ACM Awards 2009 Turing Prize To Alto Creator Charles Thacker 49
scumm writes "This year's Turing Prize has been awarded to Charles Thacker, whom they describe as (among other things) the 'creator of the first modern personal computer.' From the ACM's announcement: 'ACM, the Association for Computing Machinery today named Charles P. Thacker the winner of the 2009 ACM A.M. Turing Award for his pioneering design and realization of the Alto, the first modern personal computer, and the prototype for networked personal computers. Thacker's design, which he built while at Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center), reflected a new vision of a self-sufficient, networked computer on every desk, equipped with innovations that are standard in today's models. Thacker was also cited for his contributions to the Ethernet local area network, which enables multiple computers to communicate and share resources, as well as the first multiprocessor workstation, and the prototype for today's most used tablet PC, with its capabilities for direct user interaction.' For further reading, the Wall Street Journal has an article providing more background about Mr. Thacker and the Turing Prize. In the spirit of full disclosure, the submitter feels compelled to point out that this Mr. Thacker is his uncle, and that he thinks this is really cool."
Ethernet? (Score:1)
Ethernet, which enables multiple computers to share porn and play networked Hearts /Fixed
xPad? xPhone? (Score:4, Interesting)
What I find more fascinating, it that despite all these ground-breaking developments, Xerox never was able to capitalize on them.
We could be all working on xPads and squawking in xPhones now.
I'm still scratching my head on this failure. Management error? Naw, can't be that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What I find more fascinating, it that despite all these ground-breaking developments, Xerox never was able to capitalize on them.
We could be all working on xPads and squawking in xPhones now.
I'm still scratching my head on this failure. Management error? Naw, can't be that.
For one thing, Xerox was in the paper-photocopy business. I've heard that its management didn't really understand the business model (hell, nobody did, except for Bill Gates) an those that did feared that a "paperless office" would result from the replacement of typewriters and file cabinets. (Yeah, right.)
Also, as innovative as Xerox's projects were, they were research projects first and marketable products second. They lacked the refinement and consumer focus (eg. user testing, industrial design) that App
Re: (Score:2)
Re:xPad? xPhone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Management absolutely. "We're a copier company. Why are you working on this crazy crap?"
At least Apple copied the stuff with permission, which the Anti-Apple crowd conveniently never mentions. Xerox management didn't care and basically let them have it cheap.
Re: (Score:1)
At least Apple copied the stuff with permission
After all, how ironic if Xerox was to say "Hey, they're copying!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
At least Apple copied the stuff with permission, which the Anti-Apple crowd conveniently never mentions.
Paraphrasing Chris Rock: ;))
Of course we don’t. It’s like bragging that you never murdered somebody. You’re not supposed to murder somebody, dumbass!!
What we mention, is that Microsoft did it without permission (and got sued for it). Which you conveniently didn’t mention.
Re:xPad? xPhone? (Score:4, Interesting)
In a way, they probably capitalized more by not developing them. Established companies tend to grow by hiring people with useful skills, and then only utilizing them for about 5% of their productive day. The rest of the time, they sit around over-paid and under-employed, thinking of ways to improve the business.
But actually implementing any of those changes would be prohibitively expensive in a company that has 20x more employees than it needs. And, for a long period, longer than the patent protection perhaps, the marginal benefit of the new technology is so much less than the profit generated by the established tech that it isn't even worth trying to productize. So, yeah, you could say poor management but it's really more of a strategic decision to capitalize on a core technology and stifle alternatives rather than driving innovations into the market.
Examples abound in every industry, autos, energy. Take Google, for instance: tons of money made on basically just little text ads. And that's used to fund all sorts of interesting research that will never make them a dime. The number of employees grows. The stock goes up. The core business never changes. Dividends are never paid. Investors never benefit from 90% of the profits which are spent on employees sitting around innovating technologies that are never used.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In the movie "The pirates of Silicon Valley" there is a scene where a high executive at Xerox laughts when researchers show him a prototype of new peripheral: a mouse. BIG moron.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of the modern computing technology, including the average home computer, lap
This is amazingly deserved. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm tickled pink.
His contributions are inspiring; in fact playing with an Alto so many years ago was the first time I got to mess with a graphics display and mouse, if only on an occasional basis for a few hours.
And I had a chance to work with Chuck a bit: he's great people, and has continued to do first class stuff ever since.
Re:This is amazingly deserved. (Score:4, Insightful)
Seconded. Poor Xerox...they had so much and never used it.
