Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Interview w/ Spiegel
DaVinciXL writes "Bill Gates just gave the German magazine "Spiegel" an interview which can be read (in English) on the magazine's website. Gates speaks about issues of computer security, competition, software bundling and how he lives with the downsides of his wealth and fame." He does a pretty good job of answering a lot of hard questions.
Why are half of the questions about David Hasselhoff? "What version of Windows does David Hasselhoff use?" "Has Microsoft considered employing David Hasselhoff for ads?"
SPIEGEL: When one puts the sentence "Bill Gates is the devil" into the Internet search engine Google, one gets thousands of hits. Does this bother you?
Gates: I have never searched for such a sentence. Plus: if you understand the search engine properly, it doesn't mean that you will find exactly this sentence on these pages.
If you understand the search engine properly, it does mean that you will find exactly this sentence on these pages.
Bill Gates still has time to give interviews... ...guess his e-mail filtering department's doing it's job.
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
He does a pretty good job of answering a lot of hard questions.
/.
Thats quite a brave comment to make on
I can't imagine that there is too much of anything that does bother him; least of all search engine trivia.
Oh wait, I'm probably not allowed to mention Microsoft's purchase of OSTG until it's final.
The speed with which, for example, the Linux community reacts to problems is not especially high -- that's because this system, unlike ours, simply does not keep thousands of people on standby to deal with problems.
Apparently Gates is convinced that Microsoft can fix bugs much faster than Linux, simply because they have more poeple on staff. Clearly there are a number of flaws in that argument... not only do they try and hide and ignore as many bugs as possible, but anyone can look for, identify, and even fix bugs in an open operating system. Gah!
I store my recipes online (the way nature intended)
...The enthusiasm about how computers, the Internet, and good software can help people...
Am I the only one bothered by that phrase?
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
"Spiegel: Is this freely available operating system [Linux] a threat to you? Gates: No, a competitor. That is all." I think theres one way to sum that up: Arrogance. Earlier in the article, Gates talks about sweeping statements in a derisive way, then makes one of his own. Would Microsoft spend so much time spreading FUD if Linux was not a threat?
http://unelite.freelinuxhost.com - Rock/Scissors/Paper and RPGs shouldn't mix.
"Gates: Simply because one must spend billions of dollars to ensure the security of each individual system. Our company has an unbelievable number of people who are solely responsible for this type of security around the clock." True only if you try to secure a basket os, such as any of the windowses. If you architect it right you don't have to spend billions of dollars securing it afterwards. No one ever spent billions of dollars securing a *nix OS, it just happens.
Gates: Simply because one must spend billions of dollars to ensure the security of each individual system.
Each individual system running GNU/Linux ??
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
These simply don't sound true to me:
...
... put so sweepingly, that is not correct. Of course we are the largest target, simply because we have the most widely disseminated system. But it affects others in exactly the same way. Linux is, in many respects, even more significantly affected.
... above all because of our global popularity. But we know that. And we must apply still more time and money to it. However, spam or data theft are not questions of the operating system. For this, you also need laws and global standards.
:-).
-----
Gates: The truth is: the fewer operating systems there are within a company, the better it is from a security point of view.
SPIEGEL: I beg your pardon?
Gates: Simply because one must spend billions of dollars to ensure the security of each individual system. Our company has an unbelievable number of people who are solely responsible for this type of security around the clock.
SPIEGEL: The particular charm of Linux is that it is an adaptable system that users can shape themselves.
Gates: If everything runs under the same platform, however, you can better concentrate resources and more quickly repair errors. For instance, in a hospital where different systems are used, a single problem in one section cause the other systems to crash. Thus, from a security standpoint it is always better to focus on one system.
SPIEGEL: But your small competitor Apple, for example, is much less frequently a victim of virus attacks
Gates:
SPIEGEL: In a few hours a Windows virus can travel across the world like an epidemic...
Gates:
SPIEGEL: Once again: Windows is the most vulnerable.
Gates: You could look at that in many ways. The speed with which, for example, the Linux community reacts to problems is not especially high -- that's because this system, unlike ours, simply does not keep thousands of people on standby to deal with problems. In this respect, a commercially distributed operating system also has decisive benefits. Sweeping judgments don't help because we all have to take the problems seriously. Even Linux developers know that there is no miracle cure in Linuxland. They, too, must continue to work and continue to make progress.
---
(Then the interview proceeds to other topics).
I thought this was interesting because, as far as I can tell, all I need to do in order to keep my Macintosh functioning securely is to make sure software update is on, and that at a time convenient to me I run it and update my system.
Windows patches are so frequent and their consequences so probematical that I can see a reason to keep legions of people around to fix them. But I've never had trouble with my Mac's security updates (knock on aluminum).
As far as I know there are no virii or spyware programs currently running on MacOS X. Perhaps someone could correct me if I'm wrong, but surely that enormously reduces the problem and therefore the amount of maintenance needed.
If computer A requires little maintenance and computer B requires lots, it seems to me that reducing the numbers of computer B you have and increasing computer A is the best way to deal with the problem.
Okay, flame away, both at Mr Gates and myself
D
His stock answer to every fucking question vis a vis security and alternative platforms is that Windows is more targeted because it is more popular, and that is pure bullshit. Apache being used more than IIs and yet being more secure proved that one false fucking years ago, and no one thinks about actually mailing the interviewers and giving them the facts, so that, next time they interview BIllG, they can ask real questions.
Apart form that what was so fucking difficult about those questions, Taco? Just because the American media in general is so scared of losing ad revenue that they will NEVER ask direct and difficult questions doesn't fucking make it normal.
Am I going to be able to order Windows from my Spiegel catelogue?
He's terrible at them. He always comes of as a conceited little nerd. Which he is.
Just once, I'd like someone from Microsoft actually defend themselves in the press. They never really do. They just deny that anything is wrong, and then start spewing marketing bullshit. Which, more than anything, makes people distrust them.
They're just bad at PR. Great at marketing, bad at PR.
it's like the blog madness - most of them aren't worth crap, in terms of content. but if you can command an audience, even if the contents are crap, it's "worth" something...arguably worth "more" than other blogs with better contents but no audience.
i'm not saying open source has no voice. rather, i'm saying that just because what he says isn't all correct, doesn't mean what he says is worthless. he does command some "worth" just because people listen to what he has to say.
QUOTE "I founded Microsoft together with Paul Allen because the capabilities and possibilities of computers back then frustrated us."
Sounds familiar doesn't it?
Got Code?
"He does a pretty good job of answering a lot of hard questions."
no, like a small child in an exam or a politician, he answers the question he wants to answer rather than the question he is actually asked.
whether this is because he's a small child (ignorant) or a politian (scared of telling the truth) is left as an exercise for the reader.
Now that he is getting older, could Bill Gates be starting to think...how could I give something back? Naaaahhhh! I should have never asked.
From TFA:
SPIEGEL: When one puts the sentence "Bill Gates is the devil" into the Internet search engine Google, one gets thousands of hits. Does this bother you?
Gates: I have never searched for such a sentence. Plus: if you understand the search engine properly, it doesn't mean that you will find exactly this sentence on these pages.
