Slashdot Reader Analyzes BBC Interview With Bill Gates

The Dodger writes "I've just finished watching the Bill Gates interview on BBC. The first conclusion I came to is that he's very intelligent and quite good at controlling the conversation. Luckily, [BBC's] Jeremy Paxman is a very good interviewer. He's not afraid of asking difficult questions and he's prepared to risk antagonising his interviewees instead of sticking to nice safe topics. He challenged Gates on various issues, even mentioning Linus Torvalds, but unfortunately Jeremy isn't a technology expert, so the topic of open standards and protocols wasn't raised, and when Gates' asserted that the field was wide open for anyone to do what he and Microsoft have done, Jeremy didn't know enough to point out that when someone begins to look like they might challenge Microsoft's position, they get driven out of business or acquired." (More from The Dodger below).

However, the interview has enlightened me as to Gates' motivations. Some people have said he's motivated by money. I don't think so. Others say that he's power-hungry. I don't think he comes across as the sort of person who's massively concerned about power.

One significant thing I noticed was that Gates seems to believe that Microsoft is responsible for the success of the personal computer and he seems to believe that it's because of his company's software that the Internet has become as popular as it has. He asserted, during the interview, that Microsoft's software empowers people to publish their thoughts on the Internet, yet he later admitted that he didn't like the fact that others might use that same software to incite race hatred. He also spoke quite enthusiastically about what lay ahead and the sort of technologies (e.g. speech recognition) that Microsoft is currently working on.

I think Gates believes that he and Microsoft have, almost single-handedly, advanced the human race to the brink of the information age. I think he credits himself and his company as being directly responsible for the fact that there is "a computer on every desk and in every home".

I believe that Bill Gates sees himself as some kind of custodian. Because Microsoft has been so successful and because its software runs on nine out of every ten of the world's computers, he's come to the conclusion that he knows better than anyone else and, therefore, he has assumed the responsibility for leading humanity into the information age.

I think that he sees Microsoft as a tool - it is the company which will do the research, develop the technology and market the software which will help the human race advance. He sees himself as its custodian, rather than its owner. The fact that he has decided to leave his money, not to his children, but to a charitable institution which will fund research into health and education, supports this theory. Bill Gates does actually see himself as having been chosen, in some way, to help humanity.

I'm not saying that he sees himself as some sort of Messiah or genius; just that he has this perception of himself as someone who can change things for the better.

The problem is that he thinks he knows best and this explains his willingness to stomp all over any potential competition who might pose a threat to Microsoft's position (and thus, to his plans and vision of the future), as well as his arrogance towards the US Government.

Let me make it clear that I don't think Bill Gates is evil. I don't think his motivations are selfish. I merely think that he is misguided. He thinks that he knows best and he uses this belief to justify what he does, in effectively forcing the world to adopt the standards which his company has developed, under his supervision, not because he wants to be rich or powerful, but because he believes that he knows best than everyone else.

I don't blame Gates for his actions or the actions of his company. I think his intentions, deep down, are good. But I think that he may suffer from some psychological condition which blinds him to the fact that he doesn't have the right to disregard others just because he thinks he knows best. I suspect that he may believe that the end justifies the means. However, whilst I don't believe that Bill Gates' ultimate intentions are dishonourable, I do believe that he is dangerous because of the immensely powerful position Microsoft holds. Furthermore, I suspect that the people he has appointed to senior positions within Microsoft share his vision. As a result I really hope that the Department of Justice wins their antitrust court case against Microsoft, and that Microsoft is either broken up or has limits placed upon it which will prevent it from single-handedly controlling the development of the software, protocols and networks which will form the basis for the information age.

To be honest, the thought that Microsoft might be left intact or unfettered, to pursue its and Gates' goals, scares me. Not so much because their goal is a bad one, but because that, in achieving it, they could irrevocably stunt the development of the information age.

- The Dodger

Thanks, Dodger. An artful piece piece of writing. Please send your real name, shipping/mailing address, and t-shirt size to roblimo@nojunk.slashdot.org (minus the "nojunk") and we'll send you a Slashdot t-shirt from Copyleft, as we now do to all readers who contribute features or reviews.

Comments

The Nature of Evil

[Aighearach]

I think you are misinterpreting the meaning of "evil." I propose that nearly all people that we would consider evil do not consider themselves as such. Rather, they consider themselves misunderstood.

