Despite the pissing wars, I don't think it's that anyone is looking to 'create conflict', since I'm betting most people who respected Ritchie also respected Jobs. Rather, I'm guessing it's that everyone who is making statements similar to Pike's sees a 'hardcore scientist guy' ignored next to a 'well-marketed guy', and they are very uncomfortable with that (despite the fact that both of them were more than the stereotypes I'm calling out here).
As for the argument you are calling 'tired', I respectfully disagree. Certainly we use a lot of things whose inventors we don't know - but Ritchie's work was remarkable in that it was fundamentally deeply technical (in a way that is appreciable to hardcore CS folks), extremely wide in scope (in a way that affects people from every walk of life), and recent-enough to warrant more attention from today's society.
As for media - is it really OK for media (and by extension, society) to ignore a person with that kind of impact? I personally feel it shouldn't be culturally acceptable because that breeds a society where hard-science and scientists are not in the public consciousness (ahead of, for example, many random celebrities). Ultimately, the effect of that is more systemic IMHO (few scientists in politics, lots of politicians who can freely ignore science, reduced funding for fundamental scientific research, and so forth).
sees a 'hardcore scientist guy' ignored next to a 'well-marketed guy', and they are very uncomfortable with that (despite the fact that both of them were more than the stereotypes I'm calling out here)
I guess I can see that, but to me it's not surprising; people die all the time, and attention to their death is mostly, I'd say, driven by how famous among the general public they were previously, which tends to favor politicians, athletes, popular musicians, businessmen, etc. The only thing that even makes it particularly noticeable here is the juxtaposition, since they were both in tech and died within a short distance. If it were Dennis Ritchie versus a big pop star, nobody would bother to raise an eyebrow at how much more front-page coverage the pop star got.
If it makes anyone feel any better, I don't think Steve Jobs was all that interested in his personal celebrity. He was intensely private and only ever made public appearances to promote Apple and its products, and he only did that because he was the best at it. It's the rest of society that made him into a folk hero for what he did, and the fact is our society undervalues technical people like Dennis Ritchie.
As far as important people whose deaths went largely unheralded, the death of Norman Borlaug a couple of years ago is another great example.
> 'hardcore scientist guy' ignored next to a 'well-marketed guy'
Artists always get more press than the guy who does the amazing engineering or science. It is the way of the world. Certain exceptions exists, where the engineer / scientist has a unique look or style (e.g. Einstein). The public consciousness loves the archetype.
Ritchie was a great man, but if the article needs to degenerate Steve Jobs to prove it, then it is poorly written and tarnishes both their memories. Both learned their lessons well from the generations before them and used the tools of others to create great and amazing things.
[downvotes? really? how about you be the type of person to tell me what's untrue here?]
As for the argument you are calling 'tired', I respectfully disagree. Certainly we use a lot of things whose inventors we don't know - but Ritchie's work was remarkable in that it was fundamentally deeply technical (in a way that is appreciable to hardcore CS folks), extremely wide in scope (in a way that affects people from every walk of life), and recent-enough to warrant more attention from today's society.
As for media - is it really OK for media (and by extension, society) to ignore a person with that kind of impact? I personally feel it shouldn't be culturally acceptable because that breeds a society where hard-science and scientists are not in the public consciousness (ahead of, for example, many random celebrities). Ultimately, the effect of that is more systemic IMHO (few scientists in politics, lots of politicians who can freely ignore science, reduced funding for fundamental scientific research, and so forth).