Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution
Ritchie. Jobs made things pretty, which helped people enjoy using them (and he was fantastic at it). But the actual "work" at Apple was done by other people. This leads to the question of whether vision and direction (which Jobs provided in spades) should be counted as less important than technical acumen. I'm not going to answer this question - rather I'm going to point out that Ritchie, in addition to providing actual engineering savvy, also provided vision and direction (in spades) to the software and computing world. Whether you count Ritchie's technical + vision sum as greater or less than Jobs' marketing + vision + belligerently stealing other people's ideas and pretending they were his. (You can guess where I stand.) -Dan On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:39 PM, wrote: > Had a little debate, at work, about the importance of the work two men. > Steve Jobs and Dennis Ritchie. > > Who contributed more to the world and who created more wealth? We all know > who had more money, but who was more important? ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution
Let's not forget that Ritchie created the very platform/foundation that apple heavily relied on. --- On Sat, 10/15/11, Daniel C. wrote: > From: Daniel C. > Subject: Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution > To: ma...@mohawksoft.com > Cc: discuss@blu.org > Date: Saturday, October 15, 2011, 12:13 AM > Ritchie. Jobs made things > pretty, which helped people enjoy using > them (and he was fantastic at it). But the actual > "work" at Apple was > done by other people. This leads to the question of > whether vision > and direction (which Jobs provided in spades) should be > counted as > less important than technical acumen. I'm not going > to answer this > question - rather I'm going to point out that Ritchie, in > addition to > providing actual engineering savvy, also provided vision > and direction > (in spades) to the software and computing world. > Whether you count > Ritchie's technical + vision sum as greater or less than > Jobs' > marketing + vision + belligerently stealing other people's > ideas and > pretending they were his. (You can guess where I > stand.) > > -Dan > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:39 PM, > wrote: > > Had a little debate, at work, about the importance of > the work two men. > > Steve Jobs and Dennis Ritchie. > > > > Who contributed more to the world and who created more > wealth? We all know > > who had more money, but who was more important? > ___ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@blu.org > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution
On 10/15/2011 07:37 AM, b p wrote: Let's not forget that Ritchie created the very platform/foundation that apple heavily relied on. And what was that. The original Apple platforms, Apple II, Lisa, and Mac were not Unix based. Additionally, AFAIK, the Lisa used Pascal. I'm not sure when Apple started to use C. -- Jerry Feldman Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id:3BC1EB90 PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66 C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution
On 10/14/2011 11:39 PM, ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote: Had a little debate, at work, about the importance of the work two men. Steve Jobs and Dennis Ritchie. Who contributed more to the world and who created more wealth? We all know who had more money, but who was more important? Both men were giants in their field. Ritchie, in creating Unix and co-creating C can probably be compared to Tesla as Ritchie's inventions are used in almost every computer. In contrast, Jobs was more like Edison. While Apple was essentially the first company to popularize the GUI interface, it was developed by Xerox. Another question is who pissed off Richard Stallman more, Ritchie or Jobs. -- Jerry Feldman Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id:3BC1EB90 PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66 C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution
ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote: > Had a little debate, at work, about the importance of the work two men. > Steve Jobs and Dennis Ritchie. > Who contributed more to the world... Looking at it from the perspective of general consumers (not developers, which is a much smaller audience), this is an infrastructure vs. facade type of comparison. Infrastructure alone doesn't add value. You need a finished product made suitable for end-users to be useful. But you can't build a facade without the backing infrastructure, so in that regards Ritchie's contributions are more significant and pervasive. You may think Apple products are wide spread, but just about anything with a CPU in it is likely to be running software that has been influenced by C or UNIX. What's less clear is if Ritchie had not developed the infrastructure he did, would it have soon become the obvious approach to a practitioner in the field, or was it really a radical departure from what proceeded, and without Ritchie these technologies would have been delayed by 5 or 10 years and/or not as good. It's a little bit easier to see how others aimed for the same targets as Job's and repeatedly failed, so you can argue that cell phones and tablets would likely not be at their current state for another 2 to 5 years without his vision (comparatively the easy part) and execution of his business strategy (the hard part). -Tom -- Tom Metro Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA "Enterprise solutions through open source." Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 7:37 AM, b p wrote: > Let's not forget that Ritchie created the very platform/foundation that apple > heavily relied on. I thought about that too, but decided not to mention it. Human civilization is built on a few very simple discoveries and inventions (fire, the wheel, simple machines) but that doesn't mean that the people who invented them are necessarily greater, or have contributed more, to the progress of mankind than someone else. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Daniel C. wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 7:37 AM, b p wrote: >> Let's not forget that Ritchie created the very platform/foundation that >> apple heavily relied on. > > > I thought about that too, but decided not to mention it. Human > civilization is built on a few very simple discoveries and inventions > (fire, the wheel, simple machines) but that doesn't mean that the > people who invented them are necessarily greater, or have contributed > more, to the progress of mankind than someone else. 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. Bill Bogstad ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Bill Bogstad 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 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Bill Bogstad 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. [snip] > 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. As big a fan of Ritchie that I am, I would not say he stood alone, as it were, remember, "UNIX" was a play on the name Multics, and Multics was the origin of many of the concepts we now attribute to UNIX. Furthermore, the unix that Ritchie wrote, so long ago, bares little resemblance to the unicies that we have today. The concept of having stood on the shoulders of giants, also applies to the giants themselves. For me, it is more two questions: (1) Which is more valuable "form" or "function?" and (2) Who is most responsible? In question (1) I consider Jobs' contribution as packaging and marketing of ideas and functionality already in existence. Ritchie's contribution was similarly dubious, but "functional" who knew that Unics whould be anything? and that the C language would have lasted. The second question is really interesting. How much of "Jobs'" accomplishments were his own? I argue none. I submit that all his accomplishments were purely the work of a collaborative process. Yes, he chose the final versions, but he never made any of it. He never drew something out and said "Make this." Very creative people created designs, and as Jobs was presented designs, he took their creativity and made it his own. He learned more from the designers than the designers learned from him. Ritchie on the other hand, did all the things he did, first hand. So, my money is on Ritchie. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution
On Oct 16, 2011, at 8:05 AM, ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote: > > For me, it is more two questions: (1) Which is more valuable "form" or > "function?" and (2) Who is most responsible? I'm with Bill. The comparison is as much a waste of time as pondering whether Karl Benz or Henry Ford was more important to the automotive industry. --Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution
> On Oct 16, 2011, at 8:05 AM, ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote: >> >> For me, it is more two questions: (1) Which is more valuable "form" or >> "function?" and (2) Who is most responsible? > > I'm with Bill. The comparison is as much a waste of time as pondering > whether Karl Benz or Henry Ford was more important to the automotive > industry. > > --Rich P. If I may wax philosophical, the whole thing is a waste of time, computers, jobs, things, life, etc. We're born, we live a brief period of time, we die. We're forgotten. What's the point? Well, some native american traditions (one of which is the basis for the upcoming holiday) is the remembrances of people who have past, and they live on as long as we are able to remember them. Can it ever be said that it is a waste of time to contemplate the nature of the world in which we live? Comparing and contrasting Jobs and Ritchie, is interesting for understanding where we are and why. Its not a matter of who, but a matter of thinking about it, i.e. its the journey not the destination. For what its worth, I'd choose Tesla over Edison, and I'd choose Benz over Ford. However, Ford did create charcoal, that's gotta be worth something. Maybe this is OT? ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution
On Oct 16, 2011, at 9:15 AM, ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote: > > Can it ever be said that it is a waste of time to contemplate the nature > of the world in which we live? Comparing and contrasting Jobs and Ritchie, > is interesting for understanding where we are and why. Its not a matter of > who, but a matter of thinking about it, i.e. its the journey not the > destination. Then I suggest making a fair comparison. To wit, your dismissal of The Steve's perceived lack of creativity because of his genuine lack of technical expertise is unfair. Also, it seems that you've forgotten Henry Ford's most important contribution to the world. It wasn't the Model T Ford. It was the assembly line factory that made the Model T Ford. This is why I say that making such comparisons is a waste of time. You miss the big things because they're taken for granted, or you miss the subtle things because they're beneath notice. --Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution
> On Oct 16, 2011, at 9:15 AM, ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote: >> >> Can it ever be said that it is a waste of time to contemplate the nature >> of the world in which we live? Comparing and contrasting Jobs and >> Ritchie, >> is interesting for understanding where we are and why. Its not a matter >> of >> who, but a matter of thinking about it, i.e. its the journey not the >> destination. > > Then I suggest making a fair comparison. To wit, your dismissal of The > Steve's perceived lack of creativity because of his genuine lack of > technical expertise is unfair. I'm not sure I agree. Many people can dream and be creative, opportunity to bring it to fruition is more elusive. It is a mixture of character and circumstance. It is not certain that either Jobs or Ritchie, outside of the circumstances of their life, would have been so accomplished. If Einstein or Hawking were born in Borneo, would they, in fact, be the giants we remember them as being? > > Also, it seems that you've forgotten Henry Ford's most important > contribution to the world. It wasn't the Model T Ford. It was the > assembly line factory that made the Model T Ford. This is why I say that > making such comparisons is a waste of time. You miss the big things > because they're taken for granted, or you miss the subtle things because > they're beneath notice. Well, Ford's "progressive assembly" process was something that was a burgeoning practice at the time, so I can't really credit him with that. The main thing Ford is credited with is "standardized parts," and there's plenty of historical evidence that this was not as novel as our American historical narrative would dictate. > > --Rich P. > > ___ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@blu.org > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution
On Oct 16, 2011, at 10:57 AM, ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote: > > I'm not sure I agree. Many people can dream and be creative, opportunity > to bring it to fruition is more elusive. It is a mixture of character and > circumstance. It is not certain that either Jobs or Ritchie, outside of > the circumstances of their life, would have been so accomplished. You're weaseling. The facts are that both had ideas and both found ways to bring them to fruition. The end. --Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution
> On Oct 16, 2011, at 10:57 AM, ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote: >> >> I'm not sure I agree. Many people can dream and be creative, opportunity >> to bring it to fruition is more elusive. It is a mixture of character >> and >> circumstance. It is not certain that either Jobs or Ritchie, outside of >> the circumstances of their life, would have been so accomplished. > > You're weaseling. The facts are that both had ideas and both found ways > to bring them to fruition. The end. I was not, "weaseling," I was addressing the general case as was argued in the emil prior to my response, i.e. giants who stand on the shoulders of giants, and thus none of the giants are actually giants. Obviously giants standing on the shoulders of giants can see further than the same number of dwarfs standing on the shoulders of other dwarfs. Yes, both had "ideas" some their own, and some the modification of the ideas of others (giants). The question is, and has always been, despite the digression, who contributed more to the industry as a whole. The guy who, in very general and simplistic terms, created the environment or a salesman who contributed to making it pretty? > > --Rich P. > > ___ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@blu.org > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution
ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote: > How much of "Jobs'" accomplishments were his own? I argue none. > > I submit that all his accomplishments were purely the work of a > collaborative process. Yes, he chose the final versions, but he never > made any of it. He never drew something out and said "Make this." > Very creative people created designs, and as Jobs was presented > designs, he took their creativity and made it his own. He learned > more from the designers than the designers learned from him. Ritchie > on the other hand, did all the things he did, first hand. Richard Pieri wrote: > Then I suggest making a fair comparison. To wit, your dismissal of > The Steve's perceived lack of creativity because of his genuine lack > of technical expertise is unfair. I agree with Richard here. Mark seems to be judging Jobs' accomplishments from the perspective of engineering, but he wasn't an engineer. As technical people we may respect the non-technical fields less, but they are still an essential part of any successful product. I think you'd be hard pressed to name anyone from the last 50 years who made substantial contributions to their industry in the absence of a collaborative process. Having a great gadget that either 1. no one knows about, 2. never gets funded and built, or 3. has such bad usability that few want to use it, is not a great accomplishment, even if you did conceive of it and build a prototype all by yourself. ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote: > It is a mixture of character and circumstance. It is not certain that > either Jobs or Ritchie, outside of the circumstances of their life, > would have been so accomplished. I'm sure not many fans of Bill Gates here, but in interviews he was always quick to credit his circumstances for much of his success (and thus why he now funds educational programs). > The question is, and has always been, despite the digression, who > contributed more to the industry as a whole. The guy who, in very > general and simplistic terms, created the environment or a salesman > who contributed to making it pretty? Unless you come up with some objective criteria to quantify the contributions, this will largely come down to your biases for engineering or business. About 11 minutes into episode 322 of This Week In Tech[1] they touch on this topic, and conclude it is the popularizer of the technology that gets the credit in the history books, not the inventor. 1. http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-tech/322 -Tom -- Tom Metro Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA "Enterprise solutions through open source." Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Econonomic contribution
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Richard Pieri wrote: > You're weaseling. The facts are that both had ideas and both found ways to > bring them to fruition. The end. That's hardly fair - to Mark, to the discussion, or to Jobs and Ritchie. I had an idea and found a way to bring it to fruition. By your standard this makes me the equal of industry giants. (It was chicken soup, and I've got to be honest - it was damn good, even given that chicken soup by its nature has an upper limit on "delicious".) It's still fair, and can be productive, to compare two people and ask which made a greater contribution to humanity. -Dan ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
