Fuck you apple

[garbon]

Coders vs non-coders argument.

I think someone just leveraged the iPhone as standalone proof of Jobs being more influential.

[Grey Fox]

Coders vs non-coders argument.

I think someone just leveraged the iPhone as standalone proof of Jobs being more influential.

I am without words. Steve Jobs for God-Emperor then.

[Neil]

My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.

If Jobs hadn't been born there is a lot of things we wouldn't have had. Not because he invented a lot of things, but for what he popularized.

Are you fucking kidding me?  Do you honestly think that no one other than Steve Jobs could have popularized the mp3 player and the touch-screen phone?  Shit, he wasn't even the first person to come up with the concept of marketing to hipster douchebags.

[Berkut]

To think that Jobs had a greater impact on the world than the guy who invented C and Unix is simply preposterous.

I don't care how many successful companies he founded. Founding a successful company does not in and of itself imply a significant impact on people lives. It just means you founded a successful company.

And why would I need to name TEN equally or more successful businesspeople to argue that Ritchie, who founded no companies, has a greater impact than Jobs? That doesn't even make any sense, even if we were having that argument. Hell, if I could name ten, then that would be that at best Jobs is tenth, and yet they would still all be behind Ritchie in impact! The measure is not "how successful was this person at founding companies that made lots of money and popularized new things", and if it was, I could easily name ten anyway. Bill Gates would crush Jobs by that measure, for example.

Steve Jobs was one of the best, if not the best, business leader of his generation. Ritchie was a very good scientist, one of the top one hundred in his generation perhaps. Hundreds if not thousands of scientists have influenced my life as much as Ritchie, but only Jobs built a phone I loved.

The debate is not who built the better phone though, it is who had a greater impact on people lives.

You simply do not notice the impact that Ritchie has on your life, yet it is there. Simply noting that the phone you love was made possible in multiple different ways by Ritchie ends the debate. It uses an OS that runs in whole or in part on C or its derivatives. The technology that lets you make a phone call runs on servers that are almost certainly unix. The apps you love all run across an internet made possible by software that is written in the language he invented, and on hardware whoes operating system he created.

You cannot send a single byte of data across the internet with that lovable phone without it going across or using technology at multiple levels that was enabled by the work that Ritchie did.

The fact that you don't know about Ritchie is fine - most people do not. He was not a celebrity, like Jobs. But it is hilarious to me that people, even once it is explained to them who Ritchie is and what he did, will STILL argue that their cult hero had a greater impact. He freaking invented C!

Which is why this is actually interesting - the power of the cult of personality to trump even the obvious is truly impressive.

[Berkut]

Coders vs non-coders argument.

To some extent that is true, but it is better said as "experts vs consumers" when it comes to the impact of technology.

Like I said, you cannot fault the Beebs of the world for not knowing who Ritchie was, hell he probably didn't even WANT them to know who he was. But it is funny that even when it is explained in laymans terms, they still insist that their cult hero was more important.

[Berkut]

Well berkut is certainly on the top of his game today.

I don't know whetehr to or

Try thinking a little bit instead, then you will agree with me that while Jobs was an impressive visionary and businessman, comparing his impact to the guy who invented the language and OS that every single person on the planet uses to do any kind of computing work anywhere (or very nearly so) is holding Jobs to a standard no mere businessman can ever meet.

[frunk]

My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.

Something similar to C would have likely developed, and something UNIX like might have been explored.  The difference was the combination of the two and the strong effort to make it multi-platform.  Before this a new computer architecture meant a new OS and frequently a new language with new syntax on top of that.  It was the Apple model, the computer company wanted to control the hardware and what could be run on the hardware.  C and UNIX broke it out of that model, creating a consistency and portability in software development that wasn't possible before this.  It indirectly allowed the rapid growth of the internet, since it was easy to get different types of computers to talk to one another using C and/or UNIX.  If there had proliferated a variety of different coding schemes it would have slowed its growth considerably.

