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 Some material came from an unpublished memoir penned by Kildall after the University of Washington, where Kildall earned a PhD, picked Harvard dropout Gates as keynote speaker for the 25th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."

40 of 458 comments (clear)

  1. Hey wait a minute by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Funny

    After reading the title, I thought this was going to be about Steve Jobs!

  2. Not entirely untold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This has actually been discussed at length in other books, most notably Michael Swaine's excellent Fire In The Valley.

    1. Re:Not entirely untold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The cool thing about that book is that the first edition was written in 1984, and so offers a timely perspective on the formation of the computer industry. It's not a "looking back" history where facts get muddled over time. Everything is fresh. The second, 1999, edition updates with the history that happened since, and everything remains timely. I read the first edition in college, and bought the second when it came out.

      The book was made into a movie a few years ago, which I believe aired on TNT (if memory serves). I see it is now also available on video.

    2. 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.
  3. 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 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.

    2. Re:Wrong person by !ucif3r · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually Bill Gates was not a Negotiator. I don't know where you got that from. The people at IBM would not even have agreed to work with him because he was so arrogant if it wasn't for how convincing Paul Allen was.

      Paul Allen was pretty much the brains and the charm behind getting Dos into the PC. Bill was just his friend.

      IMHO: He got lucky.

      --
      "Take that Lisa's beliefs!" - Homer Simpson
    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 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.

    6. Re:Wrong person by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you're mistaken about that. Yes, he and Allen wrote a basic interpreter which was used. Then they tossed it in favor of GWU Basic, because the MS basic interpreter sucked rocks so bad they couldn't even fix it.

      I personallly think the shame with Kildall is that he got so royally screwed by someone like Gates. But he wasn't the only one, the list of Gates's victims is long. Kildall was merely one of the first.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    7. Re:Wrong person by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 5, Funny

      This sounds like an invitation to start a viagra vs. emacsagra flame war.

    8. Re:Wrong person by Kombat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.


      Are you suggesting that is impossible to be both ethical, and a successful businessperson? What about co-ops? Google? Saturn? If you'd RTFA, you'd see that in this case, "doing what was needed to win" consisted of "delivering a 16-bit version of your OS by next summer." Kildall couldn't/didn't. Gates did. So the contract went to Gates. Where does ethics enter into this? Gates had vision where Kildall didn't. This has nothing to do with ethics.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    9. 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.

    10. Re:Wrong person by mav[LAG] · · Score: 5, Informative

      Paul Allen, who knew Bill Gates mother from their work on charity boards, asked "What about Mary Gates boy? I hear he works with these things."

      Right quote (almost), right context, wrong attribution. It was actually the chairman of IBM John Opel who said that when he heard that Don Estridge was working with Microsoft. He and Mary Gates had bumped into each other at the United Way board. The quote is "that wouldn't be Mary Gates's boy Bill would it?" (Big Blues, Paul Carroll, pp 33-34)

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    11. Re:Wrong person by johansalk · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're right. Gates himself attributes his early success to one thing, contracts! He understood contracts, what they meant, how to do them, and so on. The Microsoft vs Apple case regarding the "look and feel" of the Macintosh interface imitated in windows is an example of that; Apple signed an agreement with Microsoft that effectively banned it from imitating the Mac, and Gates was apparently careful to specify a certain version of windows in the text of the document, so that when Microsoft followed it up with a later version of windows, and Apple sued, their lawsuit collapsed in court as a result of that previous agreement they had.

  4. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Would we have hated him as well?

  5. 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!

  6. Memory lane.... by grub · · Score: 5, Interesting


    I still have my boxed copies of CP/M-86, DR-C and DR-Fortran at home. Having used CP/M on an Apple ][+ with a Z80 card it was a pretty easy transition. To this day I still use Joe as my editor. It's a virtual clone of WordStar that I used on the CP/M machine 20 years ago.

    Too bad DOS and MS won out, CP/M was the cat's meow at the time.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Memory lane.... by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Dos 2 also introduced a nested directory structure pipes, and I think redirection. At that time Gates was sure that Unix was the future and Microsoft even had it's own version called Xenix. When development of OS/2 started they sold Xenix to a company called SCO. A lot of Unix like stuff ended up in DOS.
      Digital Research never made applications. They believed that they should only make OSs and programing tools. I often wish Microsoft would have adopted that model as well.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. Bil Gates... by pubjames · · Score: 5, Interesting


    I'm sure we've all had experiences of people telling us how clever Bill Gates is inventing Windows, or the Internet or whatever.