Right Bill, it only means that if you enclose the sentence in quotes.
SPIEGEL: I beg your pardon?
Gates: Simply because one must spend billions of dollars to ensure the security of each individual system. Our company has an unbelievable number of people who are solely responsible for this type of security around the clock.
Oh my. Bill need to check his logic on that one. His answer basically refutes his original statement. He should try switching to another OS, and have something to compare before he makes statements like that! How many MacOS X security people does Microsoft employ? We know they use that platform.
I manage a network that is a mix of Linux, FreeBSD, Windows & Macintosh (both "classic" MacOS & OS X)... I can tell you that 90+% of our security issues are on Windows, and ~10% are on the Linux boxen. I only have a couple of "Windows Admins" but I am seriously considering adding more, because my guys are overworked ... mostly unhaxxoring Windows boxes. I told our CEO about it, and she did some math... the revenue we generate from Windows does not even equal the salary we pay our admins!
The answer seems obvious to me, but unfortunately we can't just drop Windows support.
Apache being used more than IIs
More than Apple IIs? Yeah, probably so.
Linux was originally a free alternative to Unix. The cost was initially the only motivation.
A blog like any other.
In one of the interviews, the interviewer should wear the "Kill Bill" Shirt from Splitreason. http://splitreason.com/
Ever seen that Fahrenheit 451 movie that looks like Sprockets? I'm guessing it was made in Germany. Just imagine Bill Gates doing the sprocket dance. heh.
Beep. Boop. Beep. You have questions. I have answers and your home address.
For some reason my mind read Smeagol, initially. Talk about being interviewed by your peers.
Apache being used more than IIs and yet being more secure
Go ahead and back yourself up then. Give us plenty of links to independent studies showing your statement is true and formulate a coherent argument in your own words. Give us decisive proof that Apache is "more secure" - by looking at the software itself and not at the number of attacks, because no matter how you slice it, popularity is a prime determinant in how much something gets attacked. That is the truth.
not only do they try and hide and ignore as many bugs as possible
Care to back that up with any links?
Not specifically. I imagine he's talking about the actual inabilitiy to preform a given task at that time; where as now, it can be done, but the means of doing it (you're referencing Windows right?) can become frustrating.
"Even Linux developers know that there is no miracle cure in Linuxland."
That lovable character GNU/Mouse, the rides like Kernel Mountain! The magestic Torvalds Castle! Oh My! I got the next boat on "Its a small patch after all!"
That quote right there was worth reading the whole crappy article.
-- -=innocent ramblings from the mind of an insomniatic programmer=-
When I first read "Spiegel", I thought it meant Gollum.
Table-ized A.I.
You can pretty much expect self-serving lies
from any head of a major corporation; if they
told the truth their stockholders might sue
them. Same goes for politicians, lawyers, etc,
really these people have nothing interesting to
say. Reading them makes one stupider, not
smarter; it's all dis-information.
Yet another Bill Gates interview? I don't need interviews with Mr. Gates. All I need to do to know everything about him is watch how his company conducts business. How many times have we seen Microsoft do something questionable in it's dealings with customers/partners/developers/vendors over the years only to have Gates or Ballmer come out and say that they were "misunderstood" and they just need to make their position "clearer?" Actions speak far louder than words, and no amount of PR can cover a company's shortcomings.
But Officer, I DID read the f**king article!
Check out the picture of Gates which accompanies the article:
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,433427,00.jpg
And the caption:
The world's richest man says not all his wishes have been fulfilled.
I'd strongly suspect that Unfulfilled Wish #1 was to have a good haircut or a flattering photograph taken of him. I've never seen one. Not even in Tiger Beat.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
The methodology I used a couple of years ago to prove objectively that Ultima Online was better than EverQuest: "EQ sucks" returned more results than "UO sucks" in google. It still does.
Of course it wasn't serious.
perception is reality
SPIEGEL: But your small competitor Apple, for example, is much less frequently a victim of virus attacks ...
... put so sweepingly, that is not correct.
/ 20 05/02/04/notes020405.DTL&type=printable
Gates:
Gates:"I have also over years donated quite a bit to charitable causes. For this, I am quite admired."
Does a good job dodging bullets and letting his hubris show is more like it... Less frequent but extant Mac virus attcks?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a
why does windows suck? (/rant)?
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." ~The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan
That's because Gates isn't an evil guy. He's the richest person in the world. People will automatically hate him for that. I think Microsoft has done some shady business decisions that have hurt their competitors and ultimately make the computing experience more difficult for their users. Gates also contributes a lot of money to charity. One might think that doesn't mean much since he's the richest guy in the world. I say to them, alright, you donate the same percentage of your wealth to the poor.
I'm no Microsoft fan boy. I use linux daily. I think there are some really good Microsoft products. I think there are some really good products Microsoft would like to see disappear.
But so many make this guy out to be the devil. It's a combination of good strategy, good planning, and probably a little luck that got him where he is today.
I thought this was interesting because, as far as I can tell, all I need to do in order to keep my Macintosh functioning securely is to make sure software update is on, and that at a time convenient to me I run it and update my system.
/. That's right, something can screw up on Linux as well due to an update but no one will get up in arms about it unless it happens on a Microsoft OS.
Windows patches are so frequent and their consequences so probematical that I can see a reason to keep legions of people around to fix them. But I've never had trouble with my Mac's security updates (knock on aluminum).
That's really quite odd because all *I* have to do to keep my Windows comp functioning securely is make sure software update is on, and at a time convenient to me I run it and update my system. And I've never had trouble with the windows security updates (knock on wood).
Seriously, I use an XP box primarily because it is the best tool for the job. I like to play games and I like being able to choose my own hardware based on stats not compatibility. I know how to use a computer, and I imagine you are pretty tech savvy yourself so I wonder if you just might not be familiar enough with windows to keep it running without a problem.
I have used Linux and MacOS X and I've never had a real problem with either but they don't fit what I'm trying to do. If I wanted a server, I'd go Linux. If I didn't give a crap about games and had some extra cash, I would go Mac. I haven't seen a BSOD since I moved to XP (4 years ago) and no viruses either since I keep my scanner up to date and I am lucky.
The point of the matter is you should use the right tool for the job and in your case it is MacOS X, and I'm not going to bash you or the OS for it. The right tool for me at the moment is Windows. If I want to build a media center box I would probably go with MythTV. But if you believe that no one has ever had a problem getting it installed or having it break after updating something you should really start reading some forums or even
Great. So he's basing his conclusion on a site that only says what the vendors officially say.
Meanwhile, on eeye http://www.eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index.
Do you think that's going to make it into Secunia's logs?
He's slanted his "analysis" by choosing a single site that slants towards the vendor's best interest.
Instead, do a vanilla install of the OS.
Then patch the OS.
List all the files.
Then install IIS.
List all the files including ones that have been upgraded.
Then install the first patch for IIS.
Look at what files change.
Second patch.
So on.
Then search to see what you can find about why those files changed.
That's the only way to find the FACTS.
Microsoft can release one patch and claim it is for some minor vulnerability, while wrapping up a dozen major fixes in it and you would never know.
