Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Real Bill Gates Rant

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the well-that's-not-so-bad dept.

lou ibmix XI submitted an email written by Bill Gates a few years ago and turned over to the feds as part of the government's antitrust case. Great quotes like 'Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable?' and 'The lack of attention to usability represented by these experiences blows my mind.' We like to think of him as an abstract, but I think this is interesting stuff. Also, this might seem familiar. Oops.

36 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. Massive Dupe by Thelasko · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/06/26/026237.shtml

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:Massive Dupe by wisty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's been 6 years, and he still can't install it? Maybe he should install Wubi, and try apt-get, that usually works.

    2. Re:Massive Dupe by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, no, this is deliberate. After posting a story which wasn't really news for nerds, they decided to post a story which is for nerds, but isn't actually news. They're giving up errors for lent and are trying to get them all out of their system first.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:Massive Dupe by hardburn · · Score: 3, Funny

      Connecting to the SMTP port directly and writing ASCII in base 13 is better than Outlook.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    4. Re:Massive Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Firstly, "m" and "c" should be lower-cased in the famous Special Relativity equation.

      Secondly, "m" is the inertial mass, which follows from a Lorentz transformation. It is not the rest mass, which is intrinsic to the object in question. "Rest mass" in Special Relativity is the intrinsic energy of an object in an inertial frame in which it is at rest with respect to a stationary observer at infinity, in a slice of spacetime with a set of coordinates that makes it locally flat (Minkowski spacetime).

      A photon in the Standard Model must have zero rest mass. Experiment has demonstrated that the rest mass of a photon is actually << 1e-16 eV/c^2 (or much less than 1e-22 the rest mass of an electron). Cosmological observation puts stronger constraints on the rest mass of a photon, although those have not yet been demonstrated experimentally.

      Photons have inertial mass when not at rest. Usually this is considered in terms of linear momentum (p) in the Special Relativity equation E=cp. However since this is equivalent to E=mc^2, there is an equivalence between inertial mass and momentum. This equivalence does not mean that they are the same thing, merely that an increase in linear momentum and in inertial mass gives an object more inertial energy, all relative to an observer.

      Photons transfer energy from one object (or system thereof) to another; following a strict conservation law in nonexpanding/noncontracting Minkowski spacetimes. Usually this is considered in terms of a conservation of momentum, and is treated by statistical thermodynamics/statistical mechanics. An energetic system radiates away its movement in photons; photons bombarding a less energetic system heats that system up; in a closed system this leads to thermalization (equilibrium).

      Beause of the equivalence of mass, linear momentum and energy, one can also say that photons carry inertial mass away from an energetic system to a less energetic one, but this sort of counter-intuitive use of equivalence is both unnecessary and liable to confuse people. This is mainly because inertial mass is not the same as intrinsic mass (aka rest mass).

      Inertial mass comes from movement relative to an observer / measurer. Intrinsic mass is what is observed / measured when the observer / measurer is co-moving with the object under study (i.e., they are at rest with respect to one another). Lorentz transformations are used to determine rest mass when an observer is not co-moving with the object under study. The famous Special Relativity equivalence equations must be satisfied if the Lorentz transformations are correct.

      Photon masslessness does not arise from Special or General Relativity[*]. It derives from the U(1) symmetry group in the Standard Model. The Standard Model is widely believed to be incomplete (thus the experiments at the LHC) but there are very, very few extensions to the Standard Model that predict a photon with a nonzero rest mass.

      [*] In GR, photons are considered massless because they offer zero resistance to acceleration. They go from stationary (with repsect to an observer) to the relativistic speed limit (c) in free space and flat spacetime, given any acceleration at all (even exceptionally tiny ones). Giving a photon a small nonzero mass would mean giving a photon a small nonzero resistance to acceleration, which has enormous consequences for cosmology, but not on GR grounds per se. There would be Special Relativity consequences to a photon with nonzero resistance to acceleration, namely fringing or other evidence of directionality of travel when measuring the speed of light, but these were strongly precluded by Michaelson-Morley and other interferometry experiments, as well as microscale redshifting experiments (GPS for example) and the dipole anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

      So, your parent should have said "rest mass" or "intrinsic mass" to be clear. However, I think requiring the qualifier on "mass" in a context that is

  2. I don't get it by Spazztastic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't understand all the hate for Bill. Unless if this e-mail was nothing more than a publicity stunt to make him look less evil, it shows that he wasn't happy with the way things were going. He clearly saw the direction the ship was going and he couldn't turn it in time.

