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."

37 of 1,194 comments (clear)

  1. Typical by cageyjames · · Score: 5, Funny

    (-1) for Bill Gates for being a Troll

    1. Re:Typical by Uatu · · Score: 5, Funny

      (-1) for Bill Gates for being a Troll

      Does this means I can actually ignore the article and not feel guilty when I post about it ?

      Great! That's a first...

    2. Re:Typical by terkozer · · Score: 5, Informative

      As great of a quote as this is to bash on Bill.. it is simply not true, but is in fact an urban legend of sorts that has been widely circulated on the internet.

      Here is an interview with him clarifying the fact.

      There is also a good interview in the New York Review of Books that also attempts to shed a better light on the matter.

    3. Re:Typical by jnana · · Score: 5, Funny
      Yeah, I believe Bill Gates when he says 'trust me, i never said it.' I mean, he is an honest non-megalomaniacal guy who's not given to distorting reality in whatever way is convenient at the moment.

      Back to surfing the web with WinME, "the greatest user os ever built".

  2. But... by 2names · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "passing through" technologies don't last as long as Linux has already.

    --
    "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    1. Re:But... by bladernr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That depends on what you call a "passing thru" technology.

      CORBA has been around since at least 1991 (longer, I think), and most agree that it beat Microsoft in the DCOM-CORBA "Object Wars" (as evidenced by Microsoft moving on to Web Services). Although CORBA now provides the underlying technology for things such as J2EE, it is largely gone as far as a standalone technology. Was CORBA "passing thru" or was/is it a real technology?

      OS/2 was also around for quite a number of years, and was until very recently an actual product. Great OS, IMHO. If we want to define Linux as being around long enough to not be "passing thru", then that applies to OS/2 as well.

      DR-DOS? PC-DOS? Microsoft outlived them both. Or, to be fair, Microsoft did what it does best, redefined the game.

      Mac OS? Doesn't get me started (although I like to think its making a comeback with OS X... made me a convert... UNIX OS with great apps and interface)

      Now, I'm no defender of Microsoft, but I think what Bill Gates was probably saying was "Hey, we've faced down stiff competition before, and won. How is this different?" On that point, I have to agree. Maybe they will lose this time, but they have definatly been down this road before and know a little something about smashing threats.

      (no, this is not a troll. My favorite OS'es are Linux and Mac OS. Just trying to credit where its due)

      --
      Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
    2. Re:But... by laserjet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wouldn't say OS/2 lived to 2002... it certainly was not completely dead, but it was nearly non-existenet in the early to mid nineties except in specialized markets like bank computer.

      linux had had about the same lifespan (1988-1994 = 6 years), but is still strongly growing and showing some ballz, and the community is much bigger than the OS/2 community was, at least online (a rought comparison, as OS/2 was largely before the internet wave).

      not to mention that MS basically partered with IBM on OS/2, then back-stabbed them while secretly working on a competeting OS (windows).

      Those who don't learn history (or choose to ignore it) are bound to repeat it, Bill.

      --
      Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
    3. Re:But... by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 5, Informative

      Let me assure you, lots of banks STILL use OS/2 and they will do so for the foreseable future. The fact that you don't use os/2 does not mean it is dead. It is as dead as Fortran and Cobol.

      --
      Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
    4. Re:But... by Azghoul · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I gotta assume someone else has already brought this up, but come on! What else is the head of a major public corporation supposed to say?

      "Yes, we think Linux is a serious threat to our core business". POW, stock prices get hammered, they get sued.

      The guy has to be the leader of the company, he's not there to look objectively at anything!

    5. Re:But... by swordboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "passing through" technologies don't last as long as Linux has already.

      He means on the desktop. Obviously, even Bill knows that Linux kick MS ass on the server side. But until Linus starts bringing the GUI into the tree, then I would tend to agree that Linux will never make significant inroads to Windows.

      Heck - Linux doesn't even have a desktop. X/KDE/Gnome/etc are responsible for that. And those run on other unices, too. I'm not sure why Linux = Windows competitor to most. It has nothing to do with a desktop OS.