Finally an interviewer who has the balls to ask the right questions.
i'm not saying open source has no voice. rather, i'm saying that just because what he says isn't all correct, doesn't mean what he says is worthless. he does command some "worth" just because people listen to what he has to say.
Microsoft is big, powerful, influential. They dictate lots - and so when they speak, when Gates speaks, the world listens and at least gives their words a fighting chance at reasonable interpretation.
Slashdot does not listen, because Slashdot has already made up its mind. In the comments posted about this interview, you will not see particularly insightful analysis of Gates' words, or thoughtful challenges based on what he actually said. What you will see is angry, baseless derision (I see one of the first Score 5's has already done this).
That's really quite odd because all *I* have to do to keep my Windows comp functioning securely is make sure software update is on, and at a time convenient to me I run it and update my system. And I've never had trouble with the windows security updates (knock on wood).
No problems here either. I update regularly and things run smooth as silk. Same at my company, which runs Server 2003 and XP. The problems with rolling out patches are a thing of the past (though that won't stop Slashdot from acting like they're all over the place - kind of like the "instability" horse they beat even though it's been dead and buried long years).
Tons of difficult leading questions, and no ass-kissing.
Do you think anyone in the American media would say: "I beg your pardon?" to some corporate rhetoric.
I am glad that the interviewer didn't make it easy for Bill.
Seriously, guys. How on earth is theolein's angry diatribe "Insightful"? All he does is make sweeping enraged statements with no backup whatseover. Apache more secure? Prove it. You think Bill's statement about Windows being more targeted due to popularity is false? PROVE IT. You think the questions weren't that difficult? EXPLAIN WHY. And maybe post with a less emotional head next time, too. Perhaps you'll come off sounding like less of an idiot.
Actually when you look for it with quotes like that you DO find exactly that sentence on over 5,000 pages Bill. Yes I do think we understand how search engines work.
-Don.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
That's right. We must all support Microsoft and Bill gates. Those who don't support Microsoft and Bill Gates, and their amazing god given patents to take the dot out of a longitude and latidude reading and then concatentate the string are un-American.
If you don't support Microsoft and Bill Gates you support international terrorism
Try searching MSN and Google using the keywords and look at the number of results. Now.. thats superiority...
#1. There isn't any problem.
#2. There really isn't any problem.
#3. Well, there is kind of a problem, but it's the same problem that everyone has.
#4. It just looks that way because we're the biggest.
#5. Everyone gets spam.
#6. The alternatives would cost you more.
#7. Innovation. We've got it, they don't.
#8. We have more people paid to deal with that.
#9. They don't have the features we do.
#10. Lawsuits! Did I scare you?
Whenever you're asked a question that isn't disguised praise, all you have to do is reply with one of the above phrases. It doesn't matter which one.
In a recent interview, Bill Himself told the interviewer "Simply because one must spend billions of dollars to ensure the security of each individual system."
Remember, we will never send you into an interview where the other person knows enough about technology to call you on ANY lie you feel like telling.
Gates also contributes a lot of money to charity...you donate the same percentage of your wealth to the poor.
Well, I am not going to get into whether Gates is 'evil' or not, but I don't assume he is 'good' b/c of his donations.
1) To pull #s out of my ass, if he donates %20 of his yearly income to charity, and his yearly income is $200 million, this leaves him with $160 million/year. If I donate %20 of my income a year to charity, this leaves me with $40,000/year. Donating equal percentages of our wealth is not actually equal exercises in generosity.
2) The tax breaks he receives for his donations can make a huge difference in the amount of taxes he has to pay. He probably isn't really saving $$, but hearing that he donated $20 million last year doesn't mean that he is out $20 million. Intelligent accountants can get you maximum bang for your buck w/ cleverly leveraged donations.
So, I am not saying he is evil, but his charity spending is actually much less impressive to me than if you (probably) or I were to donate similar percentages of our income.
Care to point out which parts made him sound like a "conceited little nerd"? And what's the problem with him being a "nerd" of any sort? We all read Slashdot, for God's sake. That alone earns us "nerd" status.
I'd like someone from Microsoft actually defend themselves in the press. They never really do.
Guess you didn't read the article then. Gates defends Microsoft by pointing out what he sees as the advantages of its approach.
They just deny that anything is wrong, and then start spewing marketing bullshit.
Which parts were marketing bullshit? If you're going to make sweeping generalizations like that, you damn well better have specifics to back yourself up. I saw him give rational explanations of his philosophy behind Microsoft's software.
Which, more than anything, makes people distrust them.
No, it makes anti-MS people just more anti-MS. Most people don't give a shit.
Although some of the questions were fair, I feel some of the questions/comments made by Spiegel were closer to an assault on Microsoft.
Mr. Gates somehow managed to either answer or avoid the questions very aptly, fair play to him. He has contributed more to the computing world than most if not all. Dont you forget it.
Most operating systems are frustrating in one way or another, as I have found while developing stuff for IBM MVS, Linux & Windows.
-Rob
I agree, but I've learnt to hate him.... Since 2002, when i got this computer, ive re-installed windows 7-8 times. Then i went to gentoo, mounted my (broken) windows partition on /mnt/crap, and did sudo rm -rf /mnt/crap/*...
The only reasons i can see Windows is still around is because mac needs more expencive hardware, lack of games for linux, and most ppl 2 n00bish to partition their drives and install linux, so they use windows couse its already there...
(acualy, i know 2 M$ lovers who converted to linux overnight with mepis)
my karma ran over your dogma
He said it, he has to prove it.
And if you say he's wrong, you have to say why. theolein makes a statement just like Gates, he's under the same obligation to back himself up.
I guess Taco subconsciously thinks that by playing fanboy to Gates he'll be able to reverse the disasterous decision to sell /. to OSTG. I don't know how else to explain such a statement. Bill Gates is as duplicitous as ever.
SPIEGEL: But your small competitor Apple, for example, is much less frequently a victim of virus attacks ...
... put so sweepingly, that is not correct. Of course we are the largest target, simply because we have the most widely disseminated system. But it affects others in exactly the same way. Linux is, in many respects, even more significantly affected.
Gates:
what was the question? did someone mentioned apple?
Gates thinks that Windows is good enough to be this single basket
And apparently many people and companies do too - else you wouldn't ever see Windows-homogenous environments.
spam or data theft are not questions of the operating system. For this, you also need laws and global standards. - Gates
Well, that's one good thing at least, Bill suggesting global standards as an answer.
The speed with which, for example, the Linux community reacts to problems is not especially high. - Gates
This is funny, I've seen plenty of news articles revealing Microsoft to be pushing aside security issues that it calls unimportant, but others claim to be serious.
I can't recall seeing anything like this in the Open Source community.
Microsoft continues to pack additional innovations onto the Windows platform at no cost, virtually annihilating competitors in the long-term. Why do you promote this strategy? - Spiegel
we are forced to continuously improve our products - Gates
Doesn't the above situation reveal that there is a problem in Microsoft's strategy?
It's improving its core product by exclusively bundling its own middleware apps into the main Windows 'distribution'. This isn't innovatively improving the product, it's combining Microsoft products (to the disadvantage of Microsoft's competition) in order to get people to upgrade Windows.
