Bill Gates to be Knighted 1116
gexen writes "According to an article in the Telegraph Bill Gates is going to be knighted by the Queen of England for "services to the global enterprise." She's just handing them out like candy these days!"
What the crap?? (Score:1, Insightful)
We'll never live this down (Score:2, Insightful)
Another example of the UK Govt getting it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I always did think Labour were too damn close to WBG the III. At least he doesn't get to call himself 'Sir', not being British...
Simon
This is the way it's always been (Score:3, Insightful)
"All hail to Sir Borg^h^h^h^hBill!"
What I picture (Score:5, Insightful)
There are probably hundreds of people in the IT industry more worthy of knighthood than Gates... think of people like Wozniack, Torvalds, Stallman, Page... guys who made REAL advances in computer science without greed as a primary motivator.
Re:DEAR FUCKING LORD (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, that's embarrassing (Score:2, Insightful)
Really, seriously, this is a sad day. Gates is a goddam fanatical lunatic, bent on dominating every industry he gets into to the exclusion of all others. Other businesses fight for the largest piece they can get, Gates seems to think it's his God-given right to have it all.
Read about what goes on "behind the scenes" at MS; Gates is really weird.
What I would like to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
What I mean is an examination from an alternative viewpoint, not for the sake of making a favorable impression of Microsoft -- but as an academic exercise.
I'm well aware that Microsoft, especially on this forum, is seen as one of the most evil entities to ever exist. With that in mind, I'm going to rush right into Godwin's Law and make the following comparison with Hitler's Germany: In just a few years, Hitler managed to transform Germany from an highly agricultural, economically decrepit country into a modern, industrial, profitable one. This was all before the Holocaust, and during that period, he enjoyed immense public support.
Now examine Microsoft. They are a convicted monopolist, and continue to enjoy unparalleled control over the domestic software (and to an extent, hardware) market. But what has arisen from this that would lead their chairman to be considered for an honorary knighthood? Thrust aside the seething hate for a second and just look. What accomplishments have arisen? Computers running software whose price/performance [tpc.org] is fantastic? One of the easiest-to-develop-for video game consoles ever? Highly capable web servers that run some of the busiest sites--Dell.com, Nasdaq.com, MSNBC.com? Software conformity (and all the positives and negatives that result)?
As I said, this is intended to be an exercise, not a trumpeting endorsement, in the interests of shedding new light on this piece of news.
Sour grapes! (Score:5, Insightful)
I may not like the way Microsoft does think (somewhat arrogant) but give credit where it's due. Mr Gates' contributions in my mind are as follows:
1) Making IT not just for the geeks and the super rich but making it affordable for hundreds of millions of IT illiterates to learn how to use a PC. (I agree Macintosh and others were better but point 2 is the reason why MS succeeded).
2) Standardizing the way GUI applications work so that ordinary folks can get productivity out of them instead of endless tweaking and fumbling. (of course, sometimes it crashes and those @#$%^*!! words start flowing)
3) Bill is a philanthropist and a marvellous example compared to many other rich folks.
Let's be rationale, we may not like some aspects of a company or a person but don't throw out the good parts. That is character murder and a sign of immaturity on our part.
He also got a doctorate (Score:2, Insightful)
What has he done: charity (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving loads of money to good causes always helps.
Re:What I would like to see... (Score:2, Insightful)
yeah. send him away. (Score:2, Insightful)
We are the knights who say NI!
and we require a.... a.. beowulf cluster of sony playstation 2's
Re:Hopefully he's not (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about Torvalds? (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you even know what the phrase "tax breaks" means? If you think those donations were for anything other than that, and publicity stunts, you have a seriously warped view of reality.
Slashdot account: mahhy (too lazy to log in)
DEAR FUCKING LORD (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Muslim and Christian Fundamentalists talk about each other this way too
fanatics OF ALL FLAVORS are stupid, period
Re:What about Torvalds? (Score:5, Insightful)
His lifework.
And you're forgetting that he donated it for FREE.
Imagine how much money would have been spent on Linux if it wasn't free? SuSE, RedHat, Mandrake and all those other Distros make up a large section of the IT market just on CD SALES and SUPPORT for what is essentially a free product.