Lets examine the extreme case: Did Hitler see himself as evil? Did he think he was causing great harm to humanity? Or did he feel that he was greatly benefitting those most in need of his services? I would guess the latter.

What about the Christians who suppressed Science and Knowledge in Europe for over a millennia? Did they feel that they were doing humanity a service? I think the vast majority of them believed strongly in the righteousness of their actions.

What does this mean? Evil can only be considered objectively if it's a measure of actions. When evil is used to measure intentionality, it merely means "on the other team."

So is Bill Gates evil? That depends upon his effect. Is he a + or a - to humanity?

I vote -.

Re:disagree.

[spectecjr]

Wow. After reading this, I wish there was an "Out of his gourd" option on the moderation box.

Re:Ein Fuhrer

[mwillis]

I agree. This analogy may be way off, but think of Hitler. He (single-handedly?) convinced an enormous group of people that he knew who deserved to live and he knew what the world should be like and proceeded from there. And look what he did.

I don't particularly like Bill Gates but you do advocacy a bad name when you compare a dislikable businessman to an evil madman like Hitler. Bill Gates' megalomania never killed anybody. Hitler got his jollies killing millions of people, soldiers and civilians alike. Think about that. Seriously.

As a Linux advocate, I think this kind of comparison harms to the credibility of the cause. Would you trust the judgement of someone who confuses a mass murderer with a marketer of inferior products? Be aware that comparing to Hitler isn't particularly novel either. It's been done. By Godwin's law, invoking a comparison to Hitler means that you have run out of ideas and that you lose the argument immediately.

Re:Well, they sell more than just Win98...

[Squeeze Truck]

Windows NT Server:

$627.00

Site License for same:

$20,000+

Knowing your file and print services are safely and anonymously run on Debian 2.0:

Priceless.

Re:Makes my skin crawl . .

[Oms]

What I found even more scarier is:


I don't blame Gates for his actions or the actions of his company. I think his intentions, deep down, are good. But I think that he may suffer from some psychological condition which blinds him to the fact that he doesn't have the right to disregard others just because he thinks he knows best. I suspect that he may believe that the end justifies the means.


That sounds just like some people we have come to know very well here in Russia... the Communists. Psychological condition indeed. Thank God the guy is "only" into software, otherwise the whole staff of Netscape would be cutting down trees in some forced-labour camp in Northern Alaska right now.

No, really, I'm serious. Bill and the Commies: while they may adhere to vastly different beliefs, the mindset is identical. We know what's right, we know what's best, everyone else is misguided and must be repressed at all costs so as not to threaten The Vision. Compare, e.g., "Worldwide Communist Revolution" and "Windows Everywhere"... Same goes for the Nazies, I suppose, though quite fortunately I don't have personal experience with that particular bunch.

I find it pretty ironic that Open Source (and especially RMS) are referred to as Communist in some particularly unpleasant mainstream editorials, when in reality the other way around is much, much closer to the truth.

Oh well. The Commies didn't last that long. At the rate the industry is moving, M$ has a few years left, at best. Bill can always move to North Korea afterwards...

I see.

[cdlu]

That's an eye-opener of an article. It makes me wonder, we have interviewed so many other people on slashdot - would it be possible to send a list of questions to Bill Gates that we would like answers to? Among them could be the points listed in this article that were omitted, but perhaps we could all learn a lot about who he really is if we actually got to interact with him as group.

The power thing

[freakho]

Ok, what? How can he not be power-hungry and at the same time think he's the most special person in the world, who "single-handedly advanced the human race" into the info age? The difference between thirsting for power and thinking you're entitled to it, all of it, by merit of your own superior worth is a very fine line.

fh

Re:The power thing

[Surak]

Anyone who has read Stephen Manes'(of PC Magazine fame) excellent biography of Bill Gates, Gates,(a very gutsy book...Billion-dollar Billy had very little input on the direction of the book...this book was written before Windows 95 became a reality), will realize that Gates is not driven by money or power. He's a game player who is driven to win. At all costs.

