Can we really Insult Bill Gates?

Remove all ads!

I know many people here view Bill Gates as being the spawn of Satan, but can we really justify that when things like this happen:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4653338.stm

 

It is good when somebody uses his ill-gotten money for some noble purposes. On the other hand, it is ill-gotten money (or so would some argue).

It is not so unheard of, either. Most of the great robber barons from the end of the 19 century (Rockefeller, Carnegie) put a lot of their money into charities and social projects (libraries, art museums).

So, Gates scores some points for being socially minded. He's still evil, though

 

Personally, I like Gates. I think without him computers would never have gotten to the point they are.

Let all the Linux people make fun of you as much as they want.

 

Ah...I was about to say the same thing as Snook. I've never understood this demonization of Gates...he's only a businessman. If you wish to not support his businesses, you have the option of Linux. Or perhaps you'd like to go back in time to amberchrome monitors and DOS commands? Computers are where they are today almost entirely due to the invention of a user friendly, graphical environment.

Were it not for this change, which began the migration of the PC from the office where they were operated by specialists - to homes where they were enjoyed by the casual user, there would be no "gaming rigs", no video cards, no sound cards, no game pads, no Baldurs Gate...and maybe...no SP.

I call upon all faithful members of SP to stop whatever they're doing, face in the direction of Seattle and repeat after me...

"Thank You, Thank you, Mr. Bill Gates
even though you attract our hates,
we've secretly known for many weeks,
if not for you, there'd be no geeks."

Thank you...return to whatever you were doing before our lesson in practical thought.

PS: I made up that poem myself...whaddaya think? Can I quit my day job?

 

Oh, come on; Microsoft did not invent the graphical interface (IIRC, it was developed at Xerox).

What they did right is they put out an operating system running on standard (IBM) hardware (unlike Mac, or the big Unix systems), which was not too expensive, and not too crappy. So they achieved a large market share, which in turn they used to establish standards (which is good) and also to destroy competitors (which is bad).

Saying that computing would not be where it is today without Microsoft is an easy soundbite. It is true that initially Microsoft speeded up the transformation of the computer in a general use item; however, it can be argued that afterwards they actually played an opposite role. Close technology by itself favors the status-quo, and hence stagnation.

What actual inovations do we owe to the Microsoft of the past 10 years (after the introduction on Win95) ? Most advances (like the web, IM, web searching) are due to different companies, and Microsoft just tried to keep on top (see the Netscape- Explorer business).

More like: there would be no MCSE certified techs

 

I agree with Snook and Hack (gawd, it hurt to say that ). Gates is a businessman who has been smart enough to identify needs and trends, and has the ability to design products appropriately. Sure, it can be less than perfect, but we're talking about incredibly complex programs here. It can't be that bad, or we'd all be using something else by now.

And Hack, yes - quit your day job. Not because you're a good poet, but because your employer phoned me and asked me to try to convince you to leave.

 

Yes. We could also insult Tal or anyone else; that doesn't mean that we should. Honestly, this is a non-issue. He is better off than us, and therefore a ripe target. Whether he's a complete sleezeball or Mother Theresa has nothing to do with it; it is the human inferiority complex that compels people to put down those who have done better than them.

Really, I'd rather that there wasn't any controversy over the original OS being stolen (either because noone thought up the lie, or because he wasn't able to steal it and the original creator started the company himself), but really, who could say how things would have gone differently otherwise? Better the spawn of Satan that you know than the spawn of Satan that you don't.

 

Bill Gates, IMO, is a computer geek who did well, or better than all of the supposed rank-and-file "country club" businessmen. I think for that a lot of people despise him. He broke the mold of the notion that computer geeks could never amount to anything more than just being harrarsed workers in florescent light environments, tucked away from the rest of humanity; I feel the same way about Steve jobs, since all the "supposed businessmen," who are so admired by the business world, probably wish they could do what these guys did, which was revolutionize the way we live and work. IMO, Bill and Steve are OK.

 

I dislike the fact he's working on outlawing the methods he used to achieve what he has achieved. I also hate all the copyright/patent breaches on Microsoft's part all the more when it speaks for harsher penalties or more scrupulous enforcement of copyright/patent laws. I don't really hate the bundling but I'm not of fan of such ways of bundling that you can't fully uninstall IE or WMP. I hate the prices which are off the moon. I don't like the whole OEM thing, either.

 

Bill Gates had a dream and he's living it. Don't we all want that ?

 

Gates was a pretty smart businessman, granted. However, the topic of the thread seemed to be about the worthiness of Gates' contributions to the society.

So, the point is that he's contributing great amount of money to noble causes. That is worthy in itself, indeed. However, one should not forget the way he got the money in the first place.

I would argue that today we would be better without Gates and Microsoft. One can only try to imagine what would have happened if Gates' initial venture would have been unsucessful. For five years or so, it would have been pretty tough; people would have had to pay a lot for other systems (like Apple). Then somebody would have put out the first open source operating system; and provided that no one would have had a monopoly by then, most of the developement would be done on this open source OS. Everybody would have started using it, prices would have fell down rapidly, new programs would have run on most of the versions of the free OS (none of this nonsense of separate programs for MACs and WIN).

The reason most businesses don't switch to open sorce today is not that Microsoft is better, but for legacy reasons (running old software) and compatibility issues (if everybody is using Word...). This problem would not exist if Microsoft would not have been a monopoly in the first place.

 

Do not know the guy and as such I can't blame him of the doings of his company. As you may know, Microsoft is a huge company with many, many faceless leaders steering it to their own way. Even if Bill Gates had some good/bad ideas of his own, quite likely they would be hammered into oblivion at some part of his own company. Such is the power of bureocracy.

Therefore I simply wish that the guy would sell out the trash and donate the money for WWF; at least the trash would go down in a 'green way.'

 

Can we insult Bill Gates? Sure we can, watch:

Bill Gates is a tosser.

Not too hard really!

*I'll get my coat*

 

OMG. I think I figured out that Hack is really Terry Goodkind. Isn't that the chant all those people chant to Richard Rahl?

 

LOL! Poor old Goodkind. In any event, my feeling is that Bill Gates has done what any good businessman would do if given a similar opportunity. To my knowledge, he has never been convicted of a violent crime, and when he has been nailed for white collar offences, he's paid his fines or fought them just like any other businessman. Success breeds jealously!