I respect Bill Gates

[RNDdave]

A little unethical behavior is having a beer or two on your lunch-break, too much is coming back drunk AND stoned to boot...

Unrelated - but you reminded me of a guy I worked with a few years back.

He was a really nice intelligent guy. He'd turn up in the morning and he was fine - maybe a little grumpy - but a lot of people are not the best people in the mornings right. Throughout the day he'd disappear to the toilet every hour or so - at the time I did why he always took his bag with him - but he was a person who'd often be trying to 'share' movies and software etc so I just assumed he didn't trust anyone with his bag of goodies.

As the day went on he seemed to be a little happier and by the end of the day he was VERY happy - but also a little sleepy. It was actually quite a while before I realised what he had in his bag - and then it was only because someone else pointed it out to me...

So was he unethical?

I don't think he was - turns out he suffers from depression and the alcohol just kept him level throughout the day - he knew how to do his job and he did it fairly well.

Completely unrelated I know - just thought I'd throw it in

 

[gilesjuk]

I am serious.

The man has done wonders for this world. He is the epitome of the 'capitalist'. I get really upset when people belittle him and his accomplishments.

Without doubt he could code, people have taken apart the Altair basic machine code and there's some pretty great tricks in there for saving memory.

Otherwise what would I say about Bill? he was lucky, the story goes that IBM were after the OS for their IBM PC and their choice wasn't Microsoft's DOS. But the guy who IBM called to sign the deal had gone out flying his plane that afternoon and so IBM went with DOS.

Bill was lucky, he may still have had success but it wouldn't have been on the scale he did. Microsoft is in a position where it is almost guaranteed income from Windows, you can't really buy a major branded PC without Windows. Even if you can but a PC without Windows they often still pay Microsoft so they don't upset them.

Other criticisms would be Bill's criticism of the $100 laptop project for developing countries. While the project itself could be seen as poor idea, Bill shouldn't have criticised the project (he said they should install electricity and let them run a proper PC).

Microsoft has often donated PCs to schools with the condition that they can only run Windows. They have also donated Microsoft licences (which cost them very little).

I don't think Bill is too bad a guy, but his company has a lot to answer for. There's way too much lobbying done on their behalf. Ballmer is always making threats and sprouting FUD, saying how Linux has stolen their code without any proof.

 

[dtravis7]

gilesjuk, agreed completely. Well said. The man who went flying instead of talking to IBM was Gary Kildall. He was a very brilliant person but more into the programming end of things than a businessman. Too bad. Very nice person too. It seems to take a Jobs or Gates to get things really going though.

Balmer just makes people angry or laugh at him. The Monkey Dance video is priceless!

And yes, Gates CAN program. Few really understand that fact. Don't know what he can do today but in the beginning he was quite good.

 

[RNDdave]

A little unethical behavior is having a beer or two on your lunch-break, too much is coming back drunk AND stoned to boot...

Baggs you might enjoy this:

Microsoft could be forced to give rivals vital technical information in exchange for little or no royalties, according to a secret document.

The software company originally wanted 5.95 percent in royalty payments on software that uses certain Microsoft-patented routines that are sold by the company to its rivals as part of the settlement with the European Commission.

According to the Financial Times, which claims to have seen a confidential internal European Commission document, Microsoft was told it could have zero or 1 percent of the disputed royalty payments.

From ZDnet

Other criticisms would be Bill's criticism of the $100 laptop project for developing countries. While the project itself could be seen as poor idea, Bill shouldn't have criticised the project (he said they should install electricity and let them run a proper PC).

Not heard that before - that was a pretty stupid thing to say, but then just because I respect a few things he has done I won't deny for a second that he's said some dumb things

640K ought to be enough for anybody. Bill Gates
Spam will be a thing of the past in two years' time. Bill Gates (BBC 2004)

 

[fleurya]

I wasn't going to post to this thread again, but I just can't help myself.

A little unethical behavior is having a beer or two on your lunch-break, too much is coming back drunk AND stoned to boot...

So, just coming to work drunk is ok??????
I wish I hadn't fired those 2 people working for me who came in to work drunk. I guess I just didn't know someone out there thought that it was ok.

It's all about drawing lines. The it's hard to get it right, but the first to step towards getting it wrong is thinking your line alone is the correct line.

 

[baggss]

Hmmmm, I thought I specified Lunch in my example, not work in general....yes I see I did. Not sure what dark hole you pulled that comment out of....

 

[fleurya]

Hmmmm, I thought I specified Lunch in my example, not work in general....yes I see I did. Not sure what dark hole you pulled that comment out of....

Your comment said it's ok to have a couple drinks on a "lunch-break", implying it was a break from work. When else other than work do you refer to having lunch as a lunch break??

And can someone explain to me why I would get a negative rep for the comment below, but the person who gave it to me wrote "agreed"???

I wasn't going to post to this thread again, but I just can't help myself.



So, just coming to work drunk is ok??????
I wish I hadn't fired those 2 people working for me who came in to work drunk. I guess I just didn't know someone out there thought that it was ok.

It's all about drawing lines. The it's hard to get it right, but the first to step towards getting it wrong is thinking your line alone is the correct line.

Once again, thanks to the narrow-minded jerks who give negative reps to a person who merely posts a personal feeling towards a general question. It's like me asking a question and giving negative rep if a person answers in a way I happen to disapprove of.

 

[Village Idiot]

The biggest problem I can see is that if Microsoft would have flopped or just been mediocre, there wouldn't have been a "standard" for OS's and it would have caused havoc for the rest of the computer world. Could you imagine 50 different OS's to choose from based on 20 different architectures? The advancement of computer hardware would have slowed down so much because companies would either be creating software for 50 different systems or just for one, leaving all the other users that chose a certain OS stuck without a way to accomplish a certain goal, leaving programs to never push the boundary of the hardware and therefore leaving things stagnant until one OS managed to "conquer" the market and become the dominant OS that most software companies could there for program for to reach the largest user base....

Kind smells like if Microsoft wouldn't have done it, some one else would have...

 

[baggss]

Your comment said it's ok to have a couple drinks on a "lunch-break", implying it was a break from work. When else other than work do you refer to having lunch as a lunch break??

Quite often. Say if I'm cleaning my garage, storage unit or cat litter box.

I never said it was OK to be drunk at work, I simply said that an example of a "little" unethical behavior would be having a beer on your lunch break.

The biggest problem I can see is that if Microsoft would have flopped or just been mediocre, there wouldn't have been a "standard" for OS's and it would have caused havoc for the rest of the computer world. Could you imagine 50 different OS's to choose from based on 20 different architectures? The advancement of computer hardware would have slowed down so much because companies would either be creating software for 50 different systems or just for one, leaving all the other users that chose a certain OS stuck without a way to accomplish a certain goal, leaving programs to never push the boundary of the hardware and therefore leaving things stagnant until one OS managed to "conquer" the market and become the dominant OS that most software companies could there for program for to reach the largest user base....

Kind smells like if Microsoft wouldn't have done it, some one else would have...

Could you imagine a world where users would have had the ability to choose what OS was the best for them? Maybe there would be 2 or 3 by now, but I bet there would a heck of a lot of interoperability between them. Technologies like Java might have appeared earlier because the demand for them would not have been stifled by one entity forcing everyone to conform. OS's that didn't conform to these standards would have suffered, Imagine if there had been REAL competition for the consumers dollars. Hardware could have been pushed to greater length and heights because software could been more tailored to it and utilized it's capabilities better. OS vendors would have delivered better and better versions of their product unlike the code bloated sludge that MS slings out every couple of years. I suspect things would have been MUCH more lively and that the stagnation is due in large part to MS shoving garbage down the throat of the end user by sheer force. No other alternative so they HAVE to use Windows. Maybe someone would or maybe someone wouldn't, who knows now. The bulk of the computer using world is stuck with the beast they allowed to grow and gain domination.

 

[fleurya]

True, competition breeds innovation and forces us to push the envelope to new and better products. Like cell phones. Sure, it's annoying to have more than one standard, but it forces companies to push for faster, more reliable and cheaper services which benefit everyone. The invisible hand of the free market serves many great purposes.

The problem now is that the world is hooked on Microsoft like we're hooked on oil or even people hooked in nicotine. If I can get a little economical; in these situations the demand curve is vertical because we are dependent on one product alone with no substitutes and companies selling the product have no economic benefit to push innovation. Things won't get better until some change takes place.

It's good that Apple is growing and finding ways to compete more directly with Microsoft by way of making applications, in a way, cross-compatible. It will push Microsoft to be more innovative and develop better products, which will benefit all of us. That is, unless the stupid government comes in and bails them out like they do with other businesses like the horrible airlines!

 

[Village Idiot]

But it eventually happens.

The course of technology has to advance, and eventually one out of a group will over come what it has to to advance.

I mean, Laser Disc could have been the best innovation of the 20th century, but it flopped. Could you image using 12" vinyl sized "cd's" for recordable media?

What about the mini disc?

VHS vs Beta?

Blu-ray vs HD-DVD?

