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.

Comments

But

[Anonymous Coward]

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?"

Respect

[EpsCylonB]

He does a pretty good job of answering a lot of hard questions.

Thats quite a brave comment to make on /.

He's one of the richest, most powerful men

[RLiegh]

I can't imagine that there is too much of anything that does bother him; least of all search engine trivia.

Interesting quotes from the interview

[daviddennis]

These simply don't sound true to me:

-----
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: ... 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: In a few hours a Windows virus can travel across the world like an epidemic...

Gates: ... 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.

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

Re:Interesting quotes from the interview

[NonSequor]

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.

obviously, a lot of what he says is...

[jxyama]

marketing speak and aren't always 100% "correct." however, there's some "substance" to it because he is *heard* and his opinions/ideas/thoughts are *valued* and *sought after* by others.

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.

On Security.

[Bug-Y2K]

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.

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.

Re:Exact phrase searches ..

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

Ironically enough, "the devil is the devil" returns only 975 hits. Satan needs a new agent.

Linuxland...

[DaPhoenix]

"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.

Re:Exact phrase searches ..

[vandelais]

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: Slashdot runs a lot of duplicate stories.

Microsoft's secret interview prep-guide.

[khasim]

#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.

Interesting excuses...

[OwlWhacker]

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.

Bad MS PR

[disserto]

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.