Nobody would expect Microsoft to add RealPlayer or Firefox to Windows, this would be giving the competition an advantage. So surely Microsoft's middleware should not have the advantage of being bundled with Windows?
This also seems unfair to many people. So, why not have Windows distributions (which I've said many times), where select distributors following specific guidelines, can add middleware from competing companies?
I am an optimist. And I always think: okay, in 10 years we will have accomplished it. But I already thought that 10 years ago. And obviously we are not yet that far. - Gates
I believe WinFS (originally Cairo) was heralded years ago, and isn't here yet. This must be an example of Gates' optimism.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Some interesting tidbits ...
... I worry more about whether our general dream will be fulfilled.
...
...
Gates:
SPIEGEL: What is that dream?
Gates: That we can globally communicate with one another without mistrust and can do it more creatively. To do this, for example, it is important that your identity is safe on the Internet. In the end it involves a promise, the promise of the digital age.
SPIEGEL: What is your most important goal for the coming years?
Gates: We must ensure that the trust placed in us is kept. That way we can push for more brilliant developments, such as speech or handwriting recognition, and make more breakthroughs.
SPIEGEL: You are the richest man in the world. Do you still have things you'd like, but are not yet fulfilled?
Gates: I go to work every day as before, also because the dream of what the PC should be able to do as a tool has not yet been realized. About 30 years ago I founded Microsoft together with Paul Allen because the capabilities and possibilities of computers back then frustrated us. Since then, I have worked on making my dream that computers can understand us better and work more simply a reality.
This is a very interesting comment by Mr. Gates for many different reasons. Especially when one considers the recent lawsuits against Internet users for sharing MP3 files. As I remember it really wasn't that long ago that people were doing much similar acts with cassette tapes - albeit on a much smaller and slower scale. What is also interesting about the comment is the genuine concern Mr. Gates appears to have about this promise. For those of use willing to do a little reading (and tinkering) one can surf the web and post (communicate) without divulging your identity - ala GNUPG, Proxy gateways etc
One of the only things that you can trust is that M$ is a company and its main mission is to make money. Rightly so it is willing to sacrifice your privacy for its long-term financial gain. If people are truly worried about privacy and using computers to their fullest capabilities they should look toward the GNU Linux / FreeBSD realm of computing software.
... if music be fruit of love, play on
Is it just me, or does the German interviewer come off a bit slant? I'm not pro-MS or anything (I'm a linux user) but the person asking the questions sounds like someone off of Frontline, or some crap.
Help me, help you. - Jerry McGuire
"In meeting these demands we have to work together with governments and public agencies. Politics has to ensure the legal framework. "
oooh. Nasty, very nasty. M$ be pwning you personal data with the governments of the world. ouch
It gets worse:
"The terrorist attacks in 2001 just showed people up close where a lack of security can lead."
aghhhh help. Somebody stop Gates.
"That we can globally communicate with one another without mistrust and can do it more creatively. To do this, for example, it is important that your identity is safe on the Internet. "
eID cards of course !
"The truth is: the fewer operating systems there are within a company, the better it is"
good lord. Hey Gates go away
Feel safe in Windows. Just think, 13 different vulnerabilities are currently on your XP box and will be fixed tomorrow when it's been known about for a while. You will get great service as millions of XP users try to download the same fixes tomorrow morning.
Make your computer faster: rm -rf
I hear you there. The editors only post articles like this to drum up the anti-MS sentiment that we already know is here. It's preaching to the choir, it's not constructive, and it doesn't make people think. Angry rants will pass as "Insightful."
Kind of like Bush and his Republicans when you think about it.
This may sound like flamebait, but I've often wondered if a lot of the vitriol comes not from genuine hatred of him and his products but out of envy that he and his company are one of the most successful and richest companies in the world. To the anti-corporation, anti-money, dorm room students who post on here, that is something to really hate. Even Steve Jobs says the battle was won, Microsoft won it, and people should move on (and that a victory for competitors doesn't have to mean a loss for Microsoft).
I know this doesn't apply to everybody here...but I'm guessing most.
Gates: The truth is: the fewer operating systems there are within a company, the better it is from a security point of view.
As long as none of them are Windows, I agree.
Enjoy your Microsoft bashing and linux circlejerk. I am off to party.
theolein says that Windows' popularity isn't behind the # of attacks. Fine. Tell me what is, then. Show me an alternative and make a decent case for why it is the reason for Windows attacks.
It's not like Bill, the man behind MSFT to go in an interview and say "yeah, Linux distributors who are our competitors manage to update security updates faster than us that's the reality!" Make the company look good, that's all he did. Ridiculious for us, impressive for average joes.
the person making that comment will wake up with a melted computer, wrapped in tinfoil, hanging upside down in a freezer with penguins pecking at his eyes, the tattoo OSS Rulez Windows SuX0rZ on his forehead. Not to mention the bad stuff about to happen
--Chag
Okay, first off, you don't do your position any good to say "fuck" an average of 2.5 per sentence. It makes you look like the rabid Linux fanboy that Gates stereotypes in his interviews.
Second, there have been plenty of security vulnerabilities involving Apache, and in fact, some studies have shown Apache to be less secure in some circumstances. Either way, both IIS and Apache can easily be configured to be secure if you keep up with patches and lock down your server like any admin should.
Third, he was being asked about desktop attacks, not server attacks. In that context, he is 100% correct that Windows gets attacked more because it is on top. "Global popularity," as he put it. With the recent spate of vulnerabilitiles, would you really feel comfortable giving Mozilla the 95% or so marketshare that IE has if you could snap your fingers and have it happen? One could argue that Windows and IE are much more rigorously tested, and therefore much better vetted for vulnerabilities, than Linux and Mozilla.
Either way, he's absolutely right that Windows is more targetted because it is more popular. I don't see how you can even dispute that, even if you think it is "pure bullshit." Windows is more popular than Linux. If Linux was the top dog, I imagine hackers would be wringing their hands in delight at the problematic 2.6 kernel line we've been having. Nothing is perfect, even your beloved OS. In fact, to pretend that you're flawless while the competition is a failure is to cause yourself to fail due to lack of perspective. Gates is right on this one.
"Richness, Richness, Richness."
Jonathanjk.com
When you put quotes around it, yes it does mean exactly that. Specifically, google returns the text Results 1 - 10 of about 5,290 for "Bill Gates is the devil", so I'd say his answer is full of shit.
First of all, vulnerabilities in the kernel and critical applications are patched quickly and all major distributions release updates very soon after a problem is released. Much better than the Windows track record for such vulnerabilies which can linger for months and patches are released on a schedule instead of shortly after they are posted.
Second of all, "LinuxLand" uses a superior method of software installation that leaves it immune to the sorts of malware programs that plague windows users. Debian and Ubuntu use apt and synaptic, fedora and red hat use yum, Suse and NDL use red-carpet, Manrake uses urmpi, gentoo has portage, and Xandros and Linspire have their own systems too. All of these systems have something in common: you can easily install a wide range of software from your Linux distributer, and users do not need to install malware-ridden crap software of random websites. This is as close to a "miracle cure" as any Linux user needs to the sorts of problems that plague most Windows users.
