On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:39:35PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: > > >And has *kept* them working on it, without turning it into a huge > >ball of legacy crud, without forking or general worker revolution. > >However he does it, he *has* done it, and that is his genius. > > Some might argue these days with the "ball of legacy crud" part. :-) > Yet, others argue vehemently that Linux does not have enough legacy support, owing particularly to Linus' unwillingness to let code for extremely old hardware stick around. > > > >He's a genius at something. > > I doubt it. He's certainly no Einstein. Save the genius title for > people who singlehandedly (not with hundreds of thousands of people > helping them) changed how the entire of humanity views the world, please. > I disagree. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Ross Perot are all geniuses. They didn't revolutionize the world by toiling away in some lab to discover something. They went out and did something. They had lots of help from a large supporting cast all along the way. That in no way lessens their accomplishments. Heck, take a look at Edison, who toiled away in a lab. He had tons of assistants who helped him out. In fact, according to some sources, many of Edison's inventions were really conceived and first impelemented by hist assistants and basically came along and took credit for it. I'm not sure if believe that, but even if it were true, he is still a genius for the way in which he revolutionized modern society. I guess that what I am getting at is that marketing and business sense can be forms of genius, just as scientific and technical know-how can be. [SNIP] > > But genius? Nah. > Again, I disagree. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature