Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates On Linux
King-of-darkness writes "USA Today had an interview with Bill Gates on june the 30th. Gates seems to be considering Linux as a passing thru competition just like OS/2., and That Microsoft are the ones that keep pushing new technologies."
OS/2 hasn't been a player for many, many years. Accept it and move on.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
It kind of is, because much of cryptology relies on large primes as keys, and if you could easily factor them it would be trivial to break keys (see Distributed.net RC64 etc. of a brute-force method).
Of course, nowadays there are alternates but today it is still of significance.
NT 3.5 did have a few things going for it that while already fairly tried and tested, not everyone had (unless I'm mistaken, which I very much might be). Things like a journalled file system, prememptive multi tasking and memory protection. There were a few systems that didn't even have long filenames back then.
Not that MS really pioneered anything with these features. They were all well established on many other systems, but they were far from being the last to the party.
if you're a worthless fucking shithead
God, he's a dork.
Dear Spack-
Show us an operating system besides Windows that doesn't require you to hold esoteric knowledge to install an easy-to-use word processor and email app.
Last time I checked, I didn't need to compile Office2000 from source, and it installed just by popping the CD in and answering a few questions. Can you say the same about Linux?
As much as losers like you like to make fun of Bill Gates, he never said that.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/gatesivu.htm
I feel that your future scenario is flawed, in that machines based on Linux would be unable to use the video-processing cards required for visual recognition and other advanced graphics functions, due to driver incompatibility/non-existence.
P.S. Linux is teh sux.
BillG is an asshole.
Mod me up for truthfullness.
I am a fan of Bill Gates. I have read all of his books and think he is a brilliant man. He has done great things for computer users, bringing DOS into the mainstream (even if Microsoft did BUY it). They "collaborated" with IBM and developed a "secret" NT envoronment while the monkeys at IBM were doing all the work for them. He keeps winning, even if it means ripping the heads off of anyone who gets in his way. He even put George Bush in office so the Justice Department would shut up. The man is brilliant. Along with Richard James (of Aphex Twin fame) he is on the top of my list as one of the greatest business thinkers of all time.
"Yeah and Bill definitely said that."
He didn't need to say it - he did it. He took a processor that could address 1MB and chopped 384k off the top for hardware RAM/ROM use. To this he added an operating system that couldn't address non contiguous memory addresses. It was his design decision and he needs to get over it.
It could have been done other ways and the implicit assumption in the design decision is that 640K is all anyone will ever need.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
astroturfing is only the fake zealicy. Most of the people here on slashdot are actually that hyped up about...whatever the fad of the moment is.
Check out my sysadmin blog!
How the hell is this insightful!? It's FUD!
Windows XP has USB 2.0
Wow, what an innovation... they have drivers for USB 2.0 devices. Wow... So do we.
it has low-latency audio
Let's see, does Linux...? Yep, we got that too.
it can play DVDs
Wow, do you think other platforms could do that? Yes, I think so.
it has translucent windows
Well actually, it doesn't. However, these guys have had it for a while and these guys are pretty close.
built-in NAT
Linux has had this since version 2.0. It worked great even back in 1999.
drag-and-drop CD recording
OKay, I'll conceed on this point, but I'll definitely mention you could find this here before Microsoft ever had a clue. As for XP drag and drop CD recording... it still doesn't work right.
an MPEG-4 media player
Once again, I reference these guys again. What's so impressive about that? Microsoft aren't even the people who introduced it.
it has an encrypted, compressed file system
Well, let's see here... yes, we definite have that too. As a matter of fact, I've been using encrypted file systems in Linux for years. As far as I recall, I was doing that before Windows was. No wait, Windows still doesn't offer encryption beneath the file system. Weak.
they have fine-grained access controls
Only very recently. Linux has enjoyed ACL from here and here as well.
they have a common language runtime
Funny thing is it was implemented by the open source community faster than Microsoft did.
They are pushing and developing modern programming languages so that we aren't all stuck programming in C.
A language is a tool Some languages are good for some tasks, some are better for others. For example, you couldn't quite write an operating system in Lisp like you could with C. To make this point shows how much of a fool you are. By the way, GCC compiles langauges other than C too.
Some of this technology sucks, and most of it they didn't invent, but they are pushing new technology.
Yes, most of it does suck but none of it is new. Microsoft only pushes regurgitations of what the rest of the industry has had (often for years).
(I also know that most of this stuff is available on linux, but it's also kind of a pain in the ass.)
I don't see any problems. None of what you mentioned was hard to find nor is any of it any harder to use than in Windows. For example, I play a DVD by loading my DVD player and press the button with the little triangle on it (play).
Your "points" fall down to absolutely nothing. Microsoft offers no advantages, just disadvantages over open source technologies.
You sir are a major corporate whore, completely deceived, clueless, not too bright, and giving free marketing hype to a multibillion dollar company. How does that make you feel?
Join Tor today!