Slashdot Mirror
Who is Your Hero, Gates or Jobs?
feranick writes "Wired and Ars Technica are both running articles comparing Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, not for their business/technological achievements but for their humanitarian involvement. I am curious to see what you are thinking about the issue. What is more important, be a showmen technologist like Jobs or an humanitarian missionaire like Gates? And even more important: Is it important that donations from rich billionaires be public or should they remain private?"
Tough call, really. I tend to view every move of Gates in terms of wondering if he's doing these things with the ulterior motive of helping his company, Microsoft. There was a considerable ($300m, IIRC) gift to a cause in India about the time of debate over state use of Open Source in preference to Microsoft (closed source, foreign owned.) There's also the matter of how you feel people and businesses have been exploited and compromised by this behemmouth (granted users of Microsoft products, myself included, share some responsibility for helping set the hook) which has enriched this person, thus putting him in such a position to be generous.
I don't look to Jobs with any more expectation than he does good things in business, which forces other businesses and concerns to react to the public in more favorable ways e.g. itunes selling for far less than RIAA was comfortable with, Pixar producing quality entertainment over the utter pap from Disney (well, we'll see how this goes, won't we?)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
He's very strange, but you can't deny that he was the brains behind Apple's beginnings.
Cloud City Digital: DVD Production at its cheapest/finest
As far as heroes go, I would have to say Linus would be much higher ranked than either Jobs or Gates.
Of course, Apple has never done anything evil or unethical...like suing fan rumor sites...or shutting down clone makers...nah, you're so right.
That was sarcasm btw. I put Jobs and Gates in exactly the same ethical category. Low to none.
I wouldn't call him my personal hero, but more so than the two options listed in the article.
You can see a mite made into jewelry here. I think it was like the equivalent of a penny- the smallest monetary unit of the time.
There are many Christians who are like Christ, unfortunately a lot of high profile people like to use Christianity as a means to a very different end.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
"Rich billionaires"!!
Moving right aloing, this isn't an "important question", it's a stupid one. No one can spend a billion dollars on anything in secrecy; most especially not the CEO of an American company.
This spring I had the opportunity to hear Warren Buffett give a talk in Omaha. At the outset I wasn't too excited; I'm not really into business, but I learned some things that impressed me.
The most interesting thing that I learned is that while Buffett isn't a well philanthropist, when he dies, something like 1% of his wealth will go to his children as an inheritance, and the other 99% (currently about $39.6 billion) will go to a charatable foundation. He's told the administrator of that foundation that he wants him to try and "do something huge" with the money, not just spread it out to lots of smaller causes.
His justification for doing it this way instead of giving to charity right now is that the more money he has, the more money he can make, and the more money he puts into the foundation before he dies.
Now, it could be easily argued that he just likes making money, and doesn't want to give it away, but his impressively simple lifestyle argues that he certainly doesn't like spending money on himself.
I imagine that if I had billions of dollars, it would be much more fun to see that money go to work helping people while I was around to see it, but Buffett's plan makes sense from a practical standpoint.
Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
The logic of "He has alot so it's no big deal for him to donate alot." is dumb as fuck.
I'm extremely disappointed to see the slashdot crowd almost entirely bashing Gates becuase they don't care for microsofts software. This assumption that somehow Jobs is a better person because you like his software more is stupid, the companies are run with the same goals, Apple just has a different marketing strategy and alot less brute force to throw behind their decisions. I'm quite confident that if Apple had 96% of the OS market, and Microsoft had 4%, then peoples opinions would be exactly the opposite as they are now. It's the same old "Hate the big guy!" attitude, and its not exactly novel or interesting anymore.
Gates has helped millions of people by donating more money than most large countries. This is a wonderful thing and I applaud him for it. Jobs may or may not be donating money, as the article says that no documentation of this could be verified, but It really doesn't matter to me, it is completely up to him what he does with his money. And now that my rant is over, I'll throw my opinion out there.... I was more than a little disappointed when Apple ran their marketing campaign a few years ago using pictures of many famous civil rights people and other people like Einstien. The exploitation of good people for making money seemed awfully sickening to me. But this is likely a result of a powerful marketing team and not really the fault of Jobs.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
I've heard quite a lot of people claim that we shouldn't care if Microsoft is a big, evil corporation, because Bill Gates is very charitable. One of my friends has even said something to the effect of, "Well, yeah, Microsoft rips me off, but at least I know the money is going someplace good."
I just don't get it. To take it to an extreme, what if someone made billions by being a murderous tyrant and committing genocide, but gave a big chunk of money to TB research. Would that be fine?
Yes, I know, that's an extreme, but when you're establishing moral rules, it's worth asking yourself, what if this is taken to the extreme? Isn't it worth asking where the money came from? Do you think that committing one good act cancels-out or makes up for other ongoing bad acts? If I make money through unethical means, what percentage must I give away for those means to be "alright"?
Personally, I'd rather spend my money on good products and have the producer keep my money than be ripped off and extorted and have some portion of the money scammed from me sent off to charity. To the extent that I'm concerned about charity, I'd rather donate my own money. In no case does someone deserve kudos for donating some small portion of their ill-gotten gains to a good cause while continuing their unethical behavior. Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
hacking ability (which Gates also was, though who knows how he compares to Woz)
Actually, no. Gates hasn't worked on any hacks personally since Altair Basic, and even then he was a part of a team. Microsoft in general buys way more technology than they ever innovate. Compare that to the elegance of using the off cycle of a 6802 microprocessor instead of a video card just to create a computer with fewer chips, and thus cheaper for consumers....one is of these things is not like the other.
be rich in family (as Gates is)
This too doesn't compare- last I heard the Woz's family exceeded just about any other rich man on the planet other than bin Laden. Gates's immediate family is now what, 4 people?
