
Linux creator Linus Torvalds shares Millennium Technology Prize - anons2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18423502
======
ChuckMcM
That's pretty cool. Remembering back to the old Minix/Linux flame fest I would
not have ever predicted it would end up this way.

I'm struck by the fact that these sorts of things are often given to people
who have persisted, year after year, in pursuit of singular excellence in a
particular topic. I highly respect folks who have that level of grit.

------
kvnn
I have always been curious whether Linus has made good money for his
contributions. This both made me happy that he was given some money and
prompted me to find out whether he has made money otherwise.

It looks like he has [1], and thats awesome.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds#Later_years>

------
soupboy
"It is estimated that a total of 73,000 man-years have been spent working on
the code."

That is such a mind-boggling number that I can scarcely believe it.

~~~
yafujifide
I guess I'll stop writing my own kernel. There are other things I want to do
in the next 73,000 years.

~~~
xdialog
The purpose of you writing a kernel is to share a Millennium Technology Prize?

------
cristianocd
I really can't put in words how much I admire Linus!

If you know Linux's history, met the community or if you've tried Linux...
it's hard not to fall in love with it.

~~~
dr42
Isn't this really more the windowing environments and the driver support? Gone
are the days when it was difficult to get a working UNIX installation, thanks
to Linux, but as far as the kernel is concerned, I was happy with Solaris,
NetBSD, HP-UX. Some might argue SE was a welcome addition, but for me it's the
first thing I disable.

I know there have been a large number of features added to the kernel over the
years, and support for new hardware, but those developments have also happened
with the other flavors of UNIX.

I guess my point is, did the world really need another flavor of UNIX?

I think I personally have been more impacted by LT for having authored git.
Even though I write this on Chrome running on Ubuntu. I'd have been just as
happy to have installed any other Unix flavor.

~~~
babarock
I think Linux played an important role in providing a free and Open Source
Unix at a time where the BSDs were fighting demons both internal (segregation
of their community) and external (with all their lawsuits). Linux was the
turning point between Unix being a very expensive commercial product, and a
hobbyist tool for the wannabe hacker.

It also, and this may be a personal impression more than an absolute truth,
was the Unix to play the most insistent role on the desktop. I, like many, got
introduced to Unix through Linux (Ubuntu to be exact - the year was 2006).
Sure I fell in love with Unix and quickly moved on to other distros/unices,
but at the end of the day, I still believe that I, and a lot of people my age,
only discovered Unix because somebody somewhere fought for the desktop,
something neither Solaris nor HP-UX deemed "profitable" enough.

~~~
dr42
I was using Unix long before Linux came along, and you're right it was the
fork that pushed the most for the desktop. Even though today I am using it as
my desktop that's really only because I write server software. I think the
main thrust for Unix on the desktop was in fact OS/X, but among us geeks it
has been Ubuntu. But that was really my point, it was the distros like RH and
Ubuntu that put together something installable with a mostly workable window
manager that most people associate with Linux, not the kernel.

While I am very much not taking anything away from the work that Linus has
accomplished, my point was that much of the credit for today's Linux
installations comes _more_ from RedHat than anything Linux did in the kernel.

There indeed was the BSD wars, but most of the old timers that started their
career with a flavor of Unix (for me, it was HP-UX on an HP9000), since then
they have all been much of a muchness, varying only in their applicability to
a given problem (including suitability to the desktop.)

I am reasonably sure that the number of Linux desktops is very small, nearly
every practical use for Linux is running servers. I would wager that OSX
dwarfs Linux in terms of unix-on-the-desktop comparisons.

Since history provides no A/B testing capabilities, it's very difficult to
isolate the impact Linux has had. Would we today be all using some form of
BSD, or maybe Solaris/Intel with ZFS. Who knows, but I am thankful to Linus
for a number of things including his efforts to promote OSS.

~~~
entropy_
While it is true that OSX very probably accounts for more unix-on-the-desktop
than linux, they are two very different desktop audiences.