From Gates' perspective, in order for him to win, everyone else playing the game has to lose. This why Microsoft has driven everyone out of business that has tried to compete with them. When Netscape threatened Microsoft's business by declaring Navigator a software platform, Gates saw this as a potential for Netscape to win. Since he didn't want to see that happen, he ordered the development of Internet Explorer, and its subsequent integration into Windows, as a way of marginalizing Netscape's competitive advantage.

Putting Netscape out of business was not done for the sake of putting Netscape out of business per se...Netscape had a possibility to win (with Navigator), and Gates wanted to see that they couldn't win. The fact that they staked their whole business on turning Navigator into a platform to take on Windows was the reason they were put out of business, and that's basically Netscape's fault, not Microsoft's.

(This is of course, my own extrapolation from what I've read in Gates and does not in anyway represents the author's or anyone else's opinions)

Gates' view that Microsoft is responsible for the personal computer revolution is understandable from a limited point of view. Windows is what put PCs in gramdma's house. Of course thinking that the point-and-click GUI interface that is responsible for this feat is the sole ordinance of Microsoft is just silly. GUIs were invented at Xerox PARC years before Microsoft or even Apple had anything to do with them.

I mostly agree

[Tet]

I was disappointed by Paxman, though. He has the ability to be much more direct, as witnessed by some of his political interviewing. I felt he didn't really push gates on any of the meaningful issues. I felt Gates did come across as being very much blinded to real world. How can he realistically claim to have never heard a Bill Gates joke? He seems to believe that since MS have a lot of clever people working for them (which they undoubtedly do) that MS are the only people that are capable of doing clever stuff with computers. He repeatedly stressed that MS products are always as good as they can make them (worrying, if true), even to the point of defending Microsoft Bob. And he keeps trying to claim that MS helped create the Internet. Sigh.

Is he evil? No. Is he misguided? Yes, I think so. He can't see past his own technological vision, and doesn't seem to accept that others may want things to work differently. With the amount of power he wields in the industry, that's definitely something to worry about.

Credit where it's due.

[Foogle]

This post mentions that Bill Gates seems to think that MS is reponsible for the sucess of the personal computer. I've heard many times here at Slashdot (mostly in reference to the Mac and Windows) about how MS didn't do anything of the sort, and this article tends to enforce that point. People argue that everything that happened with PCs would have occured anyway, and that MS just got lucky. Or that MS just stood on the backs of others.

Some of this is justifiably true. In fact, the industry would still have flourished if MS didn't exist. The time had come for the PC revolution. However, I think MS does deserve some credit. Their marketing and programming helped to get PCs on the desks of every employee in most companies. Sure, another company could have done it, but they didn't - MS did. I think it would behoove us to recognize Microsoft's place in the history of desktop computing as being beneficial. Sure, Windows isn't the greatest platform in the world, but it beats the hell out of nothing. Of course Linux kicks the shit out of nothing, but that's another story altogether.

Flame me now if you want, but all this anti-microsoft stuff just gets under my skin.

-----------

"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

I wonder if he gives Apple any credit

[bgarland]

This is NOT meant as flamebait...

But I firmly believe that had Apple not introduced the world to Macintosh, computers would be much harder to use. Gates has got to give them some credit.

Had the Mac never existed, we would still probably have some sort of GUI-based system today since the concepts and even limited implementations were in place before the Mac was born, but I guarantee you it wouldn't be like what we see today in Mac OS, Windows, KDE/Gnome, BeOS, etc.

Even Windows users need to recognize the importance that Apple holds in the marketplace. You might not agree with Apple's business practices, the limited customizability of Macintosh hardware, or the lack of choice when it comes to running a Mac OS-based system, and that's fine. I'm not going to argue with you there, and I'm a die-hard Mac user (though I know my Linux too!). Wishing Apple would go away is another thing entirely.

What EVERYONE must realize is the extreme importance that Apple still holds EVEN TODAY. Think about it. They are Windows' ONLY competition when it comes to an easy to use GUI-based Operating System experience.

Do you really think Windows 95/98 would be as good (a subjective term of course) as it is today had Apple not survived to offer them some real competition?

Even with the recent screwups that Apple has had, such as the G4 delays, the Apple Store order fiasco, etc the future looks bright. Apple is finally back on their feet and at the forefront of new technologies (ie. Firewire/1394) producing some kick ass new equipment.

So next time you see Bill Gates talking about how Microsoft is changing the world, remember who he is following.

