by Ethan Johnson
June 26, 2006

Wow. If you ever thought that there was nothing lower than lists of "people who matter", Business 2.0 provides a list of people who don't.

Consider the case of Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux open-source operating system:

It's a testament to the success of Torvalds's open-source ideas that he's on this list at all. His Linux operating system is fast, cheap, and out of control - and that's entirely by design. While Torvalds still oversees any changes made to the innermost core of Linux, most of the innovation is now done by others, and commercial businesses like Red Hat and Novell increasingly steer its future. Although he can claim credit for popularizing one of the most powerful ideas ever to sweep through the software industry, Torvalds's project has matured to such an extent that it's largely outgrown its illustrious creator.

Well, duh. That was the point of "open source": It can't be confined to any one person, nor was it meant to be. Although, as a side note, I say that it can be. You're stuck waiting for somebody to crank out version 7.0.9.76 debian stable of your favorite app.

So apparently it is off to the crematorium for Torvalds and 9 other business types. After all, if a business-themed magazine declares that they no longer "matter", they're just sucking oxygen, and we can't have that, can we?

When I interviewed Matthew Lesko, he commented to me that he didn't start wearing his trademark question-mark suits until his 50s. He spoke of the journey that ultimately enabled him to make that transformation. While not quite a household name, the odds favor a knowing nod when making a passing reference to "that guy with the question-mark suits."

But prior to that transformation, who was Matthew Lesko? Did he matter? Was he a guy anyone should care about? And did he "matter" only because he was able to buy TV airtime to burnish himself upon our collective consciousness?

I read a blog written by a radio DJ who talked about the handling of an event to be "perfect" because "this is Coldplay, and nothing but the best will do." Who in the hell was Coldplay a few years ago? Or Chris Martin? Did they matter then? Did he?

I am no stranger to idol worship and skewed priorities. Societally, I think it is ingrained upon us that celebrities of all stripes are somehow worthy of higher, unequal treatment merely because they can read a line of text without stammering or look glamourous while covered in pancake makeup. I once addressed Maynard Ferguson as "Maynard" and my Dad nearly hit the ceiling. "That's 'Mister Ferguson'," he admonished. But Maynard Ferguson didn't complain about it, and as I am wont to ask, aren't we all people first? Cut us and we bleed, deny us air and water and we die.

Lists of what or who is or is not cool are as old as the hills, and they're not going away anytime soon. I wish our collective attitude would change about them, however. Who is Business 2.0 to tell us that someone doesn't matter?

How convenient, but I will close by saying that lists like these underscore my developing views regarding the symbolic nature of reality. Note that the list writer(s) is specifically saying that [person] no longer serves as an effective symbol for [company or idea], in his/her/their opinion. If one is in the business of association, this is the lens through which all experience will be viewed.

And it's working. It's making me associate that magazine with sensationalism and shallowness. Good job! <EM>