MSFT got rich on selling the same product that Linus gives away for free.
All titles/awards are ruined by someone. (Score:3, Insightful)
Like someone else said previously, Yasser Arafat has a Nobel Peace Prize.
Milli Vanilli once had a Grammy.
George W. Bush has made a mockery of the US Presidency.
Re:What about Torvalds? (Score:5, Insightful)
how much has Gates' earned by circumventing laws and price gouging governments and nations around the world? Hence a lot of people!
How much has Linus taken from the same people?
A tax rebate is when the government decides to give back money from you it shouldn't have taken. Here, Bill Gates through immoral and illegal actions has garnered billions and is "generous" to give back. Forgive Linus for not going through that route but instead helping create and organize the production of Linux, a product that'll continually give back to the public.
Consider that for each person that is using Linux but wouldn't have heard about FreeBSD or some other free system and would instead of had to pay for Microsoft. How much money is that? How about governments and organizations that are now saving from the microsoft tax?
I'm in no way saying he should be knighted. But his donation of time has resulted in quite impressive results. It's just not a fair comparison to say he hasn't donated large sums of money when you consider how Bill got his money.
Re:We'll never live this down (Score:2, Insightful)
Face it, how much money has Bill Gates made in the world economy, how much has he done for advancing computing for ordinary people, and in the process of doing so how many people has he actually killed? And I beleive he is fairly charitable with his personal money too.
Its a very good track record compared to some Knights who wiped out whole countries to get their reward, and many of the other modern riff raff who atain this honour.
One day we might see Stallman and Linus, or god forbid even a British computer scientist get the Gongs so best not be hypocritical about this one.
I would say (Score:5, Insightful)
Hated? Yes. Undeserving? No.
Re:Requirements for Knighting (Score:4, Insightful)
I notice the smiley, but still it's just not true. Some of the most modern states of the world - Japan, Britain or almost entire Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Norway) - are monarchies. At the same time, some of the most backwarded states that are not even in the 18th century by our standards, like the African or Middle-Eastern failed states are republics. So are the banana republics in Central America. When you see what kind of a person [georgewbush.com] can get elected as a president, monarchy no longer sounds as such a bad idea.
Congratulate "Sir William" and move on (Score:-1, Insightful)
The criteria for a Knighthood are well established. I.e. You must excel for an extended period at something that the Quean find important. That's all. Note that "Quean" refers not just to 'liz, but also the battalion of "advisors" that command her.
Bill Gates has led one of the planets most profitable companies for over a decade. He deserves a Knighthood.
Other future Knights to consider (Assuming the Monarchy lasts long enough); "Lord Linus" For contributions to science. "Sir Tiger" For contribution to sport. "Lady Margaret" for contribution to politics.
So yes. Gates deserves his Knighthood. Congratulate him and move on. Antitrust aside, MS is not built on crime and in modern times that is about the only thing that would make him not be Knighted. For the record in olden days, outright criminals would be considered. I.e. "Sir Henry Morgan" (Pirate captain" was not just knighted but also put in charge of a whole colony (Jamaica)
Re:He cant be just "Knigtef" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about Torvalds? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you steal millions from widows and orphans and then endow an orphanage you are a great man and a philanthropist.
If you dedicate your life to directly aiding widows and orphans you're a bum who never amounted to anything.
It really doesn't take too much reading of history to discover that this principle is almost invariable.
Or you can just take the shortcut and read Mark Twain's essays.
KFG
Re:The End (Score:4, Insightful)
He's the marketing dude.
I think you might be mixing him up with Steve Wozniak.
Malaria Research (Score:5, Insightful)
No, if a withered narcissist like Mick Jagger can be knighted, Gates certainly deserves the honor. It's a shame, though, that the British are honoring him when, frankly, he deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom. It galls me to write this, but it's the truth.
Showing the normal Slashdot bias (Score:1, Insightful)
Tim Berners-Lee has been promoted to Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire
Knighthood was definitely more than candy in that post
Re:Congratulate "Sir William" and move on (Score:5, Insightful)
>times that is about the only thing that would make him
>not be Knighted
Ummm, lets see. Try stepping back a decade or two and reconsider this position.