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    6. Re:But... by bladernr · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, J2EE is built using RMI-IIOP (or Internet-InterORB Protocol, or the CORBA protocol), not the original RMI-JRMP (Java Remote Message Protocol). J2EE transactions are CORBA transactions. J2EE security is CORBA security. JNDI naming is CORBA naming. That is how all of the cross-app-server compatability works (or rather, will work, in the future, hopefully, but thats an entirely different topic)

      You should read the J2EE specifications, its all in there. J2EE hides all of that CORBA stuff, but its in there.

      CORBA is quite alive and well, with new specifications arriving all the time, especially in the telco arena (for network management, etc, there is still lots of active work).

      --
      Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
    7. Re:But... by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Has anyone told Bill Gates that Linux isn't like OS/2? Personally I never liked OS/2 though I know many who would swear by it.

      Apples and Oranges. Microsoft has great marketing skills but no idea what they are talking about. It shows in this interview with Bill. OS/2 was never this popular. Not only IBM but many other companies are using Linux. Hell, even Oracle has announced Linux is their primary development platform. OS/2 never had that from anyone.

      How many OS/2 web servers have you guys been hitting lately btw? OS/2 database servers in use? Sure banks use OS/2.. how many banks out there compared to # of other businesses in the world?

      See my issue with Bill's comments? Same ol' FUD. Life is good :D

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
  3. new? by kmac06 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and That Microsoft are the ones that keep pushing new technologies. This is obviously some use of the word 'new' with which I am not familiar.

  4. Uhm, yeah. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful


    This is the guy that managed to overlook the internet when he wrote The Road Ahead in 1995.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  5. What did you expect? by FortKnox · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lets see, chief shareholder of MS (which competes with Linux), in a PR interview claims that they are better, and linux will go away.

    What do you expect people? Bill Gates annouces that Linux is pretty damn good and may give it a whirl, in other news MS stock drops 50%.

    This is just bait to get you guys all riled up. Welcome to PR.

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    1. Re:What did you expect? by Merk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, but it does make me really curious about a few things.

      • What is Microsoft's true impression of Linux as both an OS and as a competitor?
      • How clued in are the top-level people about the capabilities of Linux?
      • Will their strategy of ignoring it and spreading FUD change if Linux starts getting nearer to 10% market share?

      I think the mere fact they talk about Linux in a USA Today interview with Gates says a lot. Besides, in the interview itself he isn't completely dismissive about Linux or OS/2. He said that OS/2 was serious competition because it had the weight of IBM behind it. If he's publicly saying the same thing about Linux then they are saying in public that it's a major threat.

      Personally, I hope they misunderestimate Linux right until it kills them. I stand by my belief that once non-windows home computers have around 20% of the market share, MS is doomed. At that point, hardware manufacturers will be losing serious sales if they release products with only Windows drivers. Software manufacturers will either release only for Windows, or make the software multi-platform and increase their potential market by 20%. Game manufacturers will be in an even better situation. If they release for PC only, they hit a small market, if they make the game multi-platform, not only do they get the additional computers (Linux, OS X, etc.) but additional consoles as well. If MS loses the monopoly on Windows machines as game computers, and Apple decides to break their monopoly on Office by doing what they did with Safari... at that point MS is dead. Let's just hope they don't know it yet.

  6. subbing articles on himself by pytheron · · Score: 5, Interesting
    What is Bill Gates doing submitting stories under his pseudonym (king-of-darkness) ? Anyways, an interesting bit in the article I thought was:

    BG: Are you kidding? I mean, let's be serious. That was IBM, a company 15 times our size. Name a bank that didn't use OS/2. OS/2 was IBM's product, and the IBM army marched behind that product.

    Now replace IBM with Microsoft, and OS/2 with windows. Not so clever now Mr. Gates !

    --
    "I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
  7. This is USA Today by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The magazine with the widest readership in the nation. It probably has the lowest reader-IQ-average as a direct result. The last thing Mr. G wants to happen is for your PHB to read USA Today and think, "Huh. This Linux thing is a big deal."

    So, here he says it isn't a big deal. I'm sure that in real life, he cares a great deal about it.

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  8. News flash - Bill Gates downplays linux by Radon+Knight · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > Gates seems to be considering Linux as a passing
    > thru competition just like OS/2.

    Well, what would you expect him to say? That Linux may (if people get their act together) start threatening Windows on the desktop, and that people are really not fond of Microsoft's draconian licensing schemes and forced inclusion of DRM in their products?