    Despite what you say about Microsoft now, Ballmer will always be funny to read about and watch on youtube.

    --
    Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    1. Re:I don't get it by QCompson · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't understand all the hate for Bill.

      Stay off my lawn.

    2. Re:I don't get it by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful


      I don't understand all the hate for Bill.

      Bill's the guy that's responsible for creating this monster. Obviously he didn't do it all by himself, but he's ultimately the captain of the ship.

      He clearly saw the direction the ship was going and he couldn't turn it in time.

      I actually don't really hate Bill (though I understand why some do). Even though I saw this email about a year ago I'm still greatly amused by it. It shows that even Bill Gates can't control the monster he's created. It's very interesting and amusing that Bill Gates, largest owner of Microsoft and (then) the person with the greatest control over it, reboots his computer nightly. That explains so much.

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:I don't get it by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't understand all the hate for Bill.

      You may hand in your geek card at the door.

      If BillG's actions as the head of Microsoft we're enough for you, then surely his new mission of spreading IP law across the third world should get your attention? The Gates foundation makes for-profit investments that are killing people they claim to be trying to save. Bill is personally heavily invested in big pharma and Gates supports strong IP law in order to protect his profits.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:I don't get it by smallfries · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the law of unintended consequences. The vision at Microsoft has always been to try and reduce complexity. Whenever there has been a tradeoff between control and simplicity, Microsoft has chosen simplicity. Unfortunately some things are inherently complex, and as you try to wrap them behind simplistic abstractions there comes a point where you simply can achieve what you want. Suddenly you, and your current task is one of the things that the designers abstracted away. The quote about "we didn't realise people would try and download it from the downloads page" is a classic example.

      Which of course was exactly the point that Neal Stephenson made in the essay In the beginning was the command line.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    5. Re:I don't get it by Locutus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bill Gates is the one who, with Steve Balmer, created a Microsoft where it is more important to win by leveraging Windows than competing on quality. He's also overseen them target one software technology after another which were cross platform and therefore threats and had to be eliminated.

      What was once a tiny software company who made a Basic interpreter became a monster threatening anyone and everyone if they did not do things One Microsoft Way. This is Bill Gates' fault as much as it is Steve Balmer. Just look at the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation for more proof. From what I've heard, if any school or library takes funds from them, they are not allowed to use open source software. They just constantly limit choice and that has been Microsoft's business method for over 20 years. IMO

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    6. Re:I don't get it by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm keeping a copy of this and some other beauties. Anytime anyone wants to know why I think they should switch to Linux of OSX, I just show them the emails. Even Bill G is tired of Windows and how it works, why shouldn't joe the pc user be?

      --
      Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    7. Re:I don't get it by aero6dof · · Score: 5, Funny

      The vision at Microsoft has always been to try and reduce complexity.

      Surely you jest.

    8. Re:I don't get it by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > It's the law of unintended consequences. The vision at Microsoft has always been to try and reduce complexity. Whenever there has been a tradeoff between control and simplicity.

      Have you ever actually compared Windows to MacOS? Microsoft most definitely did NOT choose simplicity, rather they have always chosen flexibility - the ability to configure and reconfigure the system to run on different hardware and to do different things.

      --
      Clear, Dark Skies
    9. Re:I don't get it by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful


      From the perspective of developers once it builds and there aren't any showstopper bugs, everything is fine.

      Usability is likely one of the hardest things to get right because it forces (anyone really) to look outside of their own perspective. I don't see this as a disease of just software developers, but everyone. Different users want different things out of the software, and sometimes those ends are at cross purposes. I won't defend developers as a whole class here, because I've seen some (and worse) of what you're describing. I will point out that it's a grand generalization though.

      The problems Bill describes seem pretty inexcusable. It seems more a systemic problem than a particular one.

      The point of Bill's email is that he tries new products and tries to make these 'dumb user' type critiques of it.

      Heh. Dumb is an odd description for it. We've all experienced these same frustrations with using Microsoft software. Go to the horrible MS website, spend a lot of time looking for the DL, hopefully find it, wait wait wait while it DLs, machine locks up to being un-usable, finally install it.. but wait.. reboot! (assuming you survive the reboot).. now hope it works. No? Go to step 1.

      If I had to identify the single biggest underlying problem here.. it'd be that the user doesn't have a single place to go to install new software that just handles it all for you (and doesn't make you reboot) like say..... a package manager under Linux ;).

      --
      AccountKiller
    10. Re:I don't get it by theaceoffire · · Score: 5, Funny

      The vision at Microsoft has always been to try and reduce complexity.

      Surely you jest.

      I am quite serious, and stop calling me Shirley.

      --
      I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
    11. Re:I don't get it by spacefiddle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes.

      I worked for a couple places that were funded by M$ or accepted donations. I suggested a FOSS solution for something, and was told quite explicitly, "We can't, its in the contract."

      Now, it's certainly possible the man was lying to me, or mistaken, or if you want to get cute, there was no actual legal obligation to eschew Open Source but M$ reps *implied* that there was, and the folks in charge assumed, were cowed, or simply too slow of mind or weak of will to look at it closer, resulting in this gawdawful run-on sentence i can't seem to fix.

      But why wouldn't they add an exclusivity clause to such agreements, and why wouldn't most FOSS-ignorant public school and library administrators agree to it, thinking "who needs crappy free weird software written by teenage hackers, when i have professional polished shiny software for free?" They have never heard the drug-pusher analogy, i suppose, which is weird considering they're in at-risk public schools. Ahem.

      Now, you asked for proof. I obviously cannot (and would not) provide a copy of any documentation from former employers, but you DID ask. I am not posting anonymously. Therefore, if you discount my account, as it were, then *you* are now the conspiracy theorist.

      --
      That which does not kill us makes us... st
    12. Re:I don't get it by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 3, Funny

      The vision at Microsoft has always been to try and reduce complexity.

      Alas, their hallucination has morphed into a very bad trip indeed.

      The quote about "we didn't realise people would try and download it from the downloads page" is a classic example.

      Who the hell mixed PCP into their acid?

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  3. Abstract by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We like to think of him as an abstract? Huh?

    1. Re:Abstract by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know, composed of a lot of straight lines and sharp angles, both eyes on the same side of his head, lots of colors everywhere, that sort of thing.

  4. Since CEO performance is in the news... by Dolohov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "'This is a shocking e-mail. Shocking!' And I said, 'What do you think I do all day? Sending an e-mail like that, that is my job. That's what it's all about. We're here to make things better.""

    Apparently he either really sucked at his job, or it was the job of the people who worked for him to completely ignore what he said.

  5. it's actually a fantasy game! by Dekortage · · Score: 4, Funny

    FTA: "In fact it is more like a puzzle that you get to solve. It told me to go to Windows Update and do a bunch of incantations."

    Finally, someone at Microsoft admits that you have to use magic to make Windows work right... I would comment more, but I am on my way to my daily Ballmer goat and bull sacrifice.

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    1. Re:it's actually a fantasy game! by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Funny

      FTA: I would comment more, but I am on my way to my daily Ballmer goat and bull sacrifice.

      Ah yes, where you let a live goat or bull into the Ballmer enclosure at feeding time.
      Because Ballmer doesn't want to be fed... he wants to hunt!

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:it's actually a fantasy game! by Bryansix · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does he hunt with a chair?

  6. Carter Pewterschmidt by Red4man · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Hey Bill, can you help me program my Zune? Ha ha ha, I'm kiiding, I have an iPod like the rest of the planet."

    --
    Sock Puppets: damn_registrars=pudge_confirmer=jimmy_slimmy=raiigunner=cml4524=a_klavan=red4men=ronpaulisanidiot
  7. Usability and the Bottom Line are Incongruent by stewbacca · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe had Bill been more hands-on in a Steve Jobs sort of way, the focus might have been more on usability and less on feature-lists. Bill gets what he gets. It's his fault that usability sucks, because he didn't cut into the bottom-line to make it better. It's also Bill's "fault" that Windows enjoyed a 95% market share for a decade.

