Slashdot Mirror
Gates Donates $15M to Preserve Computing History
Dan-DAFC writes "The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is donating the sum of $15 million to the Computer History Museum in California, according to the BBC. The money is the biggest single gift in the museum's $125 million fund-raising campaign, which is still $50 million short of its target. The funds raised will be used to add more exhibits and educational programs."
Honestly, this is asinine. While you personally might disagree (as many do) with some of Microsoft's business practices through the year, at the same time, one must honestly be impressed with what they've managed to accomplish. Making computing ubiquitous, and easy to understand-- these aren't things to be taken lightly. Yes, things crash, and yes, he stole some things, but I think that most /.ers wouldn't be here if they hadn't been introduced to computers at some point; most people are introduced to computing through Windows. And maybe yes, we move on to bigger and better things, but at the same time, it's nice to have a computer I'd give my grandmother.
To preserve the history of species that went extinct because of drilling. Well, at least students will know there were other computers and operating systems before our new worm-infested overlords.
Everyone says DOS is a dinosaur and now we have a museum of history so DOS should be on display. But seriously speaking DOS did revolutionalize the personal PC segment so it has its place in history. So for that matter does the first mouse, the first GIMP , the first laser printer but then it might become a Xerox PARC archive instead of a museum of computer history.
Anyway wonder how a software can be displayed in a museum. Would they have old computer terminals running DOS on which people can play around or would they just have a number of big boards with writeups abbout the software. A museum of
computer history seems to me to an unique challenge for a curator.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Big PR stunts? Gates has been giving money for *years* (at least as far back as 1997) to charitable organziations. He's also personally responsible for the gates foundation. MS, and gates in particular has been quite generous. Much more so than other silicon valley tech companies. In fact, i recently tried to find information on charitable giving done by steve jobs or apple but to no avail. It seems that they collected some money for the red cross in the wake of katrina but i didn't find any actual donations from apple. How generous of them to off "free" advertising space.
You know, I hate Microsoft just as much as (if not more than!) you, but until you donate anywhere near that amount, shut the fuck up.
pure an simple. he has more money then he knows what to do with. 15mill is a lot to you and me but to him, he'd blow that on a 1 week holiday. he donated the money as a tax break, and probably to help boost his ego and get them to show off MS stuff in the museum.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Target Audience goes to this museum?
I think not. The visitors to this museum are hardcore computer geeks that are already well aware of their choices and are likely not going to dump their current setups for Microsoft's latest and greatest based on their experiences at this museum.
Microsoft's target audience is corporate executives and average consumers, not enthusiasts
I'll donate the same percentage of my net worth. Aka, my two cents.
What better way to secure how history perceives you than to buy it? The guy has been making tax shelters ahem "donations" for quite some time now. This happens to be a good fit between his financial and personal PR goals.
Charity donations are tax deductible. Every single buck they give away will return in another form: less taxes and/or free publicity. Though it may seem impossible, there are ways for big corporations to make money by... well, donating money.
"I'm pretty sure that except for the youngest generation, most people have been exposed to computing prior to Windows dominating the market."
There is a bit of a difference between being exposed to computing and actually having one in nearly every home. Don't forget that programmers aren't the only ones that make a living with computers. Most (if not all...) of the 3D artists I know, for example, got their start because they learned skills in 3D at home on their PC.
In any event, it's silly to deny that Windows hasn't had a positive effect on the number of machines in people's homes these days. I realize it's not fun to think about and all, but honestly, that's just not something to be in denial about.
"Derp de derp."
I disagree with the methods of some of the more brutal African warlords but one must honestly be impressed with the quality of the diamonds that come from their mines.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
I don't know. It would be just as silly to claim that it is just because of Windows. I thought more people had computers, because they have gotten cheaper, and more necessary for work. Windows makes computers more expensive, and not as easy to use.
There is simply not the data to prove whether or not Windows had a significant effect on computer adoption. most people were going to end up with one, anyway, whether the software was made by microsoft, Apple, Commodore, Google or some company that exists in a parallel universe.
Since we don't have access to a parallel copy of the universe, we don't know whether Microsoft helped or hindered computing. Perhaps more people would own computers if today's software and Operating Systems weren't so demanding of resources? Or if they remained network, rather than desktop-centric.
I have never known anyonw who bought a computer because of Microsoft. Many but in spite of Microsoft. I have known people to avoid getting into computers at all, because of Microsoft, though.
... and then they built the supercollider.
...perhaps people will be able to remember when one actually had significant choice in mass-market computers.
A kernel with source code for everyone.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
I suppose that's why they give most of their money to world health, immunization, and other projects, right? Because once you get the third world up to speed in terms of things like fresh drinking water and protection from easily curable diseases, they're just a wider user base for Microsoft Office?
Cut me a break. If the Gates Foundation were about being a "crack dealer" for MS products, they wouldn't spend most of their money on providing basic health in third world countries that neither buy not can even afford Microsoft products to begin with.
How's that tin foil hat fit, anyway?
Also, as an addendum, I don't think I made it clear that what you say simply doesn't match the facts. As far as I know (from reading the Wikipedia entry), the Gates Foundation doesn't give any Windows software as part of their donations--they give cash. So your nonsense about pressing more CDs as a tax deduction is, well, just plain wrong.
Then again, this is Slashdot. Perhaps I was being a bit optimistic to expect otherwise.