[Berkut]

My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.

Something similar to C would have likely developed, and something UNIX like might have been explored.  The difference was the combination of the two and the strong effort to make it multi-platform.  Before this a new computer architecture meant a new OS and frequently a new language with new syntax on top of that.  It was the Apple model, the computer company wanted to control the hardware and what could be run on the hardware.  C and UNIX broke it out of that model, creating a consistency and portability in software development that wasn't possible before this.  It indirectly allowed the rapid growth of the internet, since it was easy to get different types of computers to talk to one another using C and/or UNIX.  If there had proliferated a variety of different coding schemes it would have slowed its growth considerably.

Yeah, but what about:

[Berkut]

My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.

Something similar to C would have likely developed, and something UNIX like might have been explored.  The difference was the combination of the two and the strong effort to make it multi-platform.  Before this a new computer architecture meant a new OS and frequently a new language with new syntax on top of that.  It was the Apple model, the computer company wanted to control the hardware and what could be run on the hardware.  C and UNIX broke it out of that model, creating a consistency and portability in software development that wasn't possible before this.  It indirectly allowed the rapid growth of the internet, since it was easy to get different types of computers to talk to one another using C and/or UNIX.  If there had proliferated a variety of different coding schemes it would have slowed its growth considerably.

This is actually what I mean - you cannot expect someone not involved in the production of technology to understand this stuff before it is explained, so no surprise that Ritchie is not know, and people don't "get" why he was important.

But the fact that people will actually continue to argue that Jobs neato doo-dads make him more influential even after it is explained is a MUCH more interesting phenomenon. It really is akin to watching religious people actually try to argue that the earth is 6000 years old after someone explains carbon dating to them.

Sure, they can throw their hands up and say "Why, you big meanie, you are such a jerk for dismissing the possibility that maybe it really is only 6000 years old!".

The power of faith is truly an amazing force.

[PDH]

Steve Jobs, Hero
a play in 1 part

[hero]
I love Steve Jobs!
He built all my wonderful toys!
He sacrificed himself for me!
I love Steve Jobs!

[greek chorus]
Steve Jobs, sent by the gods
Steve Jobs, savior of technology
Steve Jobs, ran 2 companies
Steve Jobs, best guy ever!

[hero]
I must confess, he built my phone
I love this little thing.
I must confess, he bought pixar
From George Lucas and though it was already really technologically innovative he made it super special and really the brainchild of this zen-like master and not Lasseter who pushed for animation and not high end computers!
Wow, oh wow, my life would be
Without technology
If not, If not for...

STEVE JOBS!

[greek chorus]
Steve Jobs, sent by the gods
Steve Jobs, savior of technology
Steve Jobs, ran 2 companies
Steve Jobs, best guy ever!

[dps]

I think a good contrast and compare with Jobs would be Henry Ford.  The home computer industry before Jobs sold his first computer was about the same as the auto industry before Ford sold his first car.  What set Ford apart from people who built automobiles before him was that while they viewed autos as luxuries for the rich, he envisioned making them at a cost that the common man could afford.  I don't think that applies to Jobs--other people making personal computers at the time he started Apple already hoped to make home computers a mass-market item.  The difference between them and Jobs was that Jobs had the marketing acumen to pull it off.  If not for Ford, I think we wouldn't have an America where most have at least 1 car;   if not for Jobs, I think we'd still have an American where most homes have at least 1 computer, it just wouldn't have happened quite as fast (and only by a few years).

[Grey Fox]

My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.

Something similar to C would have likely developed, and something UNIX like might have been explored.  The difference was the combination of the two and the strong effort to make it multi-platform.  Before this a new computer architecture meant a new OS and frequently a new language with new syntax on top of that.  It was the Apple model, the computer company wanted to control the hardware and what could be run on the hardware.  C and UNIX broke it out of that model, creating a consistency and portability in software development that wasn't possible before this.  It indirectly allowed the rapid growth of the internet, since it was easy to get different types of computers to talk to one another using C and/or UNIX.  If there had proliferated a variety of different coding schemes it would have slowed its growth considerably.