I saw a networked Star (Alto's child) in 1993 when I visited a friend at MIT. After seeing it, Windows 3.1 was quite a disappointment! All I wanted was a UNIX system. Luckily, Linus Torvalds did, too.
Re: (Score:2)
A good [amazon.com] read if you want to know just how many revolutionary things were invented at PARC
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, but on the other hand GUI is mostly about having a set of really, really fast routines to do the drawing and the whole lot of glue to do all the interface logic. Java's traditionally screwed up in the first part. Probably no amount of JIT'ing can save you then. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia (Score:3, Informative)
When I saw the summary, I wondered why it didn't link a wikipedia article. After looking him up there, I see why -- the article on him is incredibly thin. Here's the whole of it:
BTW, he's not to be confused with this [wikipedia.org] Charles Thacker, who has nothing at all to do with computing and who you most likely would not want to meet.
Requiem for Alan Turing (Score:1, Offtopic)
I can't ever hear Alan Turing's name anymore without getting angry all over again at the disgraceful way he died. [experiencefestival.com]
He essentially founded modern Computer Science. He also lead the team that cracked the German codes during WW2. You could make a case that we owe the man for everything we have today. This is the kind of guy who should have statues in DC and Trafalgar Square. So how did we thank him? By driving the poor guy to his death, that's how.
You see, none of that other cool stuff he did mattered in the
Re: (Score:2)
You see, none of that other cool stuff he did mattered in the slightest because he was gay
It was a different world in the 1950s. Had he been black or communist his fate would have been even worse. Hell, had he been black he would never have been able to accomplish what he did and may well have been found at a young age hanging from a tree just for wanting to.
However, although he did a whole lot for computer science you can't say he "essentially founded modern Computer Science". That would be John Von Neuman
Re: (Score:2)
I do think he really founded Computer Science, the other guys you mentioned founded Computer Engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.... CS != CE they are two very different creatures.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that was following out of the general fact that *S != *E.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, had he been black he would never have been able to accomplish what he did and may well have been found at a young age hanging from a tree just for wanting to.
Yeah, good point, England never would have allowed in a brilliant non-white mathematician from a poor country [wikipedia.org] back then.
Re: (Score:2)
Black = nonwhite, but nonwhite != black. It was the African anscestry that was looked down on then, not non-whiteness. An Indian born in India doesn't count. Maybe if he'd been born and raised in England (but as an American I'm ignorant of British mores at the time), but Indians aren't black, even though they do have dark skin.
I'm not sure if they lynched blacks in Britain like they did here, but the point stands anyway.
Yes (Score:2)
In the interest of full disclosure.. (Score:1)
In the spirit of full disclosure, the submitter feels compelled to point out that this Mr. Thacker is his uncle, and that he thinks this is really cool.
Oh yeah? Well my uncle can beat up your uncle!
Re: (Score:1)
Probably. I mean, my uncle *is* a 67 year old Alpha-Geek, not a UFC fighter.
Re: (Score:1)
Probably. I mean, he *is* a 67-year old Alpha-Geek.
Re: (Score:1)
Oy vey. This is what happens when a post disappears, then magically re-appears.
Re: (Score:2)
In the spirit of full disclosure, the submitter feels compelled to point out that this Mr. Thacker is his uncle, and that he thinks this is really cool.
Uncle => 'genius', Submitter => 'scumm' ;)
Re: (Score:1)
True. I don't use the nickname "scumm" anymore - haven't in about 10 years. But this /. account has been around for longer than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's not exactly interesting or controversial news. He did some amazing work and over the past 15 years has collected quite a few awards for it. Now he's got the Turing Award, which is the closest you can get to a Nobel Prize for computer science. He's not the first person to get a Turing Award for stuff at PARC (Alan Kay for one in 2003).
Probably the only person with anything negative to say is Dan Ingalls, who did a lot of cool work on the projects that Alan Kay and Charles Thacker are recog
He's at MS (Score:2)
TFS (though not TFA) glances over the fact that's he's working at Microsoft Research today (and has been for 13 years now) - which is where his work on tablets happened.
Somewhat ironic, actually, considering how much of its success Microsoft owes to Alto.
Re: (Score:2)
And Chuck is building hardware which is often, or even usually, running Linux right now.
Track down the research project that's doing big programmable multiprocessors at Berkeley/Stanford/MS research and others.
The x86 instruction set is too baroque to fit in a sane number of gates, so in fact most of the software on that hardware is free and open source software.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not surprised in the slightest. MSR deals with open source a lot, and directly funds some OSS projects (e.g. GHC Haskell compiler).
No rush to judgment here (Score:1)
-- a [anonymous] colleague