I could go on, but I won't.
501 Not Implemented
More one sided propatainment.
Get Gates to interview Torvalds [and then vice versa] and that would be worth a read.
Otherwise it's just more corporate MSFT-speak talking about "how exciting gee whiz golly!" computing is...
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I beg your pardon but I don't understand at all why Americans think that Germans have anything to do with David Hasselhoff. Isn't he American? I mean, I know that he's this guy from the eighties (Knight Rider, Baywatch and all), but what's his connection to Germany? I've heard him being connected to Germany quite a lot but I don't understand at all why.
Gates also contributes a lot of money to charity. One might think that doesn't mean much since he's the richest guy in the world. I say to them, alright, you donate the same percentage of your wealth to the poor.
This is a silly argument. Someone who makes a million dollars a year finds it much easier to donate half their income to charity than someone who makes $40,000 a year. For Bill Gates, this is even more true. He could donate 99% of his income and live more comfortably than the vast majority of Americans; in contrast, very few people in the U.S. could donate 99% of their income to charity and still make enough money per year to stave off homelessness.
Note that I'm not saying that Bill Gates is stingy; that's not my point. I'm merely saying that your argument is absurd.
Hah, I like the way Gates tries to avoid answering some questions by speaking around them...
...
... put so sweepingly, that is not correct. Of course we are the largest target, simply because we have the most widely disseminated system. But it affects others in exactly the same way. Linux is, in many respects, even more significantly affected.
SPIEGEL: But your small competitor Apple, for example, is much less frequently a victim of virus attacks
Gates:
Sig Nature
Or he could spend that money on the evil world domination plans many /.'ers automatically assume he has.
Hmm. Somebody fix my TV - it's supposed to be black and white but what are those damn shades of grey doing there?
"I been-a lookin for a-freeeeeeeeeedom/since i left mah home-tohown..."
I won't pretend to understand how or why, but this was a hit in Germany back in the day. He actually made it to our (Dutch) national telly as well, with that dreadful video... It was awful! Thank God KITT didn't run iTunes...
AN OPEN LETTER TO HOBBYISTS
By William Henry Gates III
February 3, 1976
An Open Letter to Hobbyists
To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?
Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two months, the three of us have spent most of the last year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC. Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000.
The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these "users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.
Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?
Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling software. The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.
What about the guys who re-sell Altair BASIC, aren't they making money on hobby software? Yes, but those who have been reported to us may lose in the end. They are the ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should be kicked out of any club meeting they show up at.
I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write to me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.
Bill Gates
General Partner, Micro-Soft
Loading...
Indeed.
The other interesting quote was this:
"Politics has to ensure the legal framework."
Hello? The legal framework for almost all issues has been in place for some time. There are more than enough laws on the books to keep bad people away for a rediculously long time.
The one thing missing are laws about Software Patents in Europe. So I take that to mean that he was there to lobby for them.
Microsoft has laws in the U.S. and now India to cover software patents. The only place missing is Europe. And, IMHO, that's the ONLY thing which is preventing them from unleashing their planned attack on Open Source Software (according to that HP internal memo that was released).
After all, it would be rather silly of Microsoft to unleash their attack while the issue was still being debated in Europe, now wouldn't it? In fact, it would be so detrimental to the EU debate, that it would probably be the kiss of death for software patents there.
Call me paranoid if you like. But I really don't see any other way MS has a hope of succeeding in the long term against OSS without Software Patents.
Yes, I would like to touch your monkey very much. Shall I spank it, too?
Bill G.
Gates also contributes a lot of money to charity
Gates contributes to charity exactly what he is required to, to avoid taxes, and not a penny more. And even at that, his contributions are often cynically directed to further his business goals, such as PR in India just as India had announced official support for Linux, or purchasing vaccines at high prices from multinational drug corporations who are on the same side of the table as Gates on forcing the US IP regime on the rest of the world, or contributing to education by purchasing Microsoft software.
Gates is a mizer through and through, with a heart of ice.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
You are also challenging an assertion with nothing to back your position. Drink from your own bathwater before you serve it to others.
However, every company should have just a single system.
Am I missing something?
in 3 years will have greater market share than Microsoft.
Is there anything else out there that compares to Microsoft PowerPoint? It is a phenomenal program and I can't find an equivalent competitor. The features in the "Custom Animation" are amazing.
He's being interviewed by a Joe Sixpack, but Gates's answers are meant to speak to a CTO.
For a Joe Sixpack, Linux is more secure with faster security updates, etc. I read about a security hole and custom develop a patch for myself, instantly, or find someone else's patch. On Windows, I have to wait.
The CTO rarely learns about security holes, he simply hears that Microsoft releases a patch, and that he needs to apply this patch to all of the computers in the company. With Windows Update, all of the workstations automatically update themselves. He's probably even suprised to see that updates are ready to fix a hole he's never heard of. All his IT staff has to do is go around and push OK for the users who ignore the box that asks if they want to apply the new updates. In his eyes, cost savings are high.
When MS talks about trust, and what computers can do - they mean theings like DRM so "they" can trust the computers, not you! They mean things like "what computers can do to lock in their monopoly for eternity", not what computers can do for you!
In order to coerce an intellectual "property" regime, privacy must be sacrificed to ensure proper compliance. It looks like their intent is to force this to be an all or nothing game.
borg: In some areas, the bad boys are also terribly clever -- and occasionally more crafty than we had expected. .de news: Those who send spam advertising e-mails for example.
borg: I don't want to minimize the problem at all.
---------
Oh, good, perhaps you should preinstall 'SPAM Marketing' and 100 million email addresses in the next Windows edition.
I think he meant he doesn't want to underestimate the problem? Is this interview originally in English, then translated to German, then translated back to English?
Seems that way...
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Gates:SPIEGEL: ... but in the realm of normal personal computers, they don't play a large role worldwide.
:-)
Gates: The truth is: the fewer operating systems there are within a company, the better it is from a security point of view.
SPIEGEL: I beg your pardon?
Gates: Simply because one must spend billions of dollars to ensure the security of each individual system. Our company has an unbelievable number of people who are solely responsible for this type of security around the clock.
Hahahahhaahha, well it is true, just look at the new module for credit card processing in bugzilla.... ssh issue? Heck, I have spent at least 1 billion dollars securing my distro...
The Gates himself advocates the use of linux!
Gates: If everything runs under the same platform, however, you can better concentrate resources and more quickly repair errors. For instance, in a hospital where different systems are used, a single problem in one section cause the other systems to crash. Thus, from a security standpoint it is always better to focus on one system.
That one platform is obvioulsy GNU/Linux! You can infer it from his doodles.
In all fairness for Windows - downloaded free zonealarm and AVG Free Edition, and FireFox, and windows commander, and open office...and trillian *thinks* oh and thunderbird... how much of windows is actually left?
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
seriously though, there isnt a whole lot of changes between msword 97 and msword 2003. In fact, they've made things even harder to do with the newer version. They've actually *removed* quite a number of features in their office suites and made it harder to do things. Other stuff like exporting
my blog
Gates: That we can globally communicate with one another without mistrust and can do it more creatively. To do this, for example, it is important that your identity is safe on the Internet. In the end it involves a promise, the promise of the digital age. ...
