Slashdot Mirror


The Man Who Could Have Been Bill Gates

theodp writes "BusinessWeek discusses They Made America, a new book which claims Bill Gates got the rewards due Gary Kildall. The book attacks the reputations of key early PC era players - Gates, IBM, and QDOS programmer Tim Paterson - asserting that Paterson copied parts of Kildall's CP/M and that IBM tricked Kildall, allowing Gates to prevail and depriving Kildall of untold riches and credit for a seminal role in the PC revolution. Some material came from an unpublished memoir penned by Kildall after the University of Washington, where Kildall earned a PhD, picked Harvard dropout Gates as keynote speaker for the 25th anniversary of its CS program."

52 of 458 comments (clear)

  1. Wrong person by mirko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bill Gates was a negociator, not a programmer, that's why the other could in no way have become him.

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
    1. Re:Wrong person by mirko · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We all are more than one thing.
      Bill Gates has programmed but had he been a programmer, he would have kept improving his art instead of becoming a manager and a negociator.
      So well, he "was also"...

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    2. Re:Wrong person by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. Kildall was never known for his business sense. He was known as an "inventor" and a programmer. Gates was smart in doing what he did back then (royalty fees and the such). He let others do the work for him and he made the money. Others just couldn't see the future. Apparently Gates could (at least then).

      Some might view Kildall's story as being a sad one. A man driven to alcohol because his wife wouldn't sign an NDA or because he supposedly went flying. Whatever. The man had a poor business sense and he didn't see the value in doing what he needed to do to win.

      It's not like he didn't make a ton of money. He ended up selling out to Novell for something like $125 million. Honestly, I think that's significant.

    3. Re:Wrong person by DigitumDei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Being beaten by someone who he obviously thought was undeserving could quite easily drive someone to drink. It's not because of the money, it's the fame, and the fact that people say Bill Gates invented something that in reality he felt was his creation.

      The "theft" of something you create can burn the soul much more than any loss of money.

    4. Re:Wrong person by Loco3KGT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You missed the point of his post entirely.

      Bill Gates' rise to fame and power is because of his skill as a businessman - which I'm sure can be attributed to the laywer heritage he comes from.

      Kildall was a programmer - pure and simple. He didn't stand a chance on the open market against Gates.

      --
      Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
    5. Re:Wrong person by jejones · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The man had a poor business sense and he didn't see the value in doing what he needed to do to win.

      Yeah, poor guy. He had ethics.

    6. Re:Wrong person by EulerX07 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hardly think he got short changed then. I'd rather have 125 million and be relatively anonymous then be the richest guy on the planet, but unable to walk around in public without being annoyed (like movie/music/sport stars).

      Not that I have a choice between either unfortunately.

    7. Re:Wrong person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Bzzzt, wrongo. I work with people who have worked with Gates on programming projects, they all claim that he is no programmer. Hey!! and whats the crack about being too old to code, Im only about 2 years younger than Gates and I can code you under the table you young whipper snapper.

    8. Re:Wrong person by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the article:

      Kildall ultimately sold his company to Novell Inc. (NOVL ) in 1991 for $120 million. He went on to create some pioneering multimedia technology, but never again was an industry player.

      You know, after you break the $100 million mark I stop feeling sorry for you losing out on business deals.

    9. Re:Wrong person by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are correct. Gates was a programmer... A mediocre programmer at best however.

      It is sad that usually the path to riches is one of exploiting other people's talent.

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    10. Re:Wrong person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not impossible, it's just more difficult. Having ethics is not a plus in making lots of money (which most people belive is what "becoming a successful businessperson" means); to not have ethics lets you do more things.

    11. Re:Wrong person by !ucif3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can't say I have read that book, but it is flat out wrong. Paul and Bill met in high school. He was not a friend of Gates' mother. I suppose that is why that inacurate biography is 'unnofficial'. The guy was 2 years older than him, how could he have been doing charity work with Gates' mother? Allen was also a interested programmer and worked with Gates during the entire period, from meeting in highschool until they created Microsoft. Heck, any Google on this will turn up tons of results explaining just that (including Encarta) Basic was co-authored with Allen, it was not just Gates' creation. Finally Allen is generally credited with spearheading the QDOS deal that got MS started (even by the IBM 'geeks' who worked with him acknowledge this). Why can't anyone get their facts straight before posting on SD?