"Where do you want to go today?" -- Microsoft

"Where are we going tomorrow?" -- Apple


Ben

strcmp("Gates","Linus");

[Signal 11]

At the risk of offending a great many slashdot readers, I believe Mr. Gates appears to think alot like Linus, modulo the coding background and some other bits. He doesn't see any competition. Neither does Linus (for different reasons! *g*). He views his OS as a tool... and as such with both limitations and advantages. Linus too recognizes the pros and cons of linux. The "My-OS-is-better-than-your-OS" mentality usually comes from less-educated computer users. NT may be buggy, but it has it's uses - and no OS is unilaterally better than another. We might dispute the Mindcraft results, but we can't ignore them.

Whether Mr. Gates is responsible for the proliferation of the PC is undisputed... but I have a bone to pick with the contention that he allowed the internet to go where it has. For one, Al Gore claimed that first, and for two the internet came about on UN*X mainframes in an academic setting - and had nothing to do with PCs. I don't think "e-commerce" would be around without the PC, but that wasn't the reason the internet was invented, contrary to commercial dogma. The reason it was invented was primarily so professors and such could exchange ideas and papers and such between each other.

Of course, I might be wrong.. so read the comments attached to this post as well! :^)

--

Microsoft: Another brick in the wall, part IV

[six11]

Microsoft is one of the most commercially influential software companies around today. But Gates is right: Microsoft will eventually be replaced. Back in the days of big iron, IBM was the boss, and nobody really thought that they would ever be replaced. But they have, at least in terms of their hegemony. This is because the game has changed. It changed from big iron to the PC. Now the game is changing again from the PC to anything that starts with "e-". Gates knows this; and that's why they went balls-out on the Internet. But they've lost ground. And the game continues to change. Right now, we're changing the game. Open source, free software, whatever flag you want to wave, is starting to change the economics on the bottom.

My guess is that Gates is well aware of what is going on, but because it is so fundamentally different from everything that Microsoft was built on, he won't have a way to counter it. They're fighting on multiple fronts, and eventually, they will lose their grip. At that point, somebody else will notice that the game has changed, and microsoft will be replaced.

It might not happen today, or tomorrow, but within a matter of a few decades, Microsoft will be just another brick in the wall. Look at IBM today. I've seen numerous Slashdot stories and posts from readers who openly support IBM and their new business strategy. It may be hard for some to really imagine, but people such as ourselves might be saying the same sort of thing about the Microsoft many of us not villify.

Good intentions

[David A. Madore]

I agree. Bill Gates is full of good intentions. Only, as we well know, ``the road to hell is paved with good intentions''.

He has a relatively good idea of what can be done with a computer; only he is obviously clueless as to how things can be done.

He perceives the existence of the Internet Revolution, a phenomenon that is probably just starting, and he rightly knows that many client computers (as opposed to servers) are running Windows; by a considerably fallacious syllogism he concludes that Windows is somehow responsible for the revolution. I am (as most slashdot readers, I suppose) persuaded that the revolution would not have taken place any slower had it not been for Windows. (Hope I put the right number of negatives in the previous sentence ;-) I also think it would not have happened any slower, though - I think it's a sort of ``psychohistorical'' necessity that cannot be slowed or hastened without great effort.

Will Gates be remembered as one of the Great Names of computer science? I like to think not. Cerf will be remembered in the future, probably more than he is now; perhaps Postel will be also; Torvalds and Stallman might; and so might Schneier (because I think cryptography is destined to become far more important in daily life than it is now). But Gates will be remembered only as a great businessman (along with Rockafeller). Or is that just me hoping?

Paxman not at his best

[mhouston]

For those who do not get to see UK Television Jeremy Paxman has a fearsome reputation for making politicians squirm.

What was completley missing from the Bill Gates interview was any element of cross-examination. Take the DOJ case against Microsoft, something hugley important in that it's very prescence has enabled many companies to support alternatives to Microsoft when before they would have dared not.

Bill was allowed to simply brush this off. A politician would never have been allowed to get away with that!

Much was made of the 'promise' that Bill is going to give away his billions but there was no though given to how decisions about what projects in what countries are going to benefit. As any politician knows promises of 'aid' are a powerful bargining tool. Decinding how billions are to be spent gives a terrifying amount of power in the hands of one man. Even if Bill Gates started out as a nice guy I think we will all find the truth of the old saying: "Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutley"

Paxman, Linus/free, vision, and a worm's eye view

[Morgaine]

I'm afraid we couldn't really expect any better from Jeremy Paxman, he's just not technical enough, and you could see him not wanting to push certain subjects because it might take him outside his area of competence. We did learn that Paxman can with great authority state that Gates earns a lot of money ... we had that point thrust home again and again, ad nauseum.

I *was* slightly impressed that Paxman managed to say "Linus Torvalds" and "free software" without sneering. (Sneering is his forte.) And Gates responded very well, not by denigrating free software but simply by making the point that Microsoft is in the business of making money, so "free" wasn't relevant. [No, there's no way in which Paxman could have brought up the other meaning of "free". Wrong planet altogether.]

Bill Gates certainly came across as genuine. He even corrected Paxman's assertion that Microsoft was responsible for 90% of Internet machinery, clarifying that it was 90% only of the client side.

I agree that Gates thinks that he and Microsoft have taken the world into the information age almost single-handedly. While we know that that isn't anywhere near to being The Truth or even being representative, for people without our exposure to the history of the Internet and a wider view of computing then his arguments must seem very strong, at least statistically.

My take on BG is that maybe he's suffering from the worm's eye effect: he's so close to the ground in Microsoft that maybe he genuinely believes that Microsoft does only good and nothing bad. If this is so then that's a little sad in part, but it can also be exceedingly dangerous. There is no reasoning with people who "know" that they are in the right.

Fortunately, there is the little question of the Halloween documents to spoil that rosy picture. Nice interviews notwithstanding, we know that Microsoft is not populated with angels, so BG is either not Mr Nice Guy at all or else he's out of touch with ongoings at Microsoft. Either way, that's a million light years better than the messiah that Paxman appeared to be interviewing.

Responsibility where it's due too

[jflynn]

Yeah, ok, Bill G got PC's on everyone's desktop and Mussolini made the trains run on time.

No one has a problem with *what* Bill did. It's with the *way* he did it.

How many small companies died so that Microsoft could grow fatter? How many programmers had to either work with the Win32 API or find another job? How many better technologies did he strangle?

The PC revolution happened for two reasons. One was the hardware clone industry. Everyone and their stepsister was grinding them out, and inventing new peripherals for them. The other reason was the thriving software ecology when DOS was king. I remember when the OS was what Microsoft made and there were lots of utilities, spreadsheets, word processors, and programs made by *other* companies. Even competing desktops.

Until the 90's it seemed that Microsoft was a player in this space. The user installable device drivers in DOS actually helped it widen significantly. But then software competitors started running into compatibility problems and vanishing for one reason or another, only to be replaced by a Microsoft product. Until we are left with today's market where "your system will crash a lot unless you use Microsoft apps and approved drivers." And nearly every system comes shipped with the Window's OS like it was a required piece of hardware.

You can admire Bill for his rapaciousness and greed if you like, but try to realize it wasn't without cost to many of us. Windows is to the software industry as the space shuttle is to the space industry, bad technology that displaced possibly more worthy choices.

Information about Gates & Slashdot FUD

[Shaheen]

If any of you have ever read any "How Microsoft and Bill Gates got to where it is" books, you'd find out a lot about Gates' past and exactly what he did to get where he is today. And, just as Microsoft's marketing department spreads its FUD about how NT is better than Linux, so do many Slashdot readers spread FUD about the motivations of Microsoft, and what its leader is really all about. I believe this thread is an excellent chance to bring information about Bill Gates to light. (NOTE: What I say below this sentence is the result of reading books such as Barbarians Lead By Bill Gates, Harddrive and others.)

Where to start? How about his childhood? From the biographical accounts I have had the chance to read, here is a typical situation in which you might find William H. Gates III during his earlier years: Alone in the basement of his house, contemplating. Not reading. Not working. Thinking. About what? I don't quite remember if the books say what. In any case, what does this say about Gates? Not much I suppose, but it does show that Gates wasn't quite "normal" from the beginning: he wasn't outside playing with friends all the live-long-day. Remind you of someone? Perhaps yourself?