Anyone else think this "promise" is about handing over all your information to MS so they can manage your entire online life? You promise to only use them and they'll promise to keep you safe from the bad hacker man and of course not to misuse your social security number. Sounds fair to me....
And yet Jobs tries to compete at every opportunity. Cheaper Macs, a better browser (Safari), office components (iWork), etc.
The battle was won by MS but not the war. The war will end when we don't use computers anymore.
I used to date a woman who did PR and marketing for MS, so you can imagine we had some in-depth and sometimes heated discussions about MS vs. Linux and Macs.
Well, one day we were going hiking, and she presented me with a really nice backback. The only issue with it was that it had the MS logo emblazoned all over it. Of course, she knew I wouldn't refuse it.
Anyway, she said to me, "Isn't that nice? See? What'd RedHat ever give you for free?"
I replied, "An operating system."
That was one long, quiet hike.
No, of course Gates doesn't do anything out of the good of his heart.
I mean, not liking OSS is pure unadulterated evil that means you have no soul right?
God, you people fucking suck.
Gates: If everything runs under the same platform, however, you can better concentrate resources and more quickly repair errors. For instance, in a hospital where different systems are used, a single problem in one section cause the other systems to crash. Thus, from a security standpoint it is always better to focus on one system. >
Gates' statement to remain focused on a single system strikes me as false. In the biological world, diversity rules. A favorite example comes from my birthplace, Denver, Colorado, US; in the 1930's, a foresightful mayor pushed through a wonderful program to build parks everywhere in town. It was a wonderful success and added to the quality of life. But, the park planners chose to plant, in general, a single species of tree, the Dutch Elm. Beautiful, shady tree, quick grower, looked great. But 30 to 40 years later, from the 60's to the 70's, Dutch Elm disease wiped out a large percentage of the city's trees, because the virus spread easily from one tree to the next. The lesson was clear: the city replaced those trees with a broad variety of other species to guard against future viruses. I would think in a hospital, that a "single problem in one section [causing] the other systems to crash" is just false--it would do the opposite, if you are talking different OS's. Now, if you are talking a single, monolithic OS, well that's different...
You can install random crap off the web just as easily on linux. It just lacks local exploits to let that random crap kill your entire system.
Also you can configure apt/whatever to use any rpm repository you like. You aren't in any way dependent on your distro maintainer.
SPIEGEL: But your small competitor Apple, for example, is much less frequently a victim of virus attacks ...
Gates: ... put so sweepingly, that is not correct.
WTF? The last time I, or any other Mac user I know (I used to work in publishing, which certainly at my company was a 95% Mac landscape), got hit by a virus was a good four years ago at least. Ironically enough, it was a Microsoft Word macro-virus!
Hey, Bill, here's a challenge - you switch off the virus scanner and firewall on your Win XP box at the same time as I switch off the same on my iMac running OS8.6. Let's see who gets pwned first!
You must think in Russian.
Another quote:
Gates: The bandwidth of problems is enormous.
One thing that bugs me is using technical terms to describe completely non-technical things.
How exactly do problems have bandwidth?
You can have a plethora/lot/abundance of problems, and you can have bandwidth problems.
But I'm not sure how you get bandwidth of problems.
"Get over here Bob! We've got at least 10Hz of problems!"
"No can do, Jack. I've got 6000bps of angry customers I'm dealing with over here."
That makes a lot of sense to us, but no sense to those in the windows world, for two reasons:
New users to Linux are confused by all the "flavors" or "distros". This is a weak point, because new users do not want choice. They sort of, maybe, can be talked into wanting choice once soemthing stops working (hence the exodus to Firefox), but if you want to give Grandma her first computer, don't immediately say "So, PC or Mac?" Say, "Here's your new Mac Mini! Isn't it cute?"
Microsoft has the money, now it wants power, and I don't want to see what happens by the time it wants sex. But about that power. Gates' ideal Windows (that he'd sell to end-users) is a completely standard, locked-down, uncustomizable version of Windows, pre-loaded with all software you'll ever need, on a Trusted Computer, such that you can never pirate it, modify it, install custom software, or browse to anywhere but microsoft.com and msn.com. Why would they endanger that "dream" by allowing third-parties to make Windows distros?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
So I read TFA, and the comments posted here. No one seems to have noticed a point that Gates kept hitting in a subtle way. We need a "legislative framework" to solve our current computing problems.
I interpret this to mean "We are about to start lobbying our asses off to get laws passed that help us keep our deathgrip on the market."
Actually it doesn't. You are confusing a sentence with a phrase. A search engine like Google rips out most punctutation and so you are really searching for phrases. Phrases can be inside sentences. Imagine a sentence like this:
Some might think Bill Gates is the devil, but I think he is God incarnate.
In this case the phrase would be on the page, but the sentence itself carries the opposite connotation. Many of the Google pages are like this, calling Bill Gates the devil hypothetically or in jest, not out of serious hatred. This seems to follow Bill Gates meaning. In a way he is right.
Now, excuse me while I log off my PowerMac G5 to vomit.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
Wealth doesn't work that way.
If I make 35 bucks a month, there's no way in hell I'm going to spend even 10% of that on charity. I need all of it and more to survive in my cardboard box.
If I made several hundred million, or several billion a year (whatever the current numbers are), I'd gladly donate 50% or more to charity, because I can't possibly spend it all, and inheritances don't do children any favors.
What about your other points? I count two really good Microsoft products, and they both have Halo in the name -- and I really, really wish Microsoft hadn't bought Bungee, so we'd have the Linux port that was planned.
And, if you look at Gates' history, it's a combination of good strategy, good planning, and outright lies and bullying that got him where he is today.
I mean, the first program Microsoft sold was a version of BASIC for a new kind of computer (the Altaire?), and they got it there with a bit of Vaporware. To be specific, they called the manufacturer up shortly after the new box was released and said "We have a version of BASIC for your new machine," effectively beating all competition, because in reality they didn't have a line written of that BASIC interpreter, and spent the month between when they made the call and when they had to demo it frantically developing.
And this was when the company was (I think) less than five people, with Gates the main guy. He probably personally made that call.
Let's not forget things like the original Windows, which from what I remember at least copied concepts from Apple (who copied them from Xerox), but also (I think) copied code from Apple (who originally wrote it).
Or all the things that have happened since, the vaporware, the bundling, the changing of APIs specifically to cause one competitor's software to stop working, the total disregard for essential things like security and reliability until Linux/Mac became a sufficient threat...
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"I've often wondered if a lot of the vitriol comes not from genuine hatred of him and his products but out of envy that he and his company are one of the most successful and richest companies in the world."
Ummm, I don't know about the rest of the people here, but I'd say it's the third-rate software and criminal behaviour that bother me the most.
I do find it amusing, though, to imagine a convicted felon who isn't even good at what he does looking at the booing, hissing crowds and saying, 'Oh, they're just jealous.'
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Bill Gates has been personally involved, both directly and as a manager directing the actions of others, in stealing other people's technology by fraud, in lying to (potential) customers about coming products to forestall switches to competitors, and extorting agreements that denied others the opportunity to compete in a free market.