      --
      "Take that Lisa's beliefs!" - Homer Simpson
    12. Re:Wrong person by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He may be mediocre as a programmer, and let's face, if BASIC is you're favorite language then you probably are a mediocre programmer, but he was a ruthless businessman + 5. That's why MS is where it is today, because Bill is great at exploiting people, making deals, crushing competition, and making whatever dirty deals he needs to profit. He is the Anekin Skywalker of programming. Schooled in the art whilst young, then turned to the darkside by his naked greed and need to dominate others.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    13. Re:Wrong person by the+arbiter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Are you suggesting that is impossible to be both ethical, and a successful businessperson?"

      Yes. At least that's precisely what I'm suggesting. Every example you provide (especially Saturn...for God's sake, man, that's General Motors, one of the most unethical corporations on the face of the planet) makes money by exploiting someone, somewhere. I don't let that keep me from sleeping at night, but let's at least be honest about what the nature of business is all about - someone benefits while someone else pays for it.

      --
      Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
  2. Coulda woulda shoulda by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what? Life is not fair and never has been. I'm sure history is rife with examples of people 'not getting their due'.

    Waaaa...waaaa...waaaaaahhhh. Cry me a river!

  3. Kildall is no Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gates deserved his accolades for being a shrewd businessman, not for his programming skills. Kildall doesn't deserve them for precisely that reason, because he isn't a good businessman, couldn't promote himself or his products, etc.

    It's no good being a great programmer or having a great product generally if you can't communicate that or convince anyone of it.

    1. Re:Kildall is no Gates by sepluv · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And it is even better if you aren't a great programmer and have a crap product, but convince everyone otherwise right?

      (Personally, I think we should reward the people who helped the world the most as opposed those who persuaded the world to give them the most money for the least work; but that is just my opinion.)

      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    2. Re:Kildall is no Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      People were convinced of Kildall's talents, but he was difficult to deal with. Nobody is convinced of Gates talents, he was never a great coder and the only recognition I give him is for screwing over almost everyone he was ever involved with. This is what people disguise with the word 'shrewd', make no mistakes that Bill Gates is a most vile individual.

  4. technical brilliance? by jstave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    from TFA: For all his technical brilliance, he was a poor businessman. I think that's the real point. It certainly wasn't technical superiority that got Microsoft where it is today. It was marketing superiority.

  5. Trusting IBM by amigoro · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I had the misfortune of being employed by IBM for about 15 months. I had to sign this contract by which I effectively sold my intellectual property rights to IBM, even a few years after the termination of my contract. And I found out how ideas are developed at IBM. I was just a 19 then. I didn't know better. But I would never make that mistake again. The process goes something like this. You are young and innovative. You come up with a brillian idea. IBM takes it from you. IBM gives it to a different department. You are never ever to have anything to do with your idea ever again. Your name is not even mentioned when the final product is released. You get absolutely no credit. I can well believe that IBM tricked Kildall. I wonder how long it would be before IBM tricks the open source community.

    Moderate this comment
    Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
    Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny

    --


    Nothing to see here
    1. Re:Trusting IBM by Ubergrendle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Should i call you the "waaahmbulance"? IBM spends HUGE amounts of money on R&D. I'm willing to bet that you learned more about rigour, process, how companies operate, and advanced computing principles in general during the time you worked there, than you contributed back with your 'great idea'. Consider your idea a payment for training and life experience that you couldn't beg/borrow/steal for in an academic institution.

      If you didn't like the details of the contract, you didn't have to sign. If you think your 'great idea' would have seen the light of day based on garage experiments in isolation, more power to you.

      As for IBM 'tricking' the open source community, that's a specious comment at best. Given that the source is 'open' and avaialble to all, how can IBM steal it? That's the whole point to open source in the first place.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    2. Re:Trusting IBM by confused+one · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Welcome to the real world.

      No, seriously, I don't mean to sound sarcastic; but, really... You worked for IBM. You came up with an idea on IBM's time. You told them about it. They own it. They can do what they want with it. Done.

      As for getting credit... products from large corporations like that are usually faceless. You don't get a copy of, say, AIX, with the authors name on the front page of the manual. It MAY be embedded in the source, if you have access to the source. That's the only place you'll likely find a name.

  6. Quoteth a former president by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    PRESS ON. Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing in the world is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
    • Calvin Coolidge US politician (1872 - 1933)
  7. Re:Bil Gates... by kahei · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Yes, in the case of software, commercializing, while just as important, is harder.

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
  8. Re:Bil Gates... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You certainly have no clue as to Steve Jobs involvement in Apple's technologies and products.