It is also well known that Bill Gates was quite an upstart at school. Why? Because he corrected his teachers. Voraciously. I am sure that many of us have corrected our teachers for everything from a wrong equation to wrong terminology, but Gates is known not only to do that, but with great precision pin-point fallacies in his teacher's thinking. His best subjects, just like most of us, were Mathematics and pure sciences. One well-known anecdote is when Gates was taking a high-level course in math (I forget the particular one, but some form of Calculus for sure) and his professor was proving some theorem or another on the board. Gates, like many of us, was in la-la land (sleeping). However, as soon as he woke up, he noticed the professor made the smallest mistake in his proof - and corrected it on the spot.

So Gates is somewhat like us geeks when it comes to learning. What about when it comes to computers?

Fact: Bill Gates wrote a BASIC interpreter in 4K of memory. Reminds you of your own programming feats, doesn't it?

He met Paul Allen way back in middle school - Allen being the elder of the two. The first computer that the school received was one of those tele-type machines where it was all time-share computing. It turns out that Gates and Allen alone used so much time-share time that the school couldn't keep up with the cost! I forget the outcome, but I think Gates and Allen went to work for the company that owned the PDP-11 that was being time-shared. Doesn't that sound a little bit like us in high school? Playing Quake all day? I remember I scheduled my senior year of high school so well that I had 5 periods a day in which I could play Quake non-stop. That was fun. Speaking of scheduling....

Gates and Allen were once chartered to write a program that would schedule students for classes. And guess what? Gates "accidentally" found himself in a class with only one boy - himself. Don't you think you would have done the same?

Fact: Bill Gates asked his dates what their SAT scores were. Did you ever want to ask, but were too afraid to?

Well, I don't want to turn this into an unauthorized biography of Gates, but I did want to shed some light on his past. With all of us Linux users saying "Gates is the devil! Look, the ASCII characters of his name add up to 666 - It's Proof!!" it's just the same as throwing FUD back at Microsoft, only at a more personal level.

I am not defending Gates' actions, or his company. I'm just trying to show you that Gates might be more like you than you would like to believe. He had the same motivations that we had when we were young - play games, ogle girls. I think where he went "wrong" was that he found he had a really good business sense, and he used it to the maximum. When you were last put in the position of power (I mean, for instance, the power to change something - a test grade, a course grade, etc.), did you? Probably not. Bill Gates found himself in the position of power - many times, in fact. And he found he was really good at controlling the situation. The question then becomes, was he immoral to use his power?

Sorry for the long post, and definitely sorry if you felt that I didn't add anything, but my main purpose of this post was to show that Bill Gates had many of the same aspirations we had when we were young, and he may be more like us than we think (or like to believe).

What you didn't hear

[LuxuryBoy]

There were at least two parts of the interview that were recorded but not broadcast. Paxman challenged Gates over the buying of "Quick and Dirty Software" (he meant QDOS) on which MSDOS was based. I can't remember what Gates' reply was to this. Shortly after this they were discussing how Gates got IBM to use MSDOS and Paxman asked about "IBM's big mistake". Gates said that at that time IBM were given the chance to buy 40% of Microsoft stock and that their mistake was not to have taken it. Whilst this is undoubtedly true in hindsight, I'm not sure why the BBC cut all this unless it was for space reasons. Perhaps someone at Microsoft leaned on them ?

Re:Credit where it's not due.

[code4444]

Why does no one remember that MS actually moved the whole industry many years back? The IBM PC was the answer of the established computing world to home computers, and it managed to combine the worst of both worlds.

Like Linus, I once owned a Sinclair QL. Same vintage as the original IBM PC. Yes, it was cheapskate hardware - uncle Clive would never use a 245 if you could just ploink 8 resistors in the data lines. But it had a decent operating system.

It wasn't the perfect OS, but it was at least done by people who understood the basics of OS design, and applied them. It had did multi processing, had decent device drivers, and was relatively simple to code for even in assembler. Other home computers from that era had decent OSes too - the amiga guys are still lyric about theirs :-)

Home computers were moving from 8 bit / 64K into 16 bit systems, and evolving. Unix was more then 10 years old by then, and the same way that all 16 processors except the 8086 were basically 32 bit processors cut down to what was technically possible the operating systems were mature if cut down to what hardware of the day could handle.

