[xilun0]

That does not make him irrelevant when he is still here. For example, the direction he "recently" gave to the arm branch (basically ordering everybody to clean up their shit immediately), will probably imply that Linux has been and will be more successful on portable devices. Would the same thing have happened without him? Maybe, or maybe not.

[mikemaccana]

Assuming a cleanup is significant, yes, I'm fairly sure Google or another high-profile Linux contributor would have done the same. It's just maintenance work - necessary, but not industry changing like the initial release of GNU+Linux (as a complete OS) was.

[xilun0]

"Revolutions" in the industry are often not the result of a big bang, but more frequently of mere accumulation of little steps. GNU+Linux has not changed anything in the industry when initially released. It was years (decades?) behind current techs at this time (but has fast taken leadership in many areas), and at first only used by hobbyist, then only used for applications with simple needs on simple hardware as a cost reduction measure, then used in more areas and so over.

And I'm far from sure that the decisions good for the long term development of Linux would be done by bigcorps if Linus went missing anyway (especially not Google). Bigcorps have bad habits (with high impedance mismatch in the context of the Linux project), like development behind closed doors, and not only time-to-the-market centered but even for some of them time-to-the-market weighting 95% in their choices. Because of that, bigcorps were the cause of the arm branch mess in the first place. Bigcorps often lead big projects that fails big. And Linux is not lead by bigcorps anyway, it's lead by peoples.

Also, the same argument could be applied to lot of people in leadership positions anyway. Maybe Apple would not be Apple without Steve Jobs, but the CEO does not matter more in lots of big companies than Linus matters for Linux. Maybe it would be very equivalent with somebody else, or maybe not, but in the meantime they are in charge, and when they do a good job, they are the ones who matter.

[dredmorbius]

I'll argue that the true innovation of Linux was in the licensing, with both the development and adoption model this implied. Early Unix was distributed without a license (for numerous reasons). It rapidly spread throughout research and academic circles, but was constrained once software licensing emerged in the 1980s, and finally killed in the BSD wars of the 1990s.

It's not that Linus stumbled on some secret of technology or was smarter than anyone else doing 'Nix development. It's that he got obstructions out of the way that kept those who could contribute meaningfully from being able to do so and allowed others to utilize the results.

The end result is the innovation and technical superiority (by and large) of Linux over alternatives.

On how Unix initially emerged: there was no copyright of software (this changed in 1976), and AT&T were prohibited under a 1954 anti-trust consent decree from participating in computer equipment and software. So when Ritchie and Thompson created Unix, the company could do little but use it internally, and had no reason to prevent its more widespread distribution. Unix exists specifically because AT&T was prevented from productizing it.