    The real shame is that certain computer museums in the USA perpetuate the myth that the manufacturers of software like Bill Gates were actually the inventors of it. I also think that Steve Jobs is a cool guy but doesn't deserve much space in the history of computing. Commercialising and inventing are completely different things.

    1. Re:Bil Gates... by pubjames · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      But is it as worthy of our admiration?

  10. No big surprise... by drlake · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't say I'm surprised to hear that Bill Gates wasn't the innovative programmer he's made out to be, but then we already knew that. His strengths have always been elsewhere, mainly in the form of making some pretty good business decisions. Because of that, this Kildall really couldn't have been Bill Gates - he obviously lacks the business sense.

    I do find the assertion that it was all a conspiracy with IBM laughable, though. First, why would IBM care? Second, if IBM had a clue about the future value of DOS back then, they would have bought it outright rather than choosing to license it.

  11. 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 acomj · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I worked at IBM research. Basically if you develop something on IBMs time with IBMs resources they own it. A lot of companies are like that.

      Some people like it because if IBM likes the idea they'll throw IBM resourses at it and let you develop it and pay you to do it.

      They give you a lot of resourses to get your idea off the ground and will reward you if its a successful product. If its credit your looking for do it yourself.

      They even tell the interns, if you have an idea and you want to develop it DON"t tell it to us.

  12. 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)
    1. Re:Quoteth a former president by mwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It takes all of that, but none of the others will get anywhere without persistence.

      Persistence without talent, education, or genius, on the other hand, generally leads to the kind of fame that most of us would rather avoid. It's the single driving quality of that leechlike salesman you'd love to punch in the nose, or the lunatic-fringe politician who just won't go away even though he never comes within 1/100 of winning. It's the life and breath of tin-pot dictators and fanatics.

      I agree with Cal's observations but not his conclusion. Persistence and determination can accomplish nothing worthwhile if you have no idea what you are doing.

  13. Dataflow analysis! by daveho · · Score: 5, Informative

    Kildall wrote a seminal paper called "A Unified Approach to Global Program Optimization" which introduced dataflow analysis as a general technique for program analysis and compiler optimization. Every time you add -O([1-6])* to your gcc command line, you're applying techniques that Kildall invented.

    CP/M was pretty cool, too :-)

  14. 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.
  15. Kildall dropped the ball. by Deathlizard · · Score: 5, Informative

    Im parapraising "Trimuph of the Nerds" here so I'm probably missing something here, but basicially this is what it said.

    IBM First went to MS asking for BASIC and if they could buy the OS that was built into Microsoft Softcards for the Apple II for the IBM PC. MS directed them to Digital Research saying that they didn't have the right to sell IBM the OS.

    IBM goes to Digital Research, and basicially gets the cold shoulder.

    IBM Goes back to MS asking for an alternative to CP\M.

    Bill gates finds QDOS, buyes it for $50,000 dollars and sells the rights to it to IBM.

    More infomation can be found on wikipedia Here

  16. Don't forget Novell by ToasterTester · · Score: 4, Interesting

    MS got the deal with IBM. But MP/M the multiuser version of CP/M was reversed engineered and became the "secret" filesystem of early Novell. That was why Novell brought DR to avoid a lawsuit, it wasn't just to get DR-DOS. So Kildall lost out there too.

  17. 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 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.

  18. I was going to read the article but... by Burb · · Score: 5, Funny

    my 8" floppy disk died and I had an error message "BDOS ERR ON A: BAD SECTOR". Then I mistyped the PIP command and I had the error message "BDOS ERR ON A: BAD SECTOR"...

    --

  19. The book is a good read for nerds by museumpeace · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It has brief bios of many of my heroes [Edison was a nerd, right?] with interesting insights into how they wrestled their ideas into realities, who they fought, what they did differently from contemporaries.
    In my 30 years of programming, many of them at startups, I know of nothing to compare to the myriad drained lives, burnt hopes and stolen thunder that bob and sink in the wake of Mr. Gates. Larry Ellison may be a runner up to Gates in this grim category but that is usually how those two fare in their competition. For every millionaire Gates made, there was a company out there that had a good idea and smart people who still couldn't grow in the shade of Microsoft. To name names would rub salt in the wounds of some good friends...lets just say having a great idea and a willingness to work hard are not enough to insure success. The lucky ones were assimilated.

    --
    SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
  20. Re:I could have been Bill Gates! by secolactico · · Score: 4, Funny

    If I was born 30 years earlier, far uglier, and a manipulative geek.

    Two out of three ain't so bad...

    --
    No sig
  21. 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.