Except for MS-DOS. It was a badly done clone of CP/M. It couldn't do process management. It couldn't do memory allocation. Its device drivers were fundamentally flawed, so everyone bypassed them. It couldn't do serial ports beyond 2400 baud, due to MS-DOS being too stupid. It couldn't handle alternate file systems. It pretty much couldn't do anything except imitate CP/M.

PC hardware was done by someone masturbating over an intel catalog. It had interrupt controllers and DMA controllers, terribly expensive dream parts in those days. MS-DOS defeated their purpose by blocking on every I/O call.

After some years, paying the rent meant programming for MS-DOS. It made everyone who'd ever seen a decent OS puke. Everything was complicated, involved directly accessing hardware, and trying to figure out which of 12 'standards' was currently in use on the machine.

It was no surprise that everything crashed, was difficult to install, and couldn't coexist with anything else.

That lowly QL could have grown quite nicely as more powerful hardware became available - because its OS was a simple and decent abstraction layer. Not so MS-DOS. Remember how many years between the 386 and MS-DOS-alter-ego-windows doing 32 bit most of the time. How many years to virtual memory? How many years and how many horrors before decent networking was possible?

Oh, did you notice that Bill Gates managed to loose BASIC along the way. Home computers of the day always had a simple programming environment available - there was no big gap between users and programmers in those days. It was considered normal that users did a little programming of their own. People didn't do $2000 courses to 'learn' programming - if you had a computer and a bit of talent it was unavoidable to pick it up along the way. We got batch files in return.

COMPUTERS ARE NOT COMPLICATED. It doesn't require magic to get everything to work right. Standards do not have to change every two years. You don't need wizards to protect you from the evil complexity of it all. Simple programming is, in fact, simple.

MS-DOS and Windows made things complicated and frustrating. I'm serious when I say Bill Gates deserves to be tortured to death for pushing MS-DOS down our throats. It caused misery to millions.

A less biased account

[Anonymous Coward]

Phil Greenspun has an excellent page on how Bill managed to get so wealthy. Its available at http://photo.net/bg/. What follows is largely stolen from there.

Its interesting that you claim to have read Hardrive. Did you happen to notice this little snippet from page 38:

At one point Maestretti [physics teacher at Lakeside prep school] tried to encourage Gates to use his hands as well as his intellect. As a project, Maestretti asked him to assemble a Radio Shack electronics kit, in order to force him to build something correctly and make it work.

"I can remember when he brought it to me, telling me, 'Okay, now I've satisfied my project.' And of course solder was dripping all over the back..." Needless to say, it didn't work."
-- Hard Drive, page 38

More interesting tidbits:

According to Hard Drive, however, Bill Gates and Paul Allen didn't have enough time to get their BASIC interpreter working for the MITS Altair 8080. Paul Allen did the hard work of making an 8080 emulator for Harvard's PDP-10 mainframe computer.

Gates and Allen were then able to enlist fellow Harvard student Monte Davidoff to implement the floating point arithmetic portions of the language. A search for "Davidoff" on www.microsoft.com came up with zero hits (January 11, 1998).

After the demo, someone still had to go down to Albuquerque, New Mexico to (a) convince MITS to buy the code, and then (b) make the prototype into a usable system. Gates stayed at Harvard to play poker with his rich buddies while Paul Allen spent months in a motel room in Albuquerque. Microsoft came into existence because Allen successfully managed both the business and technology, earning him... a minority stake in the company.

What follows is my own take:

I'm not saying Slashdot doesn't perpetuate its own line of FUD every now and then, but there's no way you can seriously compare Slashdot FUD and Microsoft FUD. Slashdot is a community of people who interact with each other and reason things out collectively. Slashdot makes no attempt at changing the public. Its a community forum. MS is a monolithic organization that spends billions of dollars each year manipulating the public. There's an enormous difference between a bunch of people talking in a forum where others can refute and explore ideas and a behemoth that has so much money and influence that it can drown out any public voices it doesn't care for. Thats why MS FUD (their oldest product) is so deadly. There's no way anyone but Sun and Oracle can afford to buy enough exposure to counter their ridiculous claims.

Finally, I really don't care if BG is a typical nerd or geek or whatever. I don't care about his childhood. The reason is that regardless of much of a geek he is, I'm still going to hold him to the same standards of social responsibility as any other CEO.