While OSX is indeed a unix, it hides this so well that unless you know what
you're looking for you would never use any of the things that most people mean
when they refer to unix.

I write this on a iMac I use for developing iOS applications, but honestly, if
I hadn't been using linux since 2006(Ubuntu, gentoo then arch for the past 2
years) I would never have learned the use of the command line(and tools such
as find, sed, grep, etc...) just from using the mac.

For me, the switch to linux was mainly because I wanted an alternative to
Windows(when I first heard about Vista) and I could definitely not afford a
mac(I was a student at the time). I suspect that many a tinkerer/hacker has
gone down this path. In fact, most linux users have met have had similar
stories, while mac users have mostly been professionals and/or design/hipster-
type people. I have not met a single programmer whose main unix learning
experience has come from OSX while I've met tons that have learned from
linux(and a few from other unices) even if they eventually ended up using OSX
in their daily work.

As I said, this is all anecdotal, but I wouldn't be surprised if these trends
were more general.

~~~
cristianocd
You're probably right. I'm a developer and I fit this group.

I've always been amused because it is a "free OS" that's really evolving.
Since the my first tries with Red Hat, Mandrake, Connectiva... I never
stopped. Used Debian for some time and 4 years ago I really got into Ubuntu,
switching all my machines to take full advantage of the client x server
environment it provides.

Now I've just switched back to it after a year of OSX on a macbook air. Lion
is a great OS, but I just like Ubuntu approach and to be involved with Linux,
I can't help it.

------
eigenvector
I don't mean to take away from Linus' achievement, nor to sound like RMS, but
every time people refer to "the Linux operating system" it's misappropriating
credit. They usually mean GNU/Linux and the kernel is only one piece of that.

EDIT: Disregard this comment, the article has been edited removing references
to Linux as an operating system.

~~~
babarock
You seem to imply that GNU userland tools are:

1\. an inherent part of the Operating System.

2\. the only way Linux can be used.

The first point is debatable. In academic circles (where Linus has spent a big
part of his career), operating systems usually designate the kernel. In
commercial products, the kernel by itself is not very useful, so you'd add a
few userland utilities to your definition.

The second point is simply wrong. Busybox is a very widely used alternative to
GNU, and Android, arguably the most successful mass consumption Linux system
to date, has zero GNU tool.

As much as I appreciate GNU, the FSF and rms, this constant demand for credit
is, too often, misplaced and above all, a bunch of misguided rhetoric.

Can't we simply be happy for an engineer who fully deserves the recognition
he's getting?

~~~
eigenvector
I gave GNU as an example of one userland that is commonly conflated with
Linux. As you note, there are others. The main point is - Linux is not an
operating system and it is misleading and incorrect to refer to it as such.

RMS's shrill remarks about how Linus is "stealing" credit from the FSF are
misguided. I try to maintain the distinction between kernel and OS primarily
out of a desire to be accurate about how I describe an operating system.
Android and Ubuntu are clearly different and describing both as "Linux" is not
particularly helpful to anyone.

~~~
kamechan
> "Android and Ubuntu are clearly different and describing both as "Linux" is
> not particularly helpful to anyone."

except they both run on the Linux kernel, so it is, nevertheless, accurate.

personally, i think it is helpful. there seems to be an ongoing criticism of
Linux that it hasn't made much progress as the basis for a desktop operating
system. while that may be true, talking about Linux in relation to android
helps raise awareness that there's another kernel out there not put out by
apple or microsoft that's responsible for running a large percentage of mobile
devices on the market.

as apple frequently states, we're now living in the "post pc era". who's to
say that the desktop and mobile spaces won't continue to merge, at which point
your "not particularly helpful to anyone" use of the word Linux to describe
both will become more relevant.

indeed, ubuntu is already trying to push things in this direction.
<http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/android>

------
Ras_
I wonder how the internet would've turned up without Linu(s/x).