It's all about completely different formats fighting to become the standard, because with out standards, it makes it nearly impossible for companies like software companies to profitably advance. Even if there's 3 different OS's, there would be no garantee of them being compatible with each other unless they formed together into one business and had agreements. They would always be pushing to out do each other and take over the majority of the market.

It's like Widows vs every OS out there, except Windows managed to take over the majority of the market and design a set of OS's that provide most of what any single business out there will need, from small time mom and pop shops to multi billion dollar corporations? Want proof? Go from office to office and see how many are running alternate OS's.

Even companies running huge UNIX based servers will probably have windows machines for the users...

 

[baggss]

It's like Widows vs every OS out there, except Windows managed to take over the majority of the market and design a set of OS's that provide most of what any single business out there will need, from small time mom and pop shops to multi billion dollar corporations? Want proof? Go from office to office and see how many are running alternate OS's.

Even companies running huge UNIX based servers will probably have windows machines for the users...

I'm not arguing that it happens, simply that in this case it happened prematurely and that the industry and the consumer never really had a say in it. Windows managed to take over, but not by true free market means. Instead MS strong armed their way into a position of power by unethical or downright illegal activities. Because of Miscrosoft's activities there are no real "viable" alternatives OS to run in the business environment, they were all killed off by MS The industry never had a chance to settle itself out on what the "best" fit was, it had one system shoved upon it by a group of thugs who were willing to do whatever it took to dominate the industry and the industry is paying the price for it today. Heck, up until 4 or 5 years ago in many cases, banks were still running O/S2 and were happy with it. Do you think Windows was the best fit for that industry? They were forced to change because of MS's tactics and IBMs reaction to them.

Mini-Disc, HD/Blue-Ray and even VHS/Beta were or are areas where the consumer had or had a choice and was able to make a determination. The computer industry and the consumer never had that clear choice because of the tactics that MS used to lock businesses, their customers and their employees into one system.

 

[Village Idiot]

Mini-Disc, HD/Blue-Ray and even VHS/Beta were or are areas where the consumer had or had a choice and was able to make a determination. The computer industry and the consumer never had that clear choice because of the tactics that MS used to lock businesses, their customers and their employees into one system.

Not true.

BR/HD DVD for example. The consumer does have a choice of whether or not to purchase that item, but it's not as much on them as the industry. If only two large movie studios support HD-DVD and the rest go to BR, guess where the customer is going to go?

People could have bought another brand of computer than IBM, right? Why was it so immoral of Microsoft seeking a contract with them?

edit: BTW, microsoft had a hand in creating OS/2

 

[fleurya]

In the case of BR vs. HD DVD we're already seeing convergence players which can handle both. If we had multiple OS's we would probably see similar examples such as Parallels, or just universal code, that would eliminate the incompatibility issue and still allow for healthy competition.

Much of the technology and innovation we enjoy today would not even be close to what it is if not for that kind of rivalry. Russia's only major accomplishments during the Cold War were in technology where it was competing with the U.S. Everything else in that country went straight to pot from lack of effort.

 

[Village Idiot]

In the case of BR vs. HD DVD we're already seeing convergence players which can handle both. If we had multiple OS's we would probably see similar examples such as Parallels, or just universal code, that would eliminate the incompatibility issue and still allow for healthy competition.

Much of the technology and innovation we enjoy today would not even be close to what it is if not for that kind of rivalry. Russia's only major accomplishments during the Cold War were in technology where it was competing with the U.S. Everything else in that country went straight to pot from lack of effort.

You don't think that some of the reason that Apple isn't widely accepted in today's business world wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that they won't let any one else make hardware that their os's would run on? Like how you can go out to five different companies and get 5 different servers and run the same copy of windows server on each of them?

 

[baggss]

People could have bought another brand of computer than IBM, right? Why was it so immoral of Microsoft seeking a contract with them?

Yes, but they had no real choice other than MS because MS stifled completion in the OS market. You keep missing the point here. The playing field was NEVER level because MS never allowed it to be. The made it that way through illegal and/or unethical tactics. None of this is really open to debate, it's more or less all been proven by the US DOJ and EU.

I know MS had a hand in O/S2, heck MS WROTE the silly thing and then wrote Windows to compete with it. This is a true choice how?

Apples decisions were what they were, but they have little to do with the subject at hand. The fact remains that MS gained a monopoly status by bullying, manipulation and illegal tactics. I find it odd that you are defending a system that was clearly corrupt and stifled innovation.