This is actually what I mean - you cannot expect someone not involved in the production of technology to understand this stuff before it is explained, so no surprise that Ritchie is not know, and people don't "get" why he was important.

But the fact that people will actually continue to argue that Jobs neato doo-dads make him more influential even after it is explained is a MUCH more interesting phenomenon. It really is akin to watching religious people actually try to argue that the earth is 6000 years old after someone explains carbon dating to them.

Sure, they can throw their hands up and say "Why, you big meanie, you are such a jerk for dismissing the possibility that maybe it really is only 6000 years old!".

The power of faith is truly an amazing force.

I run into that all the time my girlfriend's family. I've given up. Altho I'm thinking of editing the Bible since they believe anything written into it.

[dps]

My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.

Something similar to C would have likely developed, and something UNIX like might have been explored.  The difference was the combination of the two and the strong effort to make it multi-platform.  Before this a new computer architecture meant a new OS and frequently a new language with new syntax on top of that.  It was the Apple model, the computer company wanted to control the hardware and what could be run on the hardware.  C and UNIX broke it out of that model, creating a consistency and portability in software development that wasn't possible before this.  It indirectly allowed the rapid growth of the internet, since it was easy to get different types of computers to talk to one another using C and/or UNIX.  If there had proliferated a variety of different coding schemes it would have slowed its growth considerably.

This is actually what I mean - you cannot expect someone not involved in the production of technology to understand this stuff before it is explained, so no surprise that Ritchie is not know, and people don't "get" why he was important.

But the fact that people will actually continue to argue that Jobs neato doo-dads make him more influential even after it is explained is a MUCH more interesting phenomenon. It really is akin to watching religious people actually try to argue that the earth is 6000 years old after someone explains carbon dating to them.

Sure, they can throw their hands up and say "Why, you big meanie, you are such a jerk for dismissing the possibility that maybe it really is only 6000 years old!".

The power of faith is truly an amazing force.

The people who think that Jobs is so great are akin to the student at Penn State who are rioting because JoePa got fired.  It's all about the cult of personality you mentioned earlier.  Sure, you can argue that Paterno didn't screw up to an extent that he deserved to be fired, but you can't rationally argue that he didn't screw up, or that firing him is some massive miscarriage of justice that makes rioting a reasonable response.

[Neil]

I think a good contrast and compare with Jobs would be Henry Ford.  The home computer industry before Jobs sold his first computer was about the same as the auto industry before Ford sold his first car.  What set Ford apart from people who built automobiles before him was that while they viewed autos as luxuries for the rich, he envisioned making them at a cost that the common man could afford.  I don't think that applies to Jobs--other people making personal computers at the time he started Apple already hoped to make home computers a mass-market item.  The difference between them and Jobs was that Jobs had the marketing acumen to pull it off.  If not for Ford, I think we wouldn't have an America where most have at least 1 car;   if not for Jobs, I think we'd still have an American where most homes have at least 1 computer, it just wouldn't have happened quite as fast (and only by a few years).

I don't think that Jobs is can take any credit for the computer as a mass market item.  It was the PC that lead the charge.

[Threviel]

For the record I am a bachelor in electrical engineering and use C daily, so my argument above might be a bit flawed when it comes to Ritchies impact on my own life.

What my argument boils down to is that Jobs, like Ford, made an existing technology accessible for many people. He was a visible person and via his leadership some amazing products that affect many peoples daily lives were created. In that way he was quite unique for his generation.

Ritchie was an engineer. An amazing engineer and scientist, but his actions only indirectly affected peoples lives, he was not a very visible person for regular people. In that he was like many other scientists, not very unique. Deserving of remembrance and respect for sure, but his visible impact for regular people is not near Jobs.