a non-GPL license like Apache to make it more attractive to businesses, he might have - it's not a trivial exercise for him to do any more than the FSF could pull Linux under GPL3.

      For someone who's a Marxist w/o - typically for Marxists - admitting as much, this man is too paranoid about anything electronic gathering data about you and feeding it to Big Brother, or whoever, even while he backs leaders like Chavez. Despite his support for something as nebulous as 'software freedom', there is not one company that he has deemed worth supporting - not Netscape, not Red Hat, not Tivo. In fact, one of the reasons for GPL3 was to prevent an issue he calls 'Tivoization' - which company in its right mind will want to deal w/ him when it gets that in return for its support? Don't be surprised if and when he does a GPL4 to get around the problem of 'Androidization'. Even among Linux distros, he blacklists all the distros anyone would have heard of, and instead promotes fringe distros like Blag. In fact, he personifies the reason that most companies dread touching the GPL - and as Red Hat's Bob Young once put it, to paraphrase him, Stallman has this knack of treating his friends as his enemies.

      Your last paragraph is dead on, and no better exhibition of how it is software kryptonite than GCC - in the past, non GNU projects, particularly BSD, were only too happy to use GCC for their projects. Not anymore - w/ all the GNU software becoming GPL3, Apple and BSD have moved to LLVM/Clang, Apple has dropped Samba, and so on. Ironically, the very opposite of what Stallman aims for is achieved by the GPL3 - in an attempt to gain maximum 'software freedom' (whatever that is), GPL3 only assures that whatever software, no matter how excellent or useful, that happens to be infected w/ it, will be treated like SARS. I'd argue that open source software would have been better off without the FSF, GPL and Stallman, with some rare exceptions.

  2. Innovation by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

    The first to write a Unix like operating system?
    The first to write a free Unix like operating system?
    The first to use a penguin as a mascot for an operating system.

    Innovation.

    1. Re:Innovation by moranar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Get bent. Digging deep enough, and being enough of a smartass, nothing is actually innovative. Meanwhile, other people are writing world-class operating systems for the love of the game.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    2. Re:Innovation by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't forget, first to write a distributed version control system. That's at least as important as the Linux kernel.

      No. Here is an obscure reference explaining otherwise.

      git is a fine tool, but not first or even second.

    3. Re:Innovation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And your contribution is?

      Thought so.

    4. Re:Innovation by IANAAC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you were around before Linux had a mascot, you'd remember that there was a lot of criticism for choosing a penguin as the mascot. For a variety of reasons.

    5. Re:Innovation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The first develop an operating system in the open and build a successful development community around that operating system. To encourage everyone - from hobbyist to multinational corporation to participate in its development and benefit from it without looking for personal compensation.

    6. Re:Innovation by unixisc · · Score: 2

      For the first 2, doesn't the credit belong at least partially to Tanenbaum, whose Minix provided the model on which to build this OS? I think that Torvalds' organizational skills are what won him this award - after all, Tanenbaum hasn't been able to make Minix even close to successful to the extent that Torvalds has for Linux.

  3. Congratulations by wirelesslayers · · Score: 2

    Congratulations Mr. Torvalds and Mr. Yamanaka, well done!

  4. Congratulations Linus by spatterson · · Score: 2

    Well deserved.

  5. Re:Um by pyronide · · Score: 2

    ...and may I ask, from what OS is linux cloned from? as far as I new, he wrote it -based- on the minix kernel...

  6. Misnomer? by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Millennium Technology Prize is awarded ever two years

    Wouldn't that make it "The Biennial Technology Prize?"

  7. Re:Give me more stem cell research, any day by pijokela · · Score: 2

    Hello?

    I'm willing to bet the stem cell researcher has used Linux on her research. The myriad things Linux is used for is what makes it so important. The fact that Flash does not work on your computer is just one of the many good things Linux has brought us.