    A newspaper interview with a businessman is nothing more than an opportunity for free advertising. You don't think Bill knows that?

  9. Nobody used OS/2? by utahjazz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I gotta agree with Bill's reaction on that one. The interviewer lost all credibility when he said that. He's one of those people that thinks he knows the technology market because he uses technology, which at best only tells you about consumer technology.

    None of his friends used OS/2 so nobody used it. I guess nobody uses mainframes either, and the Internet was invented 10 years ago.

  10. Extremely ironic... by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the article, he basically says that few companies have the guts to innovate, and that Microsoft does this constantly...

    Surprise: Xerox did that way before Microsoft ever thought about it. And Bill himself only thought about it when he saw one of the first demo model of the Apple Lisa (if I remember well). And that's just one example among many.

    Microsoft never innovated: it just latched on all the good ideas. GUIs, ACLs, www browsers, spreadsheet, heck, even the mouse was invented by somebody else.

    So, what kind of "innovations" has been created by Microsoft? Maybe Clippy. But that's it, and we all know how helpful that is...

    And for those who may believe that Microsoft improved on all of these, I have just four words for you: Blue... Screen... Of... Death.

    Whew! Enough ranting. You can start modding me down, now.

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    1. Re:Extremely ironic... by wfberg · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Just the one that I can think of - use-based dynamic menus. Perhaps someone can point me to earlier cases of this, but I still like it and still find them useful.

      There appears to be a religious objection to them in the Linux world, I suspect primarily because the idea came from Microsoft. OK - so some people hate them, meaning that the feature should be configurable. Despite that, I'd like to see dynamic menus start making their way outside of the Windows world.


      It's not so much religious as practical. Think about it. Everytime you stop using a feature for w hile it disappears. Not once, not twice, all the time. Use it or lose it. If you start using a feature, the menu-option reappears.

      This means your menu items are never in the same place! You quickly lose all efficiency, especially for menu-items that don't have icons in front of them. You can never sit down at some one else's workstation and expect things to be in the same place. I can't tell my mom she should use the third option from the top (which comes in handy sometimes when she's using a Dutch version of Office, whereas I'm using an English version and the translations are farfetched at best).

      Also it changes the way pull down menus have worked for years, with the sole exception of most-recently used files (only at the bottom of the File pull down menu). Talk about breaking the user's mental model of your app!

      GUI gurus know this. They tell you, if an option is not available, disable it (gray it out) so the relative position remains the same. This somehow applies to context menus, but not to pull down menus?

      I'm all for simple vs. advanced pull down menus, but self-adjusting.. Puh-lease. Not to mention my startmenu is at the same time not alphabetized, as well as unpredictably axing applications all the time. I used it yesterday, now it's gone, but the app I used last a few months ago is still there.. Yikes.

      I don't know if self-mutilating pull down menus are a True Microsoft Innovation (R) but yes, they are annoying. There are plenty of better GUI enhancements that could be supported..

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    2. Re:Extremely ironic... by tuxathon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't you know: Microsoft invented TCP\IP (backslash intended), text editors (vi is a clone), and 3D grapics (OpenGL stole Mr. Gates idea). Microsoft is the real victim here. If the rest of the world would simply respect their prowess, stop reverse-engineering their products, and sell their ideas to them, we would all be happy.


      Must ... not ... gag ...

  11. The Ultimate Dupe? by TrollBridge · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I haven't read Slashdot forever, but how many articles throughout /. history do you suppose were titled "Bill Gates On Linux"?

    --
    There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
  12. Re:Yeah.... by hendridm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > They keep bring us new stuff like MS-Bob.... and Clippy...

    Of all the stuff they've released in multiple markets over the past two decades, all you can find to troll with are Microsoft Bob (an application from 1995) and Clippy. Seems to me they might not be doing so bad after all. Why not compare modern versions of MS apps to versions of Mac OS or Linux from 1995 then?

    I love Linux, but the Microsoft Bob troll is so crusty, like no mistakes were made with Linux or OS X over the years...

  13. I liked this part by missing000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bill Gates: Well those are our current competitors. I mean, it's no different than in the past people used [IBM's operating system] OS/2.

    USA TODAY: Nobody used OS/2.