  9. False Rights by argoff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All too often I've seen people (in this industry) assume false rights (like intellectual "property") and then when someone else does an end run arround them then they get mad because they were sidelined.

    Well, I'm sorry to see them hurt, but what did they expect?

  10. dropout gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    the story i was told by my compsci professor, who was a graduate student when gates was an undergraduate, was that he was expelled.

  11. ye gods by HBI · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "persistence". Okay. That very CP/M that IBM and Microsoft stole from him was the basis for DR-DOS (via CP/M-86), which Microsoft proceeded to sandbag via various anticompetitive means, ultimately resulting in a very hefty payoff for Caldera, plus significant contribution to the antitrust case against Microsoft.

    He was persistent. He did work hard. He had a slime ball working against him for whom laws are optional.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  12. Totally wrong assumptions by jridley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This assumes that Bill Gates is rich because he's a programming genius. That's not at all true. He's rich because he is a ruthless businessman, a shrewd negotiator, and takes no prisoners.

    1. Re:Totally wrong assumptions by No.+24601 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This assumes that Bill Gates is rich because he's a programming genius. That's not at all true. He's rich because he is a ruthless businessman, a shrewd negotiator, and takes no prisoners.

      And most importantly, he knows what the people want.

  13. Expert C Programming by baruz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As Peter van der Linden wrote, "Don't worry about Gary; he'd rather be flying," or something to that effect.

    There are more important things than being the richest man in the world.

    --
    He was a verray parfit gentil knight.
  14. Technical prowess != biggest fish in the big pond by shoppa · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It's not automatically true that if you've got a good running product that you can beat the sales team with no actual product.

    Even if you're product is technically best by some measure there are other products that may be technically better by some other measure. Hindsight often tells you which benchmark was right and which was wrong but in the heat of battle it's hard to see the forest for the trees.

    And all that said, oftentimes the selected product is simply vaporware (as was MS-DOS until Gates bought QDOS) when there are real running products out there. Part of it is salesmanship on one side and lack of salesmanship on the other side, but usually there's some favors being traded under the table.

    And while Kildall wasn't the biggest fish in that pond, he had hooks into a number of software packages (CP/M was being sold on millions of PC's, the DR languages and tools too).

  15. The Parasitic Sub-Society of The Elites by Cryofan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Many Slashdotters probably know that the reason IBM worked with Gates and no one else is because Gates's family was rich and well connected. Gates's mother was probably the one that got him in good with IBM. Gates's mother served on the board of the United Way with IBM's Chairman John Opel. What a coincidence!

    This is just another example of how the elites at the top of the hieracrchy operate as some sort of parasitic sub-society, perched above us, exploiting the rest of us, feeding off of us.

    You may think that my perspective is warped, paranoid, whatever. But I think it serves as a reality check and a balance to the omnipresent messages of confomuity that society and the media flood us with every day.

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
    1. Re:The Parasitic Sub-Society of The Elites by FacePlant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Furrfu! That's called networking. "It's who you know" is an axiom at all levels of society. Get out from in front of your computer and do things with people. One of them may be the key to your future. Stop whining. Life isn't fair. Buy a helmet and a hanky. Read "Fire your boss". If you want something to fall into your lap, your lap has to be where things can fall into it. And what the hell is confomuity? I like that word. Can I use it too?

      --
      My Heart Is A Flower
    2. Re:The Parasitic Sub-Society of The Elites by Cryofan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your reply is another perfect example of how society (which is controlled by the elites) socializes us to accept the rule of the Parasitic Sub-Society of The Elites. These little reminders are all around us--they tell us to OBEY, ACCEPT AUTHORITY, CONFORM, etc. I think it would be useful and productive for all of us to explore different perspectives. Please look at the human race and our society in particular from the perspective of a wildlife biologist, one who studies the interactions of a society of social animals. He/she studies the interactions of that animal society, making notes on what he/she see, etc. This biologist notes that the elite of this animal society work together; they even seek each other out. The members of this elite already have power, and they give each other more power through their interactions with each other.

      Of course, in this animal society, one way they maintain their rule is being making those at the bottom of the pack antagonist to any who seek to expose this Parasitic Sub-Society of The Elites.

      --
      eat shiat and bark at the moon
    3. Re:The Parasitic Sub-Society of The Elites by gosand · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This is just another example of how the elites at the top of the hieracrchy operate as some sort of parasitic sub-society, perched above us, exploiting the rest of us, feeding off of us. You may think that my perspective is warped, paranoid, whatever. But I think it serves as a reality check and a balance to the omnipresent messages of confomuity that society and the media flood us with every day.

