Fuck you apple

[DGuller]

Another difference is that lots of people use Jobs's products.  The only people who use that other guy's products are programmers or very advanced users.

The people who use Jobs' products but not Ritchie's are people who use the iPod without ever downloading a song.

The people who use use Ritchie's products but not Jobs' are people who use the internet on any computers or phones bar Apples'.

The point that I was getting at is that Ritchie's product is far more removed from the end-user.  If you download a song, you're not using C.  You're using some process that can be traced back to C, but that's several layers removed from the end-user application.

[Berkut]

This thread is such a good example of what the actual difference between Jobs and Ritchie actuall is - celebrity.

From an actual impact perspective, it simply is not even close. No rational person could possibly argue that Jobs had a greater impact on peoples lives than Ritchie. Hell, what Ritchie did impacts people who have never even heard of Steve Jobs - literally there is probably nobody on the planet excepting a few aboriginals holding out in some jungle somewhere who are not impacted every single day by products, services, and technology that is based on C and Unix.

Yet you still have people who are willing to argue for Jobs. Not because it makes any sense, but because he is a celebrity to them. It is pure cult of personality. They *want* Steve Jobs to be that important, so they are going to make the argument, no matter how silly it is, it is almost like an article of faith that their hero MUST be that important. Not because he is, but because he is a celebrity.

That is the difference. It is the ultimate triumph of what Jobs stood for, the importance of aesthetic over function.

Note that I am not arguing that Jobs did not do something incredible, of course he did. Nor am I even particularly upset that Ritchie will never get his due - it isn't like he is the first or even best example that those who actually do things often don't get the credit for it they deserve. I think the response to pointing out that Ritchie did vastly more that Jobs (NO WAY NOT POSSIBLE! ZOMG JOBS IS TEH BESTEST EVER HE INVENTED THE PC! YADDAYADDAYADDA) is a lot more interesting than the actual observation (which is rather obviously true to anyone with more than a cursory understanding of technology).

[Barrister]

This thread is such a good example of what the actual difference between Jobs and Ritchie actuall is - celebrity.

From an actual impact perspective, it simply is not even close. No rational person could possibly argue that Jobs had a greater impact on peoples lives than Ritchie. Hell, what Ritchie did impacts people who have never even heard of Steve Jobs - literally there is probably nobody on the planet excepting a few aboriginals holding out in some jungle somewhere who are not impacted every single day by products, services, and technology that is based on C and Unix.

Yet you still have people who are willing to argue for Jobs. Not because it makes any sense, but because he is a celebrity to them. It is pure cult of personality. They *want* Steve Jobs to be that important, so they are going to make the argument, no matter how silly it is, it is almost like an article of faith that their hero MUST be that important. Not because he is, but because he is a celebrity.

That is the difference. It is the ultimate triumph of what Jobs stood for, the importance of aesthetic over function.

Note that I am not arguing that Jobs did not do something incredible, of course he did. Nor am I even particularly upset that Ritchie will never get his due - it isn't like he is the first or even best example that those who actually do things often don't get the credit for it they deserve. I think the response to pointing out that Ritchie did vastly more that Jobs (NO WAY NOT POSSIBLE! ZOMG JOBS IS TEH BESTEST EVER HE INVENTED THE PC! YADDAYADDAYADDA) is a lot more interesting than the actual observation (which is rather obviously true to anyone with more than a cursory understanding of technology).

I dunno, I thought it was an interesting discussion that could go either way.

However if you're so convinced of your position that you immediately write off the other side as "not rational", then I guess there's no point in discussing it.

[Threviel]

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.

[Berkut]

This thread is such a good example of what the actual difference between Jobs and Ritchie actuall is - celebrity.

From an actual impact perspective, it simply is not even close. No rational person could possibly argue that Jobs had a greater impact on peoples lives than Ritchie. Hell, what Ritchie did impacts people who have never even heard of Steve Jobs - literally there is probably nobody on the planet excepting a few aboriginals holding out in some jungle somewhere who are not impacted every single day by products, services, and technology that is based on C and Unix.