 

[knightlie]

Apples decisions were what they were, but they have little to do with the subject at hand. The fact remains that MS gained a monopoly status by bullying, manipulation and illegal tactics. I find it odd that you are defending a system that was clearly corrupt and stifled innovation.

At last, someone who agrees with me. Microsoft do not innovate, they steal ideas and make them proprietary - .NET, anyone?

I'm of the opinion that MS have put back computer development anything up to a decade, and they keep doing it. .NET should have been a Java VM.

 

[Village Idiot]

Yes, but they had no real choice other than MS because MS stifled completion in the OS market. You keep missing the point here. The playing field was NEVER level because MS never allowed it to be. The made it that way through illegal and/or unethical tactics. None of this is really open to debate, it's more or less all been proven by the US DOJ and EU.

I know MS had a hand in O/S2, heck MS WROTE the silly thing and then wrote Windows to compete with it. This is a true choice how?

Apples decisions were what they were, but they have little to do with the subject at hand. The fact remains that MS gained a monopoly status by bullying, manipulation and illegal tactics. I find it odd that you are defending a system that was clearly corrupt and stifled innovation.

If every single thing MS has done has been illegal like you're claiming, they would not be around. Plain and simple.

The whole anti trust thing came about because Microsoft was bundling IE with Windows. OSX has safari. Should the us government sue Apple because they're bundling a web browser with their OS, causing all the innocent people out there to use it instead of getting motivated to seek their own browser?

Any of the companies they threatened to revoke the licenses of for removing IE from the pre installed Windows OS on thier machines could have gotten ahold of Apple and ran OSX instead of Windows....oh, that's right. Apple will only run their OS on their hardware. That would be considered a monopoly if Apple had majority of the market share.

The goal of every company is to out do the competition so they are the sole provider of a project. There is no company out there that's going to say, "Hey, lets give those guys a piece of our market share because we fill sorry for them". They're going to do every thing they can to boost their revenue. And if they have a contract with a company, for example, that sells computers and wants to use their OS, there's probably a part in that contract that says you have to sell the OS as packaged, you cannot remove features like indexed searching, internet browsers, control panel functions, and the ability to change system hardware.

MS is the biggest target out there, there's going to always be some one targeting them until there is something bigger around.

Oh, and if there isn't a web browser installed on your new OS, and you haven't purchased one, but would like to download one...how exactly do you go about downloading a web browser if you can't get to the site to download it?

Apple has done things that reflect business decisions that Microsoft has made in the past. When's the last time Apple was sued for it?

Besides, if Bill Gates is the Devil, why does he give so much money to charities and research foundations?

 

[scooter]

i think baggss believes Bill Gates is the antichrist!

yes, Bill/Microsoft has done some questionable and illegal things in their life and business dealings, but they both have done some extremely good things, both in business and in life. the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is doing far more good for the world than most people realize. not every single thing that MS or Bill Gates does is evil incarnate.

i have met Bill at a fundraiser and i found him to be companionable and friendly and extremely intelligent. (BTW- i didn't see any fangs or horns growing out his head either! )

 

[baggss]

I'm not claiming that every single thing that MS has done has been illegal, but it doesn't take much to tarnish a business reputation or for people to figure out who is playing on their own set of rules. MS broke enough laws to be caught and they still are.

Once again, everyone wants to believe that giving gobs of money he could never actually spend away to charity makes up for past wrongs. At this point we are arguing in circles and it is apparent some of you have not bothered to read the whole thread, maybe you should. Apple is currently under investigation for the iTunes music store in Europe, by the EU. Again, this thread is not about Apple, but about Bill Gates and respect for him. Smoke and mirrors aren't going to work here.

What came out the investigation and trial over the IE Browser issue was a picture that showed how MS had used questionable tactics and had downright broken multiple laws to gain their position of power and how they were abusing that position to stifle competition and innovation in the industry.

Your logic about downloading a browser is silly. Ever heard of FTP or CD-ROMS? How do you think Netscape and MOSIAC got their browsers out? Early ISPs like AOL gave their CDs away so you could have their browser and get access via their system. Are you even old enough to remember that?

Your estimation of the goal of every company out there is correct, and as long as they follow the law and are reasonably ethical then it's all good. When they blatantly break the law and cover it up there is a problem. Ms did this and is still paying the price. Bill is trying to use smoke and mirrors to make himself look good but he's still the same guy that directed the company through and authorized much of the illegal activity.

In the end, all the money in the world can't buy your way into heaven and giving gobs of money to charity doesn't make up for all wrong you've done. Bill is actively trying to distance himself from the activities that got him that money. The only ones being fooled are the ones who want to be fooled, the rest of us are not buying it.