  8. I know it's a dupe, but... by Valtor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know it's a dupe, but I still love to see Gates say: "But that is just the start of the crap..."

    It says it all right there. At least Microsoft knows about the problems with Windows. It is said that realizing there is an issue is the first step to resolving it :)

    --
    "Sockets are the standard networking API, also useful for stopping your eyes from falling onto your cheeks" zeromq.org
    1. Re:I know it's a dupe, but... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bill Gates didn't get to where he is today by being ignorant and in the dark about Windows.

      Bill Gates realizing and complaining about something that could work better in Windows isn't a huge "discovery". It is his job.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    2. Re:I know it's a dupe, but... by fastest+fascist · · Score: 4, Funny

      It is said that realizing there is an issue is the first step to resolving it :)

      It is also the first step to ignoring it.

  9. That's one way KDE/GNOME should emulate Windows by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now let's turn the conversation the other way...to KDE and GNOME. Bill Gates here, is just being a typical newbie if he is anyway. No offence to him here. But if he were to send such a "rant" to the GNOME folks, you all know what kind of answers he'd get.

    This is not to say the KDE folks get it either. But for Linux to succeed even in the minutest way, it must meet Joe Public's expectations...and this can be done while at the same time meeting expectations of whoever it is at present.

    I guess I will be labelled a troll but what I am saying is the truth...so go right ahead and mod me down.

    1. Re:That's one way KDE/GNOME should emulate Windows by SCHecklerX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But for Linux to succeed even in the minutest way, it must meet Joe Public's expectations

      Why? It's a tool. The majority of "Joe Public" don't have specialized tools to work on bikes/cars/woodworking/electrical/floors/whatever. Does that mean that professional tools for those tasks should be re-designed for those "joe publics" to use without skill?

      I don't want my tools to be n00bified, they work great as they are, and appreciate them going in a direction that doesn't ape a broken paradigm. Thanks.

    2. Re:That's one way KDE/GNOME should emulate Windows by jmpeax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have to understand that the original poster was coming from the "my dream is that Linux becomes the only OS used in the world" perspective.

      The idea that different software suits different people is lost on those with this mentality.

      --
      Amnesty International
  10. Re:gust? by PenguSven · · Score: 3, Funny

    You don't vote huh? Sounds too much like hard work huh? Besides, why bother, the last guy you cunts elected has REALLY been great for the world. Spell check is intended to pick up mistakes. Unfortunately it can't deal with the mistake in your case, because YOU are the mistake.

    --
    What is...?
  11. Re:thanks but I need more than a lower case j by xerxesVII · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh, great. So you're reproducing.

    Thanks.

    --
    "We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." - Douglas Adams
  12. even more ironic, he praises add/remove by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's funny that he praises the add/remove programs control panel. Try opening it up when you have a file system mounted that contains a whole lot of files. Apparently this control panel, even though it has a cache of installed programs in some subdirectory, plus roughly the same info in a registry subtree, this sterling piece of software goes off and looks at every file on every device. That's the only explanation I can think of why the disks whir for like two hours before this control panel lists anything.

    And even then all that work was for naught, because the items listed have not been even slightly vetted for correctness. You click on some of them and get an immediate "no uninstaller found" or even more cryptic messages, and no way to remove these useless entries. This control panel is a classic fail, with it doing slow and useless work several times over and still missing the whole point of what it should be doing.

    Bill, you got real problems when you think this really crapalicious control panel is a shining star.

  13. its easy by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 5, Informative

    In some of those published emails, you can see Bill Gates:

    -Asking to add Windows-specific quirks to the ACPI "standard", just to make Linux more dificult. "It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work [...] Maybe there is no way to avoid this problem but it does bother me. Maybe we could define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open. Or maybe we could patent something related to this

    -Asking their teams to add IE-specific crap in the HTML code generated by Office, just to make harder for other browsers to display things: One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered well by others people browser is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPIETARY IE capabilities" (emphasis by gates, not mine)

    -Lobbying Intel to get them to do all their design work in Windows desktops, not in Linux.

    -A lot of other "fun" stuff.

    And you wonder why people hates Gates? ;)