      I actually didn't know that stuff about Gates. I thought he was just a sleazy businessman, but it turns out he was a connected sleazy businessman. Oh well. It isn't like I care much. It isn't what you know, blah blah. Like we need to be reminded of that during an election year. The stuff I know about Bush and his family scares the crap out of me in this regard, I don't even want to find out what I don't know. I know enough to despise him, just like Gates.

      People are too busy striving for success instead of striving for happiness anyway. I love this country (USA), and we do have a rich culture and heritage (good and bad). Unfortunately, that isn't the way we present ourselves to others around the world and in our daily lives. We are caught up in this manufactured image of pseudo-culture.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    4. Re:The Parasitic Sub-Society of The Elites by westlake · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Many Slashdotters probably know that the reason IBM worked with Gates and no one else is because Gates's family was rich and well connected.

      Microsoft was incorporated in 1975. By 1980 it was well established and strongly positioned as a language company for microcomputers. MBASIC, FORTRAN, COBOL. It was certainly not an unknown quantity to IBM.

    5. Re:The Parasitic Sub-Society of The Elites by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Thanks for beating me to it.

      Ever hear of the 15/85 rule? Its from How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. Those figures are from a study of engineers they conducted where they determined whether it was technical knowledge or people skills that got you ahead. The results were that its 15% technical skills, 85% people skills.

      I really do get sick of the bitching and moaning on here when people get upset that they aren't getting ahead in their path because the system is broken. Guess what, in this regard the system CAN'T be broken because no one person determines what the system is. THIS IS THE SYSTEM. Don't bitch if you're not willing to play the game. Life isn't fair, nobody owes you anything, and you get ahead in life through the connections you make. Sorry to tell you that the answer isn't found in lines of code, but instead is found in conversations with actual people.

      I really don't mean this as a troll mods, but there's always one person like the grandparent who posts something like this in these stories and what the parent and I have explained is one of the most valuable lessons a young techy can learn, and the earlier they learn it the better.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  16. Re:Bil Gates... by MvD_Moscow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...but those with the huge persistence and blind arrogance required to forge a new business area are rare and valuable. And of what use are these people without the ideas themselves? Without the ideas no amount of arrogace or persistence will allow you to achieve great hieghts.

  17. I dont think so. by baadfood · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Kildall was too shortsighted to have succeeded. Gates, for all that we slashdotters love to hate him now, was wise enough to see that there was more benefit to demanding a very low roylaty per copy.

    Kildall was too engrossed with making immediate profit to, even if he had got in the door first, have prospered for long.

  18. Re:Not entirely untold by AndroidCat · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It wasn't that he refused to talk with them, just that he didn't think he was needed for that meeting. Business discusions were handled by someone else at DRI. (His wife?) IBM expected to meet with the head of the company. And there was the problem when IBM slapped down their standard non-disclosure agreement.

    It was a fumble and mismatch of corporate cultures that Bill Gates was quick to take advantage of.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  19. No, and I'll tell you why by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everyone on /. seems to assume that coding is the alpha and the omega and nothing else matters. That if you code some clever algorithm, screw the interface, screw users and screw marketting. Only the high magic hacking matters, right.

    You see that attitude reflected in 100,000 piss-poor open source projects that noone wants to use. They've got all these cool optimizations and clever hacks, and should have been the next greatest thing. Except they aren't, because noone gives a damn about them.

    What makes a program or a company successful is what you do _after_ you have the cool algorithm or hack. Like user interface. Or like usability.

    The same goes for CP/M. It was barely a program loader with the most minimalistic command-line interface. Even internally it was a primitive monolythic piece of code that basically it didn't even have DOS's (or Unix's) separation between directory entry and allocation table. It would have required a complete redesign just to support bigger floppies.

    DOS or CP/M were but a starting point, _not_ a killer app that turned MS into a monopoly over night. Sure, the cash infusion from DOS helped a lot to get them started. But if MS had stayed happily making just DOS, they'd still be a small company noone gives a damn. In fact, less than that, since other OSs were more advanced and Moore's Law would soon make a PC good enough to use those instead of DOS.

    The story of MS is far more complex than that of DOS alone. And their monopoly isn't just the OS, it's a whole lot of interlocking pieces which make the OS a must.

    It includes for starters making some damn good and _affordable_ apps for it too. When you ask someone why don't they switch to Linux, what's the ISO standard answer you'll get? "Does it run Word, Excel and IE?" They jumped on any app idea that looked like their users might need badly.

