Talk:Computer science/Catalogs/Breakthroughs

Article Checklist for "Computer science/Catalogs/Breakthroughs"

Workgroup category or categories	Computers Workgroup, History Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status	Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article?	Yes
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	Pat Palmer 16:32, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

I'd drop Linus Torvalds, and add John von Neumann and Norbert Weiner. The qualifications on Torvalds' achievement make it clear that his breakthrough doesn't meet the criteria established for this list. von Neumann's definitely do, and I believe that Weiner's do, also. I'd also add Dennis Ritchie, who as a co-creator of Unix, has done more groundbreaking work than Linus Torvalds. Anthony Argyriou 16:24, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Ok - I added the three I mentioned, plus Ada Lovelace. I still think that Linus does not deserve a place merely for developing Linux. He may have made other, more fundamental computer-science contributions, but I am not aware of them. The listed accomplishments of Backus and Tukey also seem to not justify a place here, and Fourier is questionable, as his work seems to be much more mathematical than computer science, as well. I leave the decision to remove or not to others. Anthony Argyriou 18:53, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

It is a matter of opinion, of course. As it happens, Linus Torwalds accomplished what no one else (including the Open Software Foundation started by Richard Stallman) had succeeded in doing in 10 years, which is make a Unix-like kernel that would run on the same commodity-cost PC's that Windows ran on. There was one exception--Dr. Andrew Tanenbaum had created Minix, but it cost money and it was used mainly for teaching at the time. When OSF then married their utilities such as Emacs with Linus' new kernel, which Linus forced to remain "completely and totally free", a movement was born. Linus "changed" what was happening in the computer marketplace fundamentally; maybe his breakthrough was not a science discovery, but it had enormous impact. So for now, let's leave him on the list. I do appreciate your comments. I would take Tukey off the list, probably, but I don't know a lot about him, so I'd want to research that first. Pat Palmer 10:38, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

There probably ought to be a parallel list to this one which lists computer industry pioneers, with Torvalds, Bill Gates, Jobs & Wozniak, Stallman, possibly the developers of Unix, Osborne, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, and others.

Bill Gates did nothing that could be called a fundamental computer science breakthrough, but he's done more to shape the state of the industry than anyone else. Some of what he did in the early days would qualify as a technical tour de force, but it was more in applying existing computer science or extending beyond the state of the art in programming. If I had a good idea what to title it, I'd create it myself. Which list would Tim Berners-Lee belong on? Anthony Argyriou 13:26, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Proposed deletions

I can think of no reason why Linus Torvalds should be on this list. Did the Linux kernel introduce any fundamental innovations to computer science. To be sure, Linux has had a huge influence on the history of computers, but that's not the same thing. Similarly, I'm not sure why John Tukey is on the list. Joseph Fourier is a tough one. He made fundamental contributions to an area or mathematics that is important in computing, but I'm not sure that means he needs to be on this list. More generally, I wonder if fundamental innovation in electronics, such as the development of the transistor or vacuum tube warrant inclusion here. Drawing boundaries can be difficult. Greg Woodhouse 14:31, 31 May 2007 (CDT)