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."
"Well, we don't know everything they are up to, but we do know their slogan and we disagree with that."
From context he's probably not referring to "Don't be evil" -- but seriously, who can turn down a sound bite (sound byte?) like that?
Microsoft has to learn how to accept competition and not try to kill it or buy it out. Competition leads to innovation, which is exactly what this industry lacks in a lot of areas.
$fortune
Tomorrow has been canceled due to lack of interest.
(Google has) this slogan that they are going to organize the world's information. Our slogan is that we are going to give people tools to let them organize the world's information.
The slashdot blurb wants to you to think that gates is disagreeing with the do no evil slogan. Silly decepticons running slashdot.
With the latest pre releases of betas, including 64 beta, and trying not to be evil, etc., gates is going after the one market he never had, computer geeks. We all like linux. We hate evil giant copy-right suing corperations. He's trying to change his ways, and wether it works or not, it will help there PR, CS, and will let us try out and see new products to make us happy. I am all for it. Go bill! Join the force! Leave the dark side!
ModLife.Net - If it ain't modded, what's the point?
Nothing like taking a reply to one question completely out of context... So Google is not offering development capabilities yet. Of course, I expect they will. But they're not in that game at all today. In fact, they have this slogan that they are going to organize the world's information. Our slogan is that we are going to give people tools to let them organize the world's information. It's a slightly different approach, based on the platformization of all of our capabilities and not thinking of ourselves as the organizer. 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. He was not referring to the "Do no Evil"
What can one say to something so far off the mark?
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
"I'm Feelin Lucky"
They were so cocky about it, they even put it on a button...those bastard!!
"When I am king, you will be first against the wall..."
We'll match what they do
Ha! I knew it! This whole time we were right about Microsoft's plan! Their only goal is to copy! (or buy, whichever is more economical)
Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
According to an inside source ("The 12 Simple Secrets of Microsoft Management" by David Thielen), Microsoft's motto actually is "Total World Domination".
I mean Bill Gates will always rail reactionary against anything he sees as a threat to his business model. I think the real question is why do we care what he has to say in the first place, he may be a savvy businessman but his days as a heady proponent of technology has long been overshadowed by his more nefarious practices.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
And despite what a lot of people will think on the surface (whoa look at how cool Microsoft has made Office 12), it is really Apple, Linux and the Open Source competition that has made Microsoft get its ass in gear.
How else do you explain the sudden amount of creativity and motivation that Microsoft is having with its interface?
Microsoft and the Windows folks are going to act all high and mighty that their OS now has these cool features, but they will not realize what is driving it. Competition.
So, and I'm not trying to be a smartass, the same guys whose flagship product can't empty a recycle bin without seizing, are trying to be leaders in speech and video recognition?
Clippy AV: "Hello User/Bear/Shrub, I see you've brought a Hammer/Salmon/Exhaust Manifold. Would you like me to assist you with it?
[No] [Cancel]
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Better news would have been the 'face off' with Napoleon Dynamite.
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.
Of course software was set up for networked communication. Most UNIX (including *BSD and Linux) systems since the late 1970s have been network-aware in some form or another. And they have experienced nowhere near the problems that Microsoft's software has.
Now it's intriguing that he's suggesting that it might be necessary to "only listen to certain other systems". That sounds an awful lot like a DRM-style situation for the Internet. Imagine not being able to connect to an FTP server running on Windows, only because you're using Mozilla or the FreeBSD ftp client, and such non-Microsoft products are deemed "insecure".
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
"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."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
He meant to say as Office gor Bloated and I got Richer...
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?
Since we are talking about slogans, I know what Google is against. I want to know what they are for? Do not be evil sounds nice and all, but I know they have some very tilted leanings [that may seem evil to some people] and a heck of a lot of information. But, saying what you are against is not inspirational. Saying what you are for, that inspires people.
In Summary:
Google slogan: "Do no evil".
Microsoft slogan: "Resistance is Futile".
"The remainder of the exercise is left to the readers."
Sorry that you went to all that trouble. Looks like Slashdot and its famous misleading summaries has punked several hapless readers yet again. The summary was written to imply that he was referring to the "do no evil" slogan and you and a few others fell for it.
If you have a moment, read the article and you'll see that Bill references the actual slogan earlier in the interview.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
OK, we all know Gates is the biggest douchebag in Silicon Valley, but who would win in a fight: Larry Paige & Sergey Brin vs. Gates & Ballmer?
I'm fairly certain Paige would thoroughly pound Gates into the floor; but Ballmer is really freakin' scary. That one I'm not so sure of. I'm picturing Ballmer being able to take out both Paige and Brin at the same time.