    It also includes caring about the developpers. Yes, laugh all you want at Uncle Fester's "developpers developpers developpers" monkey dance. But _that_ is what kept Windows having a steady stream of apps, while for other OSs you'd have a hard time just getting any dev tools at all.

    Basically while all the idiots thought "noooo, you can't take my precioussss compiler! I want to be the only one who sells apps for my OS!" and left you begging for months even for a compiler, MS almost gave away everything you could possibly want to make an app.

    It also includes being smart enough to realize the importance of users and of a good UI. You know why the relationship between IBM and Microsoft went sour? Because the idiots at IBM thought a GUI was a waste of money. That MS should concentrate on just making an API for geeks, and stop wasting money on stuff like a GUI.

    Etc, etc, etc.

    Saying that just replacing DOS with CP/M would have made another company become Microsoft, is short sighted and idiotic.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  20. "Because an embittered drunk says so." isn't fact. by nick_davison · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Evans bases his Kildall chapter on a 226-page, never-published memoir written by Kildall just before his death in 1994. ... But by the time he died at age 52, after falling in a tavern, he had become embittered and struggled with alcohol."

    So, the entire chapter is based on the writings of an embittered drunk after he had become an embittered drunk.

    "Screw you all, I would have been Shaq if it hadn't have been for that deliberate foul that caused my knee injury!" doesn't make the washed up drunk any more of a pro basketball player. It doesn't even mean the foul was deliberate. It means an embittered person who didn't have any of the rest of the personality aspects that led to the other person's success, never put in the work, never fought as hard to get back up from setbacks, and, likely, wasn't even fouled half as deliberately as they've come to convince themselves has simply convinced themselves that their life could have been better if it wasn't for something unfair someone else did to them.

    Basing an article on their embittered rantings, because it makes for a sensational enough article to sell some copies of your book and get some headlines, isn't exactly what I'd call great journalism.

  21. wrong battle, wrong time, wrong person... by poptones · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As someone who himself has fought a lifelong battle with depression, I relate well to his story.

    Sad as it is, if it hadn't been this it would likely have been something else. We are, in many ways, doomed to our fates. He simply lived the life he had to live, and nothing more.

  22. Re:Bil Gates... by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not a matter of admiration. It's simply a matter of telling the truth and only giving people credit for their own accomplishments.

    Ford did not invent the assembly line.
    Edison did not invent the lightbulb.
    Gates did not invent the internet.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  23. Re:Free Stuff by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Microsoft .NET Framework and SDK are free.
    The Microsoft C# compiler is free.
    The Microsoft VB.NET compiler is free.
    The Microsoft C compiler is free.
    The Microsoft C++ compiler is free.

    A Microsoft WebForm IDE is free (WebMatrix)


    Free as in Beer. Find a bug in VB.NET compiler? Good luck fixing it....

    PS: Ever wonder about the Intellectual Property of Beer producers? Their secret recipes and whatnot? Would they be offended by "Free as in beer"? Funny though, that.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  24. Bill Gates is a Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > Bill Gates' rise to fame and power is because of his skill as a businessman...

    Wrong.

    Bill Gates rose to power because he is a criminal, and nothing was done when he broke the law.

    Gates had the good fortune to be working in an industry that involved a totally new technology, i.e. software. This meant that the government had no idea what to do about Microsoft's various acts of sabotage, fraud, etc. In a smarter world, the courts would have realized that you don't need new laws, rather, the same laws apply to software as apply to other property, and in other industries.

    Bill Gates won because the leaders of the other companies in the software industry were basically-honest, good businessmen, whereas Gates was a criminal.

    When the law is not enforced, a criminal will beat a businessman every time.

    Let's look at some of Microsoft's history.

    Microsoft was losing to DR-DOS at the start of the nineties, until Microsoft added a false message about the incompatability of DR-DOS (Gates knew it was false from Microsoft's own testing).

    That's fraud -- a criminal act. The courts ignored it.

    Also at that time, Geoworks was five years ahead of Microsoft in providing a modern, working GUI for DOS. DR-DOS and Geoworks were being pre-installed on a large percentage of PCs. But Microsoft made a change to DOS specifically to cause Geoworks to fail.

    That's sabotage -- a criminal act. The courts ignored it.

    WordPerfect had already beaten Microsoft in the Word Processing market. But Microsoft side-tracked Wordperfect when they promised the world that OS/2 was the new direction, then undermined WordPerfect on Windows by providing intentionally-broken API calls.

