Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Bill Bogstad <bogstad at pobox.com> wrote: > I'm not sure why that sentiment wouldn't apply equally to Steve Jobs > 'vision' and his contributions to computing. ? Or anyone else for that > matter. ? Kind of makes this whole thread a waste of time. Because of what Tom Metro said. Jobs radically changed the direction of interfaces. Fire, the wheel, and simple machines would have been discovered sooner or later. Unix... well, maybe? That's a tougher discussion, but it seems to be the essence of what we're asking. It seems pretty safe to say that Jobs' contributions (as "fluffy" as they were) might not have been duplicated by someone else - at least not for several years. Could the same be said for Ritchie? For Jobs, it's clear that the form of his advances were important. (They were basically all form, and little substance. This is not necessarily a criticism.) For Ritchie, it's not as clear. If you think that what Ritchie did (Unix, C, etc.) was groundbreaking and could not easily have been duplicated by someone else if he hadn't ever lived, then it's probably fair to say that Ritchie's contributions were greater. If you think that what Ritchie did was marginal, or that it could easily have been duplicated by someone else, then you'd probably have to go with Jobs. -Dan
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |