
Linus Torvalds Receives 2014 IEEE Computer Pioneer Award - r4um
http://www.computer.org/portal/web/pressroom/Linus-Torvalds-Named-Recipient-of-the-2014-IEEE-Computer-Society-Computer-Pioneer-Award
======
jkldotio
While he'd been working with and thinking about the problem for a long time
the speed at which Linus produced Git always amazes me: "development of Git
began on 3 April 2005...On 16 June, the kernel 2.6.12 release was managed by
Git...Torvalds turned over maintenance on 26 July 2005".[1] Perhaps he should
have some more breaks for side projects.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_\(software\))

~~~
riquito
During his speech at Google "[after reviewing the alternatives] the end
results was I decided I can write something better than anything out there in
two weeks. And I was right"

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8&feature=youtu.be&...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8&feature=youtu.be&t=12m16s)

~~~
jordigh
Writing the basics of a DVCS in two weeks isn't a unique feat. Mercurial was
created in almost exactly the same way, and was faster than git (and still is,
e.g. for blame and clone operations) and actually was conceived with a UI from
the beginning.

I'm pretty sure the only reason git took most of the mind share instead of hg
was (1) github (2) Linus admiration.

~~~
codemac
Well, you're also missing some reasons:

\- git has an 'email' centric workflow

\- The index with git (git add -i) awesome for people doing patch maintenance

\- the rebase workflow is great when you want to maintain against an upstream
that you expect someone _other than you_ to commit your changes to, or you
have a "pre-publish" phase.

It's almost like those reasons follow the linux workflow.. almost perfectly.

~~~
jordigh
Sigh, I wish people would actually know about Mercurial. It was created for
the exact same reason as git, at the same time, and is also intended for
kernel development. In particular,

\- Mercurial also has an email-centric workflow, look at its mailing list:
[http://mercurial.markmail.org/search/?q=#query:+page:1+mid:p...](http://mercurial.markmail.org/search/?q=#query:+page:1+mid:pwzmpl2ii2hgod4v+state:results)

\- The staging area can be achieved in hg in several ways, or it can be
avoided as desired. One easy way is to just pick apart your commit with hg
(c)record --amend and just keep adding to your commit as necessary.

\- Rebasing has also been available in hg forever (and wasn't available in git
from the beginning). We also have some really interesting changes brewing for
rebasing in Mercurial:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OlDm3akbqg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OlDm3akbqg)

These ideas in hg were all for following the Linux workflow too.

Nothing against git, but it's important to not deify Linus as if he were a
unique genius. He has his flaws, and so does the software that he's
responsible for.

~~~
dredmorbius
I've used both.

Mercurial beat git past the starting gates, but git has the advantage of being
used on a very widely used, widely developed, immensely high profile project.
While Hg has its own commendable set of projects, git has simply won the
mindshare battle.

Could be worse: there's arch and bzr and probably some others.

Hell, even GNU/EFF are looking to ditch their own VCS in favor of git from
what I understand.

~~~
jordigh
Yes, that's true git's main advantage is how widespread it is.

GNU Emacs decided to switch from bzr to git, but GNU as a whole doesn't have a
recommended VCS yet. In GNU Octave we will keep using hg. I don't think the
EFF is too public about which VCS they use.

~~~
dredmorbius
I meant to type "GNU/FSF". I thought I caught myself and corrected the "EFF"
bit. I knew I was going to write that. And damnit, I did.

But yes, I meant "FSF", not "EFF".

------
jacquesm
Given the average time it takes for people to receive these Linus is getting
it very early. Super nice to see his contribution recognized like this. It
will be very interesting to see in a hundred years from now or so what will be
the longest living contribution he's made, Linux or git.

Looking through this list he is in very august company indeed.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Pioneer_Award](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Pioneer_Award)

~~~
hevsuit
Indeed, DMR and John Mc Carthy are on the list too!

------
return0
I sometimes wonder, as a though experiment how many $$B he would be worth
based on the value he has co-created.

~~~
dredmorbius
That raises some interesting questions.

First off, if Linux had a per-unit or similar usage charge, its adoption rate
would all but certainly have been vastly lower. Factual basis: the many extant
proprietary x86 Unix clones at the time Linux emerged.

There's the question of how to value "use value", and what the value of an OS
actually is. Impressions are (IMO deceptively) skewed upward by the example of
Microsoft, but it's the rare instance of a software-only mass-market OS
platform -- actually, rare to the point of single-instance.

There's the question of what an ordinary or acceptable rate of return ought
be.

And there's the question of how much of the returns should be shared with
others.

Still, Linux as an enterprise might be compared with, say, IBM or Sun at their
peak, possibly HP's server operations. There's the present valuations of Red
Hat, Google, and Facebook, among other Internet companies based largely on
Linux's capabilities.

Certainly multiples of billions in a traditional sense -- I'd argue for $5 -
$20b.

~~~
IvyMike
In an alternate universe where Linus Torvalds did not exist, I think one of
the other free Unix clones would have gained more traction and filled that
niche in the ecosystem. It would be interesting to peek into the universe
where FreeBSD really struck it big. (And I'd also like to see the universe
where Gnu HURD took over, although that seems a lot less likely.)

~~~
atmosx
Linus at an interview said that "If I didn't create Linux in 1992, by 1993
someone else would have done it. Linux was created because the time was right,
the GNU ecosystem was there. The kernel was the missing part".

Of course this is kind of speculation on one hand, but there was the Hurd
project which might have taken off, or someone else could really have created
something similar a year later, if it did not exist.

BSD had it's licensing issues, which today seems more liberating - most
programmers seem to embrace it - but in 1992 was seen a _free ride_ license
which is something most Linux developers did not like. That's why Linux grew
so much,. Saying that FreeBSD would _taken that niche_ seems a little bit off
IMHO.

~~~
dredmorbius
Hurd now as then simply lacks the technical and performance chops to cut it.
Conceptually it's interesting, but this is a place where RMS's instincts lead
him down the very wrong path.

------
amaks
Her is great video from Google tech Talk starring Linus Torvalds (about Git):
[http://youtu.be/4XpnKHJAok8](http://youtu.be/4XpnKHJAok8). Note - Linus uses
some strong language.

~~~
JetSpiegel
> Note - Linus uses some strong language.

That's a bit redundant.

~~~
oneandoneis2
"Linus says things" would have been enough :)

~~~
zhaphod
How liberating it must feel to him to not give a damn about what anyone thinks
about what he says. Good for him.

------
caio1982
Well deserved, it would be really hard for anyone to debate his merit.

------
michaelchum
I'm surprised this IEEE article didn't even mention Git

~~~
elwin
The award is given for contributions made at least 15 years in the past. Git
wouldn't have been a factor in their decision.

------
motters
I'm not sure that it's a great idea to keep giving Linus prizes. He probably
already has quite a collection of them. Instead I think some of the other
kernel maintainers should get prizes.

~~~
yitchelle
As great as Linus is to the development of Linux. The prize is for his
contribution to the computer science at large, not for Linux.

However, you are right in that the main contributors to the Linux kernel
should get a mention in the blurb.

------
Nux
Well deserved, Linus is a revolutionary (along with the people that backed him
up).

Linux and git have radically changed the face of technology.

------
morbius
Oh boy, RMS is sure gonna be pissed about this...

~~~
woopdy
Hmm, maybe not. He received the "Electronic Frontier Foundation Pioneer Award
(1998)".

~~~
anaphor
Pretty sure RMS would dislike the description:

"Linus Torvalds, the principal force behind development of the Linux kernel
and overseer of open source development for the _Linux operating system_ "

~~~
laichzeit0
Everyone I tried explaining to that it's GNU/Linux has rolled their eyes at me
like I'm some kind of pedantic madman. Then I gave up doing it and went back
just calling it Linux.

Potato, tomato. No one cares outside of the RMS cult.

~~~
pessimizer
I call it Linux too, but the distinction becomes important when talking about
Android.

~~~
throwaway7767
Indeed. Ten years ago everyone made fun of Stallman for his insistence on
calling it GNU/Linux (I was guilty of this as well). These days, with android
so popular, it's very topical - I want GNU/Linux on my devices, not just
linux.