  14. Microsoftie English by pubjames · · Score: 5, Funny

    I love the bizarre way Microsofties speak.

    Normal person: Hey, like your hair cut Bill!

    Bill: Thanks. I'm super-serious about my hair. Before it was totally random but now I'm totally dedicated to getting serious about it. My hair has my 100% committment and I'm going to be super-concentrating on that from now on.

  15. Re:And don't forget about! by MasteroftheVoxel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's be serious. I mean, we've had to bet the company many times on big technological advances. We bet on the 16-bit PC. We bet on graphical user interface. We bet on the NT technology base. Now we're in the process of betting on a combination of technologies called .Net; Longhorn Web services go along with that.

    Let see:
    - IBM bet on the 16-bit PC.
    - Apple bet on the graphical user interface
    - Netscape bet on the web.
    - The NT technology base (thats "new technology" technology for those don't know) was forced down user's throats.
    - Sun bet on the internet and Java (MS calls this stuff .NET and C#)

    Yeah, MS took some big risks there

  16. Re:Dear Bill by PDHoss · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear Spack,

    Thanks for writing. I'll get your software in the mail right away; I just need your mailing address.

    Oh, never mind, here it is in my SQL box, right here next to your SSN, your home phone, your shopping habits, your mothers maiden name, your dog's favorite food, and a complete catalog of your web surfing history.

    MidgetsInLeather.com? Come on, spack.

    Love, Bill.

    --
    ======================================
    Writers get in shape by pumping irony.
  17. Bill has questions. I have answers. by nullard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gates: Who has the guts and the willingness to do risk-taking to get ink into the standard user interface?

    Me: Apple

    Gates: Who else has the guts to get speech, get the recognition levels up, get the learning levels up in the standard interface?

    Me: Apple

    --


    t'nera semordnilap
  18. Re:Finally, an interview with Gates! by Shippy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who cares how long it's managed to be around? How could it be called the passing fad? It hasn't passed yet and is obviously doing very successful so.... where's the interesting point here? So what. UNIX has been around for 40 years and Linux for about 12 to 13 compared to 32-bit Windows' 8. Neither Linux or Windows has died out yet so none of them are passing fads. One's merely younger than the other *shrug*

    --
    -Shippy
  19. Re:He is correct by Aadain2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would have to disagree with you. I think Linux is pushing new technologies faster than MS is. Take a look at the 2.5.x (soon to be 2.6.x) kernels. They represent the most modern kernel out there. MS doesn't have all the features in their ntkernel that Linux does, and probably won't for another 5 years. And Linux is very much multimedia friendly. Just look up a few programs such as Xine or Mplayer. These players alone will play ANYTHING out there, and do it very well. To this day I have yet to find a person saying "Linux isn't ready for desktop use" that has tried the latest release from Redhat or Mandrake or SuSE. They are always referring to distros over two years old or older, which was the last time they touched Linux. They just don't get that Linux moves faster than MS has, does, or ever will. And as someone above said, Linux is a train and it's only picking up steam.

    --
    Space for rent, inquire within
  20. Who was the interviewer? I smell a rat. by gosand · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Who exactly conducted this interview? Think about this for a second: if you got to interview the richest man in the world, wouldn't you want your name on it? All I saw listed as the interviewer was "USA Today". (Beiser took the photo shown) Not only that, but:

    1. It was a very short "interview".

    2. Some of the questions had the tone of "devil's advocate", giving Gates the perfect opportunity to look like the good guy. (OS/2 question in particular)

    3. There was no follow-up to anything, it was just question-answer, question-answer. So if this interview ever took place, it seems like it wasn't an interactive interview. (no big deal, just wanted to point it out)

    My non-expert opinion? This was a canned PR interview that MS sent USA Today.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  21. FIRST USE OF NEW JARGON by fsmunoz · · Score: 5, Funny

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. (Mahatma Gandhi)


    It's the GhandiCon!!!! THE GHANDICON!!! Everybody knows the GHADICON!!! So, where are we in the GHANDICON? Uh? Uh? Why didn't you said the GhandiCon? It would have beem simpler AND EVERYBODY USES IT NOW!!!

    Ph4t Pr0ps to the GhandiCon!