Yet you still have people who are willing to argue for Jobs. Not because it makes any sense, but because he is a celebrity to them. It is pure cult of personality. They *want* Steve Jobs to be that important, so they are going to make the argument, no matter how silly it is, it is almost like an article of faith that their hero MUST be that important. Not because he is, but because he is a celebrity.

That is the difference. It is the ultimate triumph of what Jobs stood for, the importance of aesthetic over function.

Note that I am not arguing that Jobs did not do something incredible, of course he did. Nor am I even particularly upset that Ritchie will never get his due - it isn't like he is the first or even best example that those who actually do things often don't get the credit for it they deserve. I think the response to pointing out that Ritchie did vastly more that Jobs (NO WAY NOT POSSIBLE! ZOMG JOBS IS TEH BESTEST EVER HE INVENTED THE PC! YADDAYADDAYADDA) is a lot more interesting than the actual observation (which is rather obviously true to anyone with more than a cursory understanding of technology).

I dunno, I thought it was an interesting discussion that could go either way.

However if you're so convinced of your position that you immediately write off the other side as "not rational", then I guess there's no point in discussing it.

Shrug, I don't think it could go either way at all. You are right - arguing this on its merits would be like arguing with someone that the earth is flat or that dinosaurs were fakes put in the ground by Jesus to confuse us.

The guy invented the language that every single neato toy that Jobs ever sold used. Every single packet you send over the internet runs over a router that uses the OS he invented written in the language he invented, and the packet itself is encoded by a program that runs C or a derivative of C. It is simply not comparable. You cannot even participate in the discussion without using the tools that Ritchie created the foundation for!

Watching the faithful desperately insist that it MUST be comparable is a hell of a lot more interesting than the comparison itself.

[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.

If Jobs hadn't been born there is a lot of things we wouldn't have had.

Right, because all those people who developed clever interfaces could never have done so without Steve Jobs to do it for them.

I can understand the argument of "IF not Ritchie, then someone else...". I cannot understand a rational argument that the very same would not apply to Jobs though. The market is pretty good at advancing good ideas to the front, especially when it comes to retail consumer products.

[Barrister]

[garbon]

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.

Right, because all those people who developed clever interfaces could never have done so without Steve Jobs to do it for them.

I can understand the argument of "IF not Ritchie, then someone else...". I cannot understand a rational argument that the very same would not apply to Jobs though. The market is pretty good at advancing good ideas to the front, especially when it comes to retail consumer products.

Exactly.

[Threviel]

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.

Right, because all those people who developed clever interfaces could never have done so without Steve Jobs to do it for them.

I can understand the argument of "IF not Ritchie, then someone else...". I cannot understand a rational argument that the very same would not apply to Jobs though. The market is pretty good at advancing good ideas to the front, especially when it comes to retail consumer products.

He was the CEO of two extremely successful companys (Apple which he co-founded, Pixar) and founded one moderately successful (Next). Those companys popularized many new things.

Name me ten equally or more successful business leaders that equalled his success in so many different fields.

[Barrister]

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.

Right, because all those people who developed clever interfaces could never have done so without Steve Jobs to do it for them.

I can understand the argument of "IF not Ritchie, then someone else...". I cannot understand a rational argument that the very same would not apply to Jobs though. The market is pretty good at advancing good ideas to the front, especially when it comes to retail consumer products.

He was the CEO of two extremely successful companys (Apple which he co-founded, Pixar) and founded one moderately successful (Next). Those companys popularized many new things.

Name me ten equally or more successful business leaders that equalled his success in so many different fields.

Forget it threviel.  Berkut has spoken, and to think differently is the same as believing the earth is flat.

[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.

Of course, Beeb immediately accepts that this is a perfectly valid argument, because it supports his hero. Another good example of how interesting it is that people will actually argue stuff that makes zero rational sense when it is about their celebrity.

Lets have a new debate:

Steve Jobs vs. Jesus Christ.

Note that Christ did not head any companies, did not invent a single product that people use, and the bible has pretty terrible usability. I think Jobs has this one in a landslide!

[Threviel]

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.

[Barrister]

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

I don't know whetehr to or

[Grey Fox]

Coders vs non-coders argument.

[garbon]

but only Jobs built a phone I loved.

Oh wait you are serious.