He chooses to do wrong things that harm other people when the option to do the right thing is equally available.
That makes him "evil".
Nice troll,
From the same site that you quote comes this little gem.
With So Few Vulnerabilites, You'd Think They'd Be Fixed By Now 10/19/2004 6:56 AM Randy Wilson
- IIS 6, 3 vulnerabilities, 1 patched, 2 still open.
- Apache 2, 22 vulnerabilities, 21 patched, 1 still open.
That was 2004. If one brings 2005 data for apache 1.3 and apache-SSL 1.3 into the comparison, the view goes askew.
- Apache 1.3, 15 vulnerabilities, 13 patched, 1 partially patched, 1 still open.
(The open vulnerability was reported in 2005--not when the blog was posted).
- Apache-SSL 1.3, 1 vulberability, 1 patched.
Have you had enough FUD for today?
Cheers
Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Sigh, spread some more FUD around would you? In addition to not seeing any BSODs, my computer has not randomly rebooted itself outside of a power failure. For those who aren't aware, instead of showing a BSOD, an XP box will just reboot itself which is what the parent is saying.
I'm slightly upset by the lack of good pictures... This "Spiegel" must not be a very good magazine if they can't even match the quality of Teen Beat...
[o]_O
Bill Gates eats babies!
Use Linux!
you know.. just like in 'THE daily mirror' and 'THE sun'.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
Why, the bloodletting that would be a Presidential News Brief would send Rove crying for his mommy and Shrub standing there like a deer in headlights...
Deutschland reporter (DR): Mr. President, did you underestimate the intelligence failures that lead to 9/11? A few years ago, the chief concerns of your country was making money and convincing China to free-float the Yen. Now security is of chief concern. Even the State department seems to have first become aware of the danger after Sept. 11.
President: (long pause) The terrorist attacks in 2001 just showed people up close where a lack of security can lead. Problems with national security have more to do with the unbelievable success of the nation itself. The more successful the nation became, the more the downsides also became clear, such as: how can I prevent someone from learning how to fly planes into buildings from the Internets? In some areas, the bad boys are also terribly clever -- and occasionally more crafty than we had expected.
...
DR: The US in Iraq is not only a part of the solution, but also, because of its presence, part of the problem. When a country provides more than 90 percent of all personnel is inevitably a target for insurgents interested in causing the most damage possible.
President: There are actually a large number of coalition forces operating in Iraq in addition to the US, for example, such as Poland, Tonga or Madagascar...
DR: ... but in the realm of wartime operational theaters, they don't play a large role.
President: The truth is: the fewer numbers of participatory nations in the coalition, the better it is from a security point of view.
DR: I beg your pardon?
---
DR: When one puts the sentence "Miserable Failure" into the Internet search engine Google, the top result is your bio page. Does this bother you?
President: I have never searched the for such a sentence. Plus: if you understand the internets, it doesn't mean that you will find exactly this sentence on these pages.
DR: The anger that you occasionally encounter is just part of the governing the country for you?
President: Up until now I have only looked at very few of these anti-pages. That has also changed since 9/11 and terrorists attack. I have also over years governed with compassion and in bringing freedom to the middle east for the first time. For this, I am quite admired. My role in the government and in the intercontinental stage are both things that can provoke envy or jealousy. But I do not have a problem with how I am seen. I do what I do because I think I am making a contribution.
Yeah, right.
There are a lot of rich people whom i don't hate, or even like. Billy isn't among them. And it isn't because he is rich, it is because Windows is so crappy, yet I'm forced to buy it. And even if I buy it, I have little control over my own machine. I agree that there are good M$ products (I really like msvc), some of those were stolen or robbed from other companies. Like doublespace, foxpro, etc. Either they kill the competition or just steal shamelessly. Linux is a different opponent, it has no single distributor so it is much harder to kill. And time is working for Linux, not Windows.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
INSIGHTFUL!
There was a pilot flying a small single engine charter plane, with a couple of very important executives on board. He was coming into Seattle airport through thick fog with less than 10m visibility when his instruments went out. So he began circling around looking for landmark. After an hour or so, he starts running pretty low on fuel and the passengers are getting very nervous. Finally, a small opening in the fog appears and he sees a tall building with one guy working alone on the fifth floor. The pilot banks the plane around, rolls down the window and shouts to the guy "Hey! Where am I?" To this, the solitary office worker replies "You're in a plane." The pilot rolls up the window, executes a 275 degree turn and proceeds to execute a perfect blind landing on the runway of the airport 5 miles away. Just as the plane stops, so does the engine as the fuel has run out.
The passengers are amazed and one asks how he did it. "Simple" replies the pilot, "I asked the guy in that building a simple question. The answer he gave me was 100 percent correct but absolutely useless, therefore that must be Microsoft's support office and from there the airport is just a while away."
That wasn't what he was saying at all, jerkstore.
The problem is, when you're a company as big as they are, serving as many people as they are... you have to be VERY careful about what you say. Almost anything you say will offend someone... the deal is that I would imagine that they have to way up the numbers and say "There is a community of Linux lovers who think they're very vocal and are making a difference, but in the overall scheme of things are harldy heard by the majority of people... They are a small community though, and already lost, so if we have to offend someone, it's them"
So they don't say that the average user of Windows is an average Joe who doesn't know what they're doing, as that's going to offend the majority of Windows users...
They may say these things internally (I would imagine they do), but they look at the BIG (Like, really big) picture here... and they are not going to say 'Linux is more secure', they're just not.
Plus the interviewer was crap in my opinion, he just harped on in the same vein as the MS haters here... kept putting forward 'attacks' that were easily put down by the line 'Microsoft has so much more market share'... which it does, and does explain a lot... so there's no need to keep trying to rephrase the same argument that Windows has more attacks on it.
Both the things you say are true, and are closer to the truth than most say here, but they just aren't things that Microsoft can say, either for fear of annoying people, or for legal reasons.
I say to them, alright, you donate the same percentage of your wealth to the poor.
The problem with this is that unless you make above a certain amount of money, giving away a substantial amount of your money very significantly impacts your standard of living.
Certain things cost fixed amounts of money. If you have a family of 5, I imagine that food costs will probably be more than $10,000 a year. Throw in the cost of gas to drive to work, school supplies, housing costs, and some other things, and perhaps $50,000 is enough to support a family. But cut that in half, and suddenly it isn't nearly enough.
If you have 40 billion dollars, you can easily give away half of it and still have more than enough to live like a king until you die. There is only so much that one can spend without being completely wasteful, and anything over that is useless except for making more money.
However, there are even limits to how much of that extra money that you can really use for direct investment, and so if you continue to make more than you spend, why not use it for charaity? Not only do you get great publicity and the feeling that you're doing something good for someone else, but you get devotees saying "If he's so bad, you contibute to charity the same way," confusing the issue.
The issue of good and evil is never so clear cut as it is in the movies. He might not kill people, but the actions of Microsoft and Gates have been more than a bit shady, especially considering their place in the market. The good that one is capable of does not cancel out the bat they are capable of, it merely adds more to the story.