Then again, Ballmer having Gates as a tag team partner would actually be a hinderence, so I'm thinking Paige and Brin would just barely be able to People's Elbow his ass into submission.
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
"(Google has) this slogan that they are going to organize the world's information. Our slogan is that we are going to give people tools to let them organize the world's information."
--------- I have no signature
Well, we don't know everything they are up to, but we do know their slogan and we disagree with that.
char* slogan = "Don't Be Evil";
char* corporateSlogan;
if(corporateID == GOOGLE)
corporateSlogan = slogan;
else if(corporateID == MICROSOFT)
corporateSlogan = &(slogan[6]);
It's not their primary "Do no harm" slogan, people...
coding is life
That is an interesting comment (real quote or no), since it could either be interpeted as correct or incorrect; depending entirely on context.
:)
In the context of *all* software, that is probably true originally. Early big iron certainly did not like to talk to other machines. It was a bit of a hack, if I recall correctly. Early micros were totally independant.
On the other hand, by the time MS was on the scene (the CPM days) there were quite a few machines written from the ground up to talk to each other. In which case the quote would be wrong.
Of course, I'm sure many will disagree with me on both counts
-WS
An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
"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.
I know most people here have an allergy to corporatey stuff, but a mission statement is different from a slogan. Here's M$'s mission statement:
Our Mission
At Microsoft, we work to help people and businesses throughout the world realize their full potential. This is our mission. Everything we do reflects this mission and the values that make it possible.
I'm not so sure what their slogan is: You will be assimilated?
In any case, it's clear that the only thing most of us thought as a slogan for google was Do no eviiil. The bit about organizing the world's information and making it useful- well, that's their mission statment.
With a CEO that throws chairs around and a tech with both-feet in mouth disease, I'd be selling M$ shares right now.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
I'm thinking this is some lame attempt to pump up the stock.
Bill Gates puts the psycho Ballmer in charge. Ballmer would be great if his only job was to crush little, cash-strapped companies run by twitchy VCs.
But when MSFT has to compete with a real company, that has real money, and can hurt them, the psycho stuff doesn't work -- chair throwing. It makes them look bad in the press, like they are desperate.
In earlier times, Ballmer could throw the chair, say "fuck" and "pussy" all he wanted, and nobody would really talk about it, because they'd be thinking --- jeez, if I blab about this, who knows if it will bite me in the ass.
Now that the emperor has no clothes, that shit doesn't work.
So then they have to trot out the Nice Bill to give interviews that dispute the "we are evil" tag, and try to make things look like it will all be OK.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
I wonder if Bill goes off any sweet jumps...
coding is life
be lawful evil.
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
It's too much work, even with better tools, I've got things I'd rather be doing. While I may not trust Google to do it the way I'd like, what they end up with will be more than I have interest in doing by myself...
And just what does Gates mean by "tools to organize"-- I doubt he means web-spider programs that will generate your own search engine database-- would it not likely mean that the tools would access a Microsoft database (that they apparently, haven't even bothered to organize) and you could then organize your links into Microsoft's data? Yeah, that sounds better than what Google's doing :-)...
I believe Google will stumble big time in the near future as it spreads itself out into too many businesses. It is really pure hubris on Google's part to think that it can handle the creation of a new Internet backbone *and* a consumer OS among all the other things it is trying to do.
Perhaps their biggest mistake was pissing Microsoft off so much with the Kai Fu Lee deal. In trying to overachieve on too many goals, the last thing they need is Redmond as an enemy. The last thing they need is Ballmer and Gates fighting them every inch of the way.
The amount of clout, IP, and coding prowess that MS wields should not be trivialized. The way to kill MS is to silently make them irrelevant and avoiding a war. Google just blew that strategy.
And the kicker is that billg's graciousness in the interview towards google actually tells me that MS has already won even before the coming battle starts.
But I don't think that someone who completely gives up license fees is ever going to have a substantial R&D budget and do the hard things, the things too hard to do in a university environment.
Bill's ability to completely and utterly ignore any portion of reality which doesn't promote The Microsoft Way(TM) is truly extraordinary. From the way he talks I've come to think he actually believes the shit that spews forth from his pie-hole, in a very Howard Hughes-ian sort of way.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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
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
"At any point in our history, we've had competitors who were better at doing something," Gates said
:)
And still are, I'd wager, even the defunct ones...
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.
Solaris, 'Network is the computer', most other *nix's, Linux...
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
From TFA:
"'At any point in our history, we've had competitors who were better at doing something,' Gates said in an interview with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, underscoring the fact that it wouldn't be unprecedented to come from behind now."
If Microsoft's competitors are better at doing things than they are, then does M$ prevail?????
I got nothin'
Bill should take his ravishing (ahem) wife and go off and do good deeds...
Google image of Melinda Gates
Damn you for even making me curious!
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
I'm a microsoft employee that is thankful for the pragmatically positive effect that competitors have had on us.
When i started at MS, we were getting our lunch eaten in security/reliability issues compared to linux.. (which frnakly sucks at security and reliabilty compared to some other UNIX variants) We had customers tell us "you get your sh@#$ straight or we're jumping ship". They had heard, experienced, or both, that they could get better uptime and fewer successful attacks from other platforms.
That's what we needed - the execs heard that we had a competitive threat, so there was executive support to let the really brilliant guys push through huge expensive work on reliability, correctness, security, maintainability, etc. In the past, enough customers were willing to pay for something like Win95 that we only had to make something as good as Win95 (which i never used, btw, as i had given up PC's for Solaris/SPARC by that time..)
Today, nothing can leave Microsoft without the "security gurus" giving their stamp of approval. (i.e. the guys like Michael Howard). There's a formalized process, a list of stuff to check for, all threat models are reveiwed, we have a bunch of internal tools that look for known-uglies in code bases..
None of this existed 5 years ago and today it's mandatory for all shipping products.
Obviously there's more work to do on security and reliability, but today we have the corporate willpower to dump a lot of investment at these problems, and the results are encouraging - Server 2003 has very few issued critical udpates compared to past MS products, and even compared to some distributinos of linux.
The other thing we're finding is that for lots of things, F/OSS people can clone our stuff (UI, feature set) in less time than we can design, write, test, and ship it. Outlook's 11th version is what's out in the market place right now, but something like Evolution (which let's be honest, is about as blatant an outlook clone as you can make without the underlying technologies _also_ being Microsoft stuff) is only a few years old and is functional for a good number of scenarios.
Freeware clones/reimplementations benefit from the UI, the feature set, the "flow", the architecture, and most importantly, the MISTAKES that we've made, so that F/OSS teams can deliver a reasonably functional app that works reasonably well in a very short amount of time.
We definitely know about Eclipse and what it does. People on the inside ask "why would i use VS instead of Eclipse?" and its up to us to make sure there's a good answer.
So yes, i think most microsoft employees understand and even appreciate that competition makes us work better, and that alot of that competition today is Apple, F/OSS, and Google.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.
"Don't be evil" is one of 10 statements of their philosophy. I can't find anywhere that Google itself states that it is their slogan. But I guess you can have a lot of slogans.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
"In fact, they have this slogan that they are going to organize the world's information. "
No it wasn't the "do no evil" slogan. I'm guessing most of the post in this thread will be made on this comment the submitter had made, who should pull his head out of his ass and stop tryin to flamebait.
TruePunk | Games
This means that Microsoft is actually good, because the new slogan for Google is "Don't be evil, unless it's necessary for the greater good."
...how can we capitalize on what *could* be a nice bit of PR disaster for M$, showing that Gates is off his rocker, not to be trusted around children, etc. It's simply wrong that he should think M$ came up with everything and let it stand at that; think of the readers who *don't* know better and are that bit more lulled into thinking computers were invented by M$.
It's sort of a bizzare reversal of the phrase: every time Bill lies, a cash register goes "ring!"
From TFA: "But the Microsoft chairman on Tuesday said his company remains the overall industry leader, and he compared the current rivalries to legendary ones with Lotus, Novell and WordPerfect -- situations in which the Redmond company ultimately overcame steep odds to prevail."
Microsoft had a decisive advantage over Lotus, WordPerfect, Novell and IBM (OS/2) which was the monopoly power controlling the OEM (PC manufactures) and the "suite" killer app (MS Office). The same advantage (including unlimited cash) applied against Netscape.
But when you look at where Microsoft competed without a monopoly advantage or dominant market share their track record is poor. They still can out spend many (Sony for games) but Google has several key advantages, huge market capitalization (translates to abundant cash) and market leadership where the MS monopoly (and cash) may not be an advantage for Microsoft.
It is possible that its a whole new market place that Bill Gates has very little successful track record to use to compete with. Google (and in some ways Apple too) are ahead of Microsoft, delivering amazing products before Microsoft is in the market. Despite Microsoft's history of slowly wearing down the competition by experimenting with well funded solutions (V3 seems was often the transition point), Microsoft may be in for a humbling market experience.
Between Google, Linux and Apple (as a leading alternative to the MS desktop), I'd bet against Microsoft's previous golden touch.
This could be the shift that helps level the playing field. The consumer and the market benefits. No monopoly historically has prevailed forever, it is doubtful Microsoft will be the exception.
... except Gate's point is still valid. They aren't getting paid to code, they have to support themselves to code. He believes in selling a product instead of selling support. It's 2 different ideologies, and he admits later there is room for both.
-everphilski-
You are certainly looking at history through rose-colored glasses.
Old Unix ran RSH by default. It ran NFS (look ma, no passwords!), it ran sendmail which came with a rootshell feature by design. Every single protocol sent passwords in cleartext (even WFW and Novell attempted some crypto). Old Unix certainly was not at all designed for untrusted networks.
The WinNT idea of authenticated RPC was a gazillion time better than what Unix was offering -- if your network was closed. And if you're talking about buffer-overflow network attacks and the like, Unix's record is only *slightly* less pathetic than MS's.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Billgatus of Borg:
In google's own words:
(my emphasis added)
Note how Billgatus of Borg conveniently omits the part about making it universally accessible, as if to avoid an embarrassing contrast between Google's track record and the constant roadblocks his own company puts up.
While Google was building its business with open standards and on the same level playing field that other search engines could use, MSFT was exploiting the closed nature of its Word format against its competitors. While Google was busy adding support for a wide variety of browsers, MSFT was breaking HTML standards in the hopes that only IE would remain standing. He had to leave that little detail out, otherwise it would dredge up memories of how MSFT became a convicted monopolist, and that would clash with the sparkling Mr. Clean image he was trying to project.
And useful? I certainly find it more useful if searches return what I'm searching for instead of just ads. If MSFT manages to kill Google, I would expect search results to degenerate back to the highest bidder model of ads mixed into the search results. Google has done a much better job of managing their PR with this, steering clear of hotmail-like flashing ads and pagerank gambits and maintaining some semblance of believability. And, they've done it without pulling their hair (or toupees) out, or throwing chairs or lodging the sort of epithets one would expect from a knuckle-dragging world wrestling federation circus act. It's a contrast that had to be swept under the carpet.
So, how does The Collective answer to Google's mission statement? (voice=polyphonic Borg collective + squeaky Billgatus)
(and I would sardonically add) ...in a EULA-bound fashion, so that we can revise the agreement at any time to, in effect, appropriate the intellectual property rights to ourselves, without
having to spend a cent storing it. It shall all be
assimilated. Eventually people will have to buy our systems just to
access that information and Google will find itself locked out by our
DRM. Resistance is futile. (/sardonicity)
Also, what's this talk about "giving" tools to people? My, how generous that sounds. Does he mean like another toolbar? Gee, thanks. Or perhaps he means a tool in the sense of a talking paperclip? Or maybe a 3-D flipping crowbar to open up those DRM files long enough to read their EULAs? Or how about a free spyware remover that doesn't remove the #1 brand of spyware, which has a EULA claiming it is illegal to try to remove it. Hmmm. Everyone bow to the unbounded generosity?
One thing's for sure, Google's API has gotten onto his radar, so I'm guessing they may also try to beam down another shipment of EULA-laden developer tools in the hopes they can cut Google off at the mindshare pass. They are trying to kill Google, but for the moment it looks like they will have to brainwa^Wtrain a lot more nine-year-olds. Anyone who knew what was going on a scant few years ago and strains long enough to remember it would have to conclude that this is just another whitewash.
Nope. You're wrong. I have a computer here in my collection. It has Microsoft (pre-SCO) Xenix installed on it.
//xds13/dev/ttyd3 to debug a printer. I could even open raw disk devices over the net for remote dumps.
Thats nice.
I ran a network of almost 50 multi-user Xenix systems hooked together with OpenNET, supporting 500 users, sharing the network with and talking to VAXes running DECNET and VMSNET and DOS PCs running Microsoft Lan Manager. That's Microsoft Xenix, Copyright 1982-1984, networked together over Ethernet running multiple network protocols. It had a better networked file system than NFS that gave us remote access to devices and named pipes. I could sit on a VMS box and talk to a process on a Xenix box over a named pipe on Xenix. I could sit on one Xenix box and open
And Microsoft threw all that away and went back to a single-user operating system with NO security at all... and even with all the potential of the NT kernel in hand they have YET to be implement enough local security to keep users from becoming "root" without locking them down into a 'kiosk' mode, and NOW they have the gall to say that nobody could have done better.
EVERYONE did a better job of computer security than Microsoft did in Windows.
INCLUDING Microsoft!