Note that he doesn't do charity for show, as so many do, he actually gets things done.
This I'm much more cynical about. I agree Bill doesn't do his charity for show- I believe he does it to increase the size of the market he can eventually sell copies of Windows to. Right now, Microsoft is operating is a supersaturated market- his only hope of increasing market share is to increase the population of the earth.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
41: Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42: But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. 43: Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.
New International Version (NIV) - Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
Linux Rocks - I'll cast rocks at Windows!
I actually think Gates is giving away about as much as he thinks he can without spending it wastefully or risking his ownership stake of Microsoft. Trying to give away billions in a way that actually helps people rather than attracting lazy leeches is extremely hard. (Look at the people who ran scams like creating fake relatives who supposedly died in 9/11, or how some Iraq money is being spent for example.) That's why he has the foundation, and a person he trusts implicitly -- his father -- at its head. But yes, the older he gets, the less he'll care about his ownership stake in Microsoft.
I think you can classify a person's acts as good and bad, rather than tagging them as fundamentally good or bad. Gates has been a rapacious capitalist, and a generous philanthropist. Jobs has been a sleazeball (ripping off Woz very early in their relationship), but without him, Apple would be a shadow of what it is. In some ways, it's because Jobs is (from the sound of it) an a**h*** that Apple has contributed to the computer industry as much as it has.
What was the quote about you can still be moral and earn a million, but not a billion?
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Of the two I respect Gates for what he does with his money. No one is required to give it away, even a small portion of it. Yet he is dumping quite a bit of money and large amount of it as well. More refreshing is that compared to the likes of Buffet Gates is not doing it promote certain PC-centric causes, he is trying to use his money to make a difference. Gates is the face of Microsoft to many but he isn't Microsoft.
I don't think the same can be said about Jobs and Apple. To me Apple is Steve Jobs and Steve Jobs is Apple. It is so hard to see the two apart because with Jobs I don't think we would still have Apple Computers and the PC world would be less for it. We can have Microsoft without Gates as there are many people who can keep the behemoth moving. The problem with Apple is is that it doesn't work as a Behemoth. It really survived on the personality and drive of one person, no one else in the organization had the right stuff to make it work. It takes a special person to push the limits and know what will appeal. Sure Jobs has made some blunders but his successes are always so much greater that they outshine his failures. That is kind of how Turner is too, the difference is that Jobs has the right flair.
If Gates has one major problem is that he really is boring. But Microsoft didn't get where it was because of it being flashy. It got there through methodical plodding that is required to make good companies large ones. They didn't take big risks, they take calculated risks. It did make a lot of people wealthy and some fabously wealthy. It is very good to see that Gates, with probably a big amount of his wife's influence, do something truly effective with his money. He does have more than any one person or family could use and even after his donations he still does, the great thing about him is that he does not appear to have any ending in sight for his giving. He could be buying up the world's businesses and building a personal empire but he instead is building up the world he lives in and the best part is that most of those he helps will never know who he is. That last part is what truly makes him my favorite. It is one thing to help people who you know and will know you for that help, its a whole 'nuther thing to help those who will never know you or of you.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Actually, yes. Bill worked on vast amounts of software himself as a developer for the first decade of Microsoft and as a individual starting with Altair Basic (he wrote almost all of it) and ending with the OS for the Radio Shack Model 100 (the first popular laptop in history and still spoken of with awe by reporters) which he wrote himself. Microsoft develops vastly more software than it buys. Oh, and the rest of your post was just as clueless and was nothing more than presenting the world the way you wish it were rather than caring about any actual demonstrable facts.
Basically, the one that I admire is not jobs (a showman), or gates (doing this to turn his reputation), but Paul Allen. Paul is investing in risky start-ups. Some make it big, others do not. He was the largest investor into internet over cable in 1994. He basically, created that market and all the jobs associated with it. Now he is investing into space. His invstment won the X-prize and I am guessing that he will make several other key investments that will create far more jobs and do more good than simply throwing a few dollars would ever do.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"What is more important, be a showmen technologist like Jobs or an humanitarian missionaire like Gates?
Perceptions can be wrong. And the media can supply plenty of incorrect perceptions.
I thank both men for giving us the computers we all have become so use to. And both men have had a huge influence on the computer market too, imho.
But to answer the question; Gates is a very shrewd business man who is known for creating a market for himself. My experience is these types of people generally are not of the humanitarian type until they are forced to be.(nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with Gates having a good PR team and wife to making him look humanitarian). Jobs OTOH is a people driven person, even though he may drive them too hard. Because he understands the value of streaching folks to get their best. So he is more likely to be a real humanitarian under non-work conditions.
This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
Catahoula!
I notice a lot of quotes from the old testament. People who follow the old testament are known as Jews, not Christians. k'thanx
Let me rephrase that to more correctly reflect reality:
People who follow select parts of the old testament (ie. God Hates Fags) while ignoring others (ie. God Hates Blended Fabrics) are known as hypocrites. People who promote the legal enforcement of posting of the ten commandments on public buildings, while saying "Jesus Saves" are also hypocrites. People who say that paying taxes to support the poor on welfare is immoral, while ignoring Jesus's directives on charity, and rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, are also hypocrites.
Many of these hypocrites self-identify as "Evangelical Christians".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.