There is a ton of jealousy about Bill Gates in here. I think it's because we have a lot of people who think they are smart and can do better, but they never seem to go as far as Gates does and thus call him names and say he isn't crap and totally disrespect him.
Not all people who are into computers will be a success in open source or closed source and the envy just keeps on coming.
It's a shame to get caught up into this instead of keep on producing better objects of code or applications, etc...
With a small department's worth of exceptions, the function of my employees is not to understand computers. Instead the computers are there solely to make balancing the books, producing reports, making presentations, gathering data and other revenue generating and/or support tasks simpler.
I also don't think I should have to send my grandmother to get a CS degree, so I can send her email or video of her greatgranddaughter.
Microsoft is bad in a number of ways and have done a number of bad things attempting to deliever on the goal, but the doesn't mean that making computers easier is wrong. The tool's purpose is to make the task easier.
It is possible to make a multifunction tool that doesn't add a lot of it's own complexity even for reasonably complex tools.
Leverage ...... as much as people here may think 3rd world countries are irrelevant, Microsoft still gets billions from them ... and charity donations, vaccines etc. is a nice way of saying "your government [which is about to purchase 10,000 PCs and considering OpenSource] had better not consider running anything other than Microsoft Windows and Office". It gives Microsoft massive amounts of political leverage in countries they sell to, and also serves as a major "feel-good" PR marketing campaign, makes people all feel-good about that wonderful Microsoft company. (Microsoft always milk their major charity donations for every bit of publicity they're worth.)
It's much like 3rd-world "aid" from developed countries .. there are always strings attached, and the developed countries almost always make the money back somehow in some other indirect way (e.g. World Food Program in Africa gathers cash donations from a.o. European countries and uses it to buy American agricultural products, instead of buying those same products available from an African country right next door to the one they're helping ... which also helps kill the agricultural market in the neighbouring country.)
I do not this so.
Here are a vew examples:
-The interviewer asked about Microsoft's practice of copying the inventions of other companies and bunding these copies with the OS, the interviewer called this practice by Microsoft "Innovation"!
-He lets Gates tell Big Lies - Such as OS X has as bad a security problem as Windows.
- He let Gates dodge the "Did you underestimate the security problems?" The fact that Windows is just now doing things that have been done for decades in the Unix world show that Gates did underestemate the security problem.
Most of the answers were the usual spin that has been coming out of Redmond for years.
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
Huh?
Unix is the dominant OS for most servers on the Internet, not Windows. Apache is the most popular web server globally. How come viruses aren't spreading via these mediums? Hey Bill, press F1 and see if you get a clue.
Gates: Once someone has purchased Windows they don't bring me any turnover again for a while. I only again earn something when I convince the customer that my product has become much better and more exciting and that its new acquisition is worth the cost.
Or you could simply announce you're no longer supporting the product, application or platform and force the customer to upgrade in order to obtain the seemingly never-ending array of bug fixes...
When you talk to the press, they will take anythig and everything out of context, just to make it seem sensational. If Bill said what you suggested, the headlines the next day would be:
"Bill Gates says EU is 'stupid'"
"Bill Gates says it doesn't matter if MSFT takes away other companies' business"
"Bill Gates admits Linux is more secure"
"'Security isn't the job of Windows' - Gates"
Then he would have spend countless hours trying (fruitlessly) to correct the misstatements. That is why politicians, CEOs, and other famous people are so wary in interviews.
- davevr
He does a pretty good job of answering a lot of hard questions.
I do not see how it can be a good job, if the reporter even had to literally guide Mr. Gates - "this does not answer our question"
And beyound that, just not the smartest interview MS people have ever given.
...a stunned silence fell upon the hall.
There is something about the spin and half-truths that just gets me going. Is Bill trying to motivate people to oppose Microsoft?
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
Gates: I have never searched for such a sentence. Plus: if you understand the search engine properly, it doesn't mean that you will find exactly this sentence on these pages.
Doesn't this say a lot about Microsoft's search technology and usability? I mean, grandma doesn't know she needs to put quotes around the sentence.
And maybe this explains why the search dog on Windows XP is so broken...
His point is:
..
Non-Windows OS's are less of a security risk because they are not popular... However, Windows binaries don't change often, which makes them a clear target.. If windows source code was available, we would really know how vulnerable they are.. However Linux source is open, so we can really know how vulnerable it is..
The other problem I have with Bill's point on having one point of failure over many points, is that if the one point of failure has a high probability of failure, having more of it makes you more vulnerable than if you had several points of failure with less of a probability (due to being unpopular). His counter discussion for that is "you don't want to train your tech people on many operating systems, they will not be able to manage all the security flaws".. However, training of windows cost, and windows changes to encourage people to upgrade. So in effect Microsoft has sold us many operating systems, windows 98, nt 3, nt 4, xp , me, 2000
Sure he'd just love everyone to have just XP.. But with the release of longhorn, this just fragments it all over again..
You can use one kind of linux, it just gets better, and it doesn't cost you anything.. What he won't address is that the art of the operating system has pretty much been perfected, and Microsoft is just finding ways to distract people away from arriving at a real solution.. Its like, "as long as we can be fooled, he can make money.. So just dodge the real question nobody will ask, why are we still paying for old technology?"
Just say no to license servers!!
...they assume that the one system you'd be running wouldn't be Linux. In truth it could apply to any OS but they impose the assumption that you would choose Windows.
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
Gates also contributes a lot of money to charity. One might think that doesn't mean much since he's the richest guy in the world. I say to them, alright, you donate the same percentage of your wealth to the poor.
This is a tired argument.
Bill Gates donating x% of his money to charity is not the same as me donating x% of my money to charity. (He has, what, close to $100B in the bank?)
There are a few thresholds of wealth that are of any significance. Beyond one threshold, you can support yourself (more or less). Beyond a higher one, you can live quite well off, for you and your family. Beyond another one, you can do pretty much whatever you want to do.
Bill Gates is well beyond all of these.
He could donate 75% of his money to charity, and still have over $10B in the bank. It would not drop him below any meaningful threshold -- except for not being on the top of the "wealthiest person in the world" list every year, he'd still be able to do everything he does today.
If I donated 75% of my wealth to charity, I wouldn't be able to provide for my family.
You can't just say "Bill Gates donates x% of his wealth, so you should shut up, unless you donate the same percentage". It doesn't work that way.
(FWIW, I do donate money -- not to the poor, typically, but to medical research: I've lost loved ones to diseases that I would not wish anybody else to lose a loved one to. Not $30B, but I don't have $30B to spare; if I did, I would gladly donate it. I'm sure anybody who's lost loved ones knows I'm not exaggerating one cent.)
No, I don't actually think B. Gates is evil or in similarities to Anakin Skywalker.
DER SPIEGEL: "Bill Gates is the devil"
SPIEGEL: When one puts the sentence "Bill Gates is the devil" into the Internet search engine Google, one gets thousands of hits. Does this bother you?
Gates: I have never searched for such a sentence. Plus: if you understand the search engine properly, it doesn't mean that you will find exactly this sentence on these pages.
I I don't think that Microsoft will ever understand search engines.