    That's fraud and sabotage, ignored by the courts.

    Netscape had already beaten Microsoft in the browser market, until Microsoft started doing things like paying companies to break their contracts with Netscape.

    There were various criminal acts there, which were generally ignored by the courts (other than a partial invocation of the nearly-useless anti-trust laws).

    And in Java, Sun provided a cross-platform language that was perfect for web-based applications, such as e-commerce. Microsoft had nothing similar to offer, and it has taken Microsoft ten years to catch up.

    Once again, Microsoft stopped Java with sabotage and fraud. And this time, Microsoft's criminal acts were perfectly documented in Microsoft's own internal papers:

    Sabotage:

    "Strategic Objective . . . Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market."

    Fraud:

    "At this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps."

    Some people point to Microsoft as an example of Capitalism at work, but it's not true. When criminals are allowed to get away with their crimes, it actually undermines Capitalism.

    To repeat my initial point. Bill Gates is NOT a "skilled businessman" -- he is a criminal, whose various acts of sabotage, fraud, and so on, should have landed him in jail.

  25. Re:Kildall dropped the ball. by hdw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is there any accessible source to the statement that Tim Patterson had access to the CP/M source?

    As opposed to implementing the CP/M API from the official programmer's reference.

    --
    Executive Pope (small) Kallisti Engineering
  26. He couldnt have been 'Gates' by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They are totally different people with a different set of morals and attitudes..

    I dont believe Gary could be the same sort of ruthless business man that Bill has been.

    Having the product is only 1/3 of a business, the rest is how you manage 'the business'....

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  27. Re:Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Now to make the humiliation complete, "the Elites" are foisting religion down our throats to make us feel guilty.

    Isn't is funny that I never see any indication of guilt on the part of any of "the Elite"? I can only conclude that they really don't believe!

    Every time I see the words "faith-based", I feel like puking!

  28. Geoworks? Bwaaahahahaha. . . by Sialagogue · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Also at that time, Geoworks was five years ahead of Microsoft in providing a modern, working GUI for DOS. DR-DOS and Geoworks were being pre-installed on a large percentage of PCs. But Microsoft made a change to DOS specifically to cause Geoworks to fail."

    Geoworks was well ahead of Windows, but Geoworks and DR-DOS were pre-installed on a large number of PCs? Maybe at a couple of swap meets, but not in the real world. . .The only somewhat mainstream implementation of Geoworks that momentarily bobbed into the mainstream was as an early GUI for America Online. Other than that it was forgotten as quickly as it was introduced.

    --
    The only acceptable defense of scientific results is to say that they were the product of the Scientific Method.
  29. Re:Again, Circular Logic! by FacePlant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think you are missing the point. I never said that the Elite Parasitic Sub-society (EPSS) is inevitable. I said that it is. Full Stop.

    But there are also sub-elite parasitic sub-societies, faith-based parasitic sub-societies, scum-of-the-earth parasitic sub-societies, and internet parasitic sub-societies.

    Society works this way. Nobody will invite you to join their band if they don't know that you play the bassoon. How will they find out? Either they'll see you playing on a street corner, see your flyer at the record store ("non-elite non-parasitic bassoon player seeks hammered dulcimer and timable players for new-age ska fusion band", or your mom might mention it in passing, to her hairdresser, who's daughter is the top hammered dulimaniac in town, and since your mom is a good tipper, the hairdresser gives your number to her daughter. All of these scenarios involve some person interacting with some other person. Scenario 1 is you interacting directly with somebody else, face-to-face. Scenario 2 is a time shifted version of scenario 1, and scenario three has somebody with whom you've directly interacted, interacting with somebody else, face to-face.

    The human interaction is unavoidable (and inevitable) Its how society works, at all levels.

    You really do need to come to grips with this, otherwise, you might end up writing a Manifesto about elite parasitic sub-societies. Then it's not a huge leap to membership in The Friends of the Hooded Sweatshirt Society.

    Play golf, go bowling, join a church choir, locate a scrapbooking consultant, learn tai chi or kendo.

    Your key to getting ahead is gaining the personal trust of people who can help you get ahead when they need the skills you've got. You could meet a girl. her dad might be rich an powerful, and be in need of a son-in-law to take over the firms operations so he and the missus can travel asia like they always wanted to.

    Besides, it isn't the elite parasitic sub-socities you need to worry about, its the Elite parasitic sub-societies: The Bavarian Illuminati, the CIA, and Evil Geniuses for a Better fnord Tomorrow.

    --
    My Heart Is A Flower