Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates Speaks Out

neoform writes "The Seattle PI is running an interesting interview with Bill Gates." In the article Gates comments on Vista, Google, and a few other pertinent topics. In an amusing bit of related news, an anonymous reader let us know that CNET is also running an interview with Gates. In the CNET interview Gates gives a very interesting response to one of the interview questions. "CNET: So that would be the philosophical difference between Microsoft and what Google is up to at this point? Gates: Well, we don't know everything they are up to, but we do know their slogan and we disagree with that."

10 of 571 comments (clear)

  1. He's still in denial... by aborchers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Gates: Software in general, whether it was from Microsoft or somebody else, was not set up for an environment where all the computers were connected together. So it's not like there was some software that had this security capability and our software did not. As we use the Internet to connect everyone up, then the need to essentially have suspicion and only listen to certain other systems, and if flaws come up to have those updated very quickly, that became a new requirement."


    What can one say to something so far off the mark?

    --
    Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    1. Re:He's still in denial... by wiggly-wiggly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This caught my eye too. It appears Mr. Gates has selectively forgotten UNIX's (not to mention many others) heritage, systems which were specifically designed to operate on networks and ultimately the Internet.

      Sigh, what a poor way to cover up Windows' inadequacies when it comes to networking.

      Nice to see people aren't buying this crap.

  2. "I don't think anybody anticipated..." by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Software in general, whether it was from Microsoft or somebody else, was not set up for an environment where all the computers were connected together. So it's not like there was some software that had this security capability and our software did not."

    So, what was IBM's SNA (Systems Network Architecture)? Chopped liver?

    That's right up there with "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

  3. what do we have to hear now? by alienfluid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    slashdot is becoming more like a cheap tabloid everyday - making up sensational headlines from sentences in articles used out of context to sell their news to the readers. whatever happened to fair, unbiased news for the nerds? are the editors listening?

  4. Re:Is it an eeevil slogan? by ch-chuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    we do know their slogan and we disagree with that.

    It's kinda like talking with any politician, since M$ft wants to compete with Google they have to disagree at some level, even if they're trying to do the same things. It's like asking Ted Kennedy what he thinks about Bush's plan for, whatever, helping little children. Whatever the Bush plan is, Ted's gotta disagree with it, that's how the game is played.

    That is, even if Gates secretely admired google's plan and slogan and is competing out of jealousy and fear of losing market and customer brand name recognition, he must try to publically discredit google somehow. Even if he thinks they're doing all the right things, he has to discredit it somehow, they're taking people's freedom away, etc. Unfortunately, when the PC Pope speaks, too many listen.

    Guess Bill's part of the antidisenplatformization movement.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  5. The Open Source Hair Salon by lazarus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Gates on open source:

    "There are some zealots that think there should be no software jobs, that we should all, like, cut hair during the day and write code at night."

    Either he just doesn't get it, or he's refusing to acknowledge what open source software (and the GPL) really is. Software development *is* services... It's professional services. Work you get paid for. Work you pay someone else to do. Open source spurs innovation because it both allows you to stand on someone elses shoulders and forces you to make your shoulders available to someone else.

    That OSS developers cut hair for a living to support their "habit" is ridiculous. Would you let a slashdot member cut *your* hair?

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
  6. Gates Drunk? by MrCopilot · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From TFA:
    At any point in our history, we've had competitors who were better at doing something. Novell was the best at file servers. Lotus was the best at spreadsheets. WordPerfect was the best at word processing.

    So its not just me. Even the Founder knows they suck (comparatively)

    Right now, because of the breadth of what we do, we have that in many areas. Nokia is way ahead of us in phones; we're closing the gap. Sony is ahead of us in video games. We're just on the verge of something (the Xbox 360) that will help us close the gap there. In Web search, Google is the far-away leader. Big honeymoon for them. Even if they do "me, too" type stuff, people think, "wow." nd Apple in music has done a fantastic job.

    We interupt this Bill Gates Honesty Break to bring you the following.

    In those areas where somebody else has done well, that's great. We'll match what they do, we'll bring new things to it, do it better and integrate it in with other things. And so it's very healthy for the consumer. We see that in search, we see it in music. It's not new at all that that's out there

    Translation: We make inferior products, bundle them, make exclusive deals, failing all else we buy the competitor and bury/integrate their product.

    --
    OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
  7. Uhhh, Mr. Gates? Unix? Multics, fer chrissake? by stlhawkeye · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Software in general, whether it was from Microsoft or somebody else, was not set up for an environment where all the computers were connected together. So it's not like there was capability and our software did not. As we use the Internet to connect everyone up, then the need to essentially have suspicion and only listen to certain other systems, and if flaws come up to have those updated very quickly, that became a new requirement."

    Ok, he's right there ... if this quote was from like 1962. Before there was teh webbs, before there was teh netz, before there was teh Microsoft, before there was teh UNIX, there was an operating system that was designed from the ground-up to incorporate advanced/enhanced security features (relative to the times), and it was called Multics.

    Unix has been established as a legitimate operating system since the 1970's. I guess you could say the "C" version would be the birthday of modern Unix, so we're talking 1973. Was Bill Gates out of grammar school yet at this point?

    Native TCP/IP support was built into the kernel in the early 1980's, a few years. http://www.computerhope.com/unix/xenix.htm">Micros oft itself created a Unix port, and it probably doesn't surprise any of us that SCO ended up with it. The similarities between how SCO and MS behave in the industry and market aren't totally coincidence.

    So, Bill, you HAD a network-ready and relatively secure operating system 25 goddam years ago. And you're saying that it's just now that anybody cares about networking, communications, or information security? Security has been a concern since the fucking 1960's, and your own friggen company had a Unix build.

    Jesus H. I normally don't jump on the bash-Microsoft bandwagon and often grapple with some of YOU Slashdot turds for doing so, but if this isn't a bunch of merry sunshine blown up the collective asses of industry journalism, I don't know what is.

    --
    "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
  8. Re:But What Are You For, Google? by Adelbert · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Ultimately, Google are for making money. As are Microsoft. As are Apple, Novell, Red Hat, basically any for-profit organisation. Sometimes, they will do something that one perceives as noble, if only to increase turnover.

    Corporations have a legal mandate to make money. It doesn't mean they can do no good, just that they are opposed to good deeds if they result in the haemorraging of cash.

    Personally, I'm a big fan of the work Google do (at the moment at least). Just don't expect them to honestly set out inspirational visions for their future.

  9. Re:Is it an eeevil slogan? by imidan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You could have made almost exactly the same comment when Microsoft was struggling to come up with a web browser that could compete with Netscape, the application that most new computer users thought of as "The Internet" at the time. Sure, it may scare them, but they've shown themselves to be quite capable of displacing their competition when it matters. I'm not saying that MS will inevitably win, but I *am* saying that while they may be worried about Google's industry presence, I doubt very much that they're not confident in the plan that they're working on to come out on top.