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.
I can't imagine that there is too much of anything that does bother him; least of all search engine trivia.
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)
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.
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.
"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.
To a company like Microsoft anything that affects its market share will be a competitor, so in your scenario flowers growing in the garden are indeed a threat.
If Linux is taking a dint out of Microsoft's bottom line earnings, regardless of where the distro comes from, then it is a competitor.
Actually, you and he agree on the benefits of a single company-wide OS. You just disagree on which one should be used :)
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!
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.
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.
There is some truth in some of what he says.
It's worth noting that an aircraft with multiple engines is more likely to have some sort of engine failure than an aircraft with one engine of similar design. In general, increasing the number of components in a system increases the chance that at some point one of the components will fail.
Basically if you put your eggs in several different baskets the number of eggs you can expect to lose will be greater than the number of eggs you can expect to lose by putting them in a single well designed basket.
However, putting your eggs in one basket means that any failure is a total failure, even if it is unlikely. Systems with redundancies can be designed so that the chance of an absolute failure is unlikely and so that the damage of partial failures can be limited (i.e. a plane with multiple engines can be designed to still be able to land safely with some of its engines damaged). This is the reason that many people advocate against a so-called monoculture. There aren't any general purpose operating systems with adequate features that we are good enough to be our single basket. Gates thinks that Windows is good enough to be this single basket though there are many who disagree with him.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
Many of the statements Bill Gates makes in his interviews directly contradict what even seasoned Windows system administrators know. I think he's doing it to wreak ridicule on the competition and make it seem insignificant.
He could build such a stronger case if he stopped denying facts. Windows can stand up against Linux just fine. There's no need to lie.
#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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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...
Gates: If everything runs under the same platform, however, you can better concentrate resources and more quickly repair errors.
I've admin'ed hybrid networks (Windows and Linux) and I've spent a whole lot more time and effort keeping Windows working and secured than Linux.
It's true that all platforms have security problems and need frequent updates. This will not change until all developers start taking security seriously and using secure-by-design coding practices. In the meantime, I have found Linux/FOSS systems much easier to deal with when security problems do arise. After all, I can usually run one program to automatically upgrade all software on a system. Not only does the OS get patches, but also user-space programs. With Windows, I have to deal with multiple versions of the OS because the licensing does not allow free upgrades. And worse, I have no way to easily upgrade the diverse selection of software that people are using. (Remember the Windows GDI bug?) This is one of those "secondary" benefits of Free licensing that most people don't think about. Free distribution means centralized updates and therefore easier administration.
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.
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
It's worth noting that an aircraft with multiple engines is more likely to have some sort of engine failure than an aircraft with one engine of similar design.
This is completely true from a hardware/mechanical point of view. However, software is much more organic than that. And not only that but Gates' responses are so telling of a flawed approach to what makes secure and therefore cost-effective software. Everyone at Microsoft will tell you their way is best. And even Gates' says there are thousands of security guys waiting to pounce on issues. But I have to ask the question then: what good are those thousands in regards to the track record MS has?
Frankly, I see a place for MS in the computing world, but not to the degree and prevalence it enjoys now. Amonng some of their mantras are 'Windows Everywhere' and 'Bundle it for the benefit of the customer'. But any ecology cannot support just one organism and it is not to the benefit of the customers if their machines are continually at risk for the virii/trojan/malwayre/etc du jour.
I thought the interview was good, but the truth rings clear as a bell, regardless of Gates' utopian dream world. His company creates the platform - knowingly - that enables all the questionables to breed on and infect. If they worked more with the world community as a whole, then this could be greatly reduced - instead we see lawsuit after lawsuit (such is the capitalist way I suppose).
And just now he's [Gates] coming around to announcing that MS products should be more interoperable. This coming from a company notorious for embrace/extend and non-human readable binary formats (i.e., does not play at all with others); they're the kings of non-interoperability.
One one hand, Gates is seen as a visionary. On the other, a devil. At some point the dam will break (maybe it's already breaking now). People will realize there still are choices out there. Evil, socialistic leaning governments and bodies will require MS to stop some of their questionable tactics and people will really come to see how beneficial an OS not stacked to the rim with crap really is. Will it be Linux? OS X? Who knows. But I have a dream too, and in 10 years it entails more diversity in the software ecology and not just one company dictating all standards so as to facilitate their monopolistic position.
Nothing and no one is perfect. But MS has only down to go and nothing Gates nor, especially, Ballmer can do will stop it because they've built their ivory tower on unstable ground from the get go and shun outside cooperation. Such is the nature of their model and they are their own worst enemy.
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...
""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?"
One of the first things you learn when you're in a position that stock prices and livelihoods hang in the balance of your words, is that you must choose them very carefully. Even if he thinks Linux is a threat, he's obviously not going to say so. He chose his words well. Appeasing Slashdotters is far lower on his list of priorities than his obligation to his shareholders.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
First, the CEO is the Chief Executive Officer. You probably should speak to the CFO (if you can get that high up) to perhaps validate your numbers.
Second: You are stuck with Windows for now. That is the way it was designed: you seem to get much more than you bargained for, but getting out of it seems impossible.
After all, when people quit, who are you going to hire to replace them? Anybody you hire must be re-trained, unless you are willing to pay more up-front for those who are already trained. Ignorance is cheap. Gates admits this in the interview: "One thing we have to do is make computer use simpler in order to increase people's awareness of such questions."
To paraphrase: By hiding the questions, we increase peoples' awareness. NetNanny is not the solution, because nobody has really heard of it."
To paraphrase (again): "by hiding complexity, we increase awareness."
Just as one final analogy of my own design, driving an automobile is many orders of magnitude simpler than piloting an F16. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that driving an automobile must be better than flying an F16, simply because it is "less complicated" and "increases your awareness of how the equipment works." So should we all be driving tricycles?
The arithmetic is left to the reader, though my answer key says that 2 - 1 *always* equals 1, and that simplicity != superiority. If you really want idiots to use computers, you will give people computers that are more idiot-prone. "if you build it, they will come," and then you have a bunch of idiots using computers. The solution to their incompetency? make it possible for even dumber people to use computers.
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
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!!