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)
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.
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.
#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.
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.
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.