    (cf ESR Recasts Jargon File in Own Image)

  22. Re:doesn't matter by zog+karndon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Get it right. IBM chopped 384K off the top. There were several other manufacturers (Victor, Zenith, Tandy) who had MS-DOS implementations with 900K usable memory.

    Microsoft didn't spec the IBM PC, and IBM didn't spec MS-DOS.

    Furthermore, since MS-DOS didn't provide a memory allocator, it's stupid to say that MS-DOS can't address non-contiguous memory.

  23. open standards, open standards, open standards... by raw-sewage · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As much as I love Linux and the free software movement, my biggest (personal) agenda is educating people about the pitfalls of proprietary data formats (vendor lock-in) and the freedom of open standards (choice).

    I think Bill's interview is typical PR material; anyone from MS's marketing group could probably give the same interview. But what scares me, is that every time Microsoft "innovates", all they really do is make stuff that is incompatible with anything non-Microsoft (and sometimes their own products aren't compatible!)

    That in mind, it seems more important to me to promote open standards than Linux itself. Of course I would love to see Linux have a respectable desktop market share for better OEM support. But what good is my Linux machine if I can't even surf the web because too many web pages are written only for IE? How much of a pain is it if I have to tell everyone to resend their MS Office documents in a format I can read (OOo won't always cut it)?

    And now we're seeing some cases where the US and/or state governments' are officially blessing Microsoft's otherwise incompatible data formats---this should be criminal! Public information that is avaialable electronically (either through the web or some other means) should not dictate which software is used to view, edit, modify or interact with that data.

    If you go to a "IE only" government website, you're effectively seeing a tax funded advertisement for Microsoft. Your taxes paid for the software purchase, for the staff to setup and maintain that system, and now you're effectively taxed again by being forced into purchasing some (very expensive) software. And people call open source communist?!

    I think we need to put some effort into a strong "inform the masses" campaign. An easy first step is to write editorials to your local paper brining to light the dangers of proprietary data formats and vendor lock-in. I was thinking about pre-scripting a lot of these letters and posting them on my website for all to use/borrow/steal/whatever. These letters also need to be sent to government representatives.

    The article should contain proposed solutions. As much as we love Linux and friends, we can't beat it down peoples' throats. Some other viable thoughts:

    • More pressure on Microsoft to release specs on their proprietary stuff (e.g. Office, IE-only features, etc) and insist on reference implementations for these data formats.
    • Push for legislation that guarantees public data sytems will use an open format (e.g. the OOo format)

    Finally, I think it's important to have some good, strong analogies or metaphores to illustrate the negative impact of the Microsoft monopoly (and their use of proprietray, non-compatible data formats). The most obvious analogy, to me, is as follows:

    What if Ford Motor Co. owned all the roads in the U.S.? Surely they would design the roads such that only Ford vehicles worked on them. And furthermore, they would hide behind IP laws to make it illegal for anyone to make a car for their roads. What if Ford only offered one or two models of cars that actually worked on these roads? And those cars were their most expensive?

    If the above scenario were true, public outrage would be rampant. Most people simply don't realize that this contrived situation is the case with Microsoft. Worse, people don't understand the implications of Microsoft literally owning your data.

    Welcome to the United States of Microsoft, comrade.

  24. Re:doesn't matter by Trepalium · · Score: 5, Informative
    The x86 processors used a segment:offset addressing scheme, and could address a total of 1 megabyte of memory. The mapping of addresses to physical addresses was simply (segment*16)+offset (this actually gave a maximum addressable range of 1MB + 65516 bytes. This additional <64k range became known as the HMA in DOS 5+). IBM wisely reserved the upper 384kb of addressable memory for expansion, BIOS and video memory. For a system that was originally shipped with only 64 to 128kb of RAM, it left lots of room for expansion, and the EMS systems used that reserved memory area to provide a 'window' into the add-in memory. However, with most video cards occupying the region at A000h, it was impossible to use more than 640K of conventional memory.

    For the record, the 8088 had an 8-bit bus, 16-bit registers, and 20-bits of address space. The 8088 is to the 8086 as the 80386SX was to the 80386DX, and few people claim that the 80386SX was a 16-bit chip, otherwise we'd be claiming that current consumer CPUs are anywhere from 64-bit to 512-bit.

    --
    I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.