They illegally broke the back of DRDOS and OS/2 for that matter. Doing this is one of the key things that made them a monopoly that so many grant was "naturally" acquired. WIthout the monopoly none of the rest would follow.
A Destructive, Greedy Man buys Legitimacy (Score:2, Insightful)
So, if I go make my billions by say, creating a monopoly on electricity and holding the world's energy hostage, with the decline in service that a monopoly implies (and Bill Gate's monopoly has demonstrated), such as power outages induced by any script kiddie with a home built circuit, random crashes of the power grid for no apparent reason, etc., and amass my billions despite having been convicted and hand-slapped for misusing my power monopoly to gain 70% market share in television sales (by, say, randomly cutting power to my competitors factories), but I turn around and give a few hundred million of my stolen billions to malaria research, does that make my a nice guy worthy of knighthood?
Does the fact that I gave 0.01% of my stolen money away make me a good person, or worthy of the kind of fawning I see here?
In the eyes of any clear thinking person, no, it does not (regardless of how much "good" that stolen and donated money might provide, the money, along with the other billions that dwarf it, would have done much more good had it not been stolen in the first place).
In the eyes of the British Crown (or at least Tony Blair, who is likely far more behind this than a 70-year old lady), apparently yes.
This is disgusting. The man has done more to harm computing over the last 20 years than any hundred other people, he has destroyed thousands to feed his apparently bottomless avarice for money (always unethically and often illegally) and only began giving to charity after his family shamed him into it. He is an unrepentent monopolist who continues to wreck havoc upon the industry, and whos shoddy products have been a disservice, not a service, to global enterprise.
Bill Gates should be ashamed. Great Britain should be ashamed. Frankly, anyone with a knighthood should be ashamed.
Re:This is not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
You're darn tootin' I take this anti-Microsoft thing personally. I"m personally STILL ticked off about buying PC's in the mid-late 90's that I could *NOT* purchase without paying the Windows tax.
Those PC's still run Linux to this day.
And I still want my money back. $6,000 I figure it to be.
Re:Congratulate "Sir William" and move on (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand the first sentence above. I understand the second sentence. Why does the first demonstrate the second, though?
If you mean Margaret Thatcher, she is already a Baroness [bbc.co.uk]Gates Foundation battles ancient diseases (Score:5, Insightful)
We are close to completely removing polio from the face of the earth, as we have done to the other ancient horror, smallpox.
Granted: the Gates legal team created the foundation to shelter the family wealth from taxes, and the wealth was created in less than honorable ways.
But, it is currently being directed successfully towards a goal that will benefit all humans now and in the future.
This is why the nerd king is being recognized as Sir Bill.
Re:Congratulate "Sir William" and move on (Score:5, Insightful)
And Mussolini got the trains to run on time. What's your point?
Eh, whatever. She ain't my queen...
Re:DEAR FUCKING LORD (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, let's look at the Bill Gates Foundation [gregpalast.com]
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor? [colingregorypalmer.net]
American Weblog in London [colingregorypalmer.net]
it's better to refuse (Score:3, Insightful)
standardizing? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's utter B.S. The standardization that you see in the Windows UI came from IBM; Microsoft merely implemented it and then bastardized it. Today, the Windows UI is one of the least consistent UIs around; you just have to observe some newbie users struggle with it to know.
3) Bill is a philanthropist and a marvellous example compared to many other rich folks.
Really? He only donates a tiny fraction of his wealth and he would be left with more money than most small nations even if he donated a big fraction of his wealth. How is that an example of philanthropy, even if he had earned the money legitimately?
Re:Nice "thought process" there. (Score:3, Insightful)
If I were in the software business, I would hate Microsoft for what they are and what they symbolize. If I were some starving person in Ethiopia, I would be saying, "fucking finally, someone is willing to put their money where their mouth is."
Re:Gates Foundation battles ancient diseases (Score:1, Insightful)
"Robin Hood"? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Even if I grant you his illegal and/or underhanded, ruthless business practices, at worst he is a modern day Robin Hood, stealing from the well off, giving to the poor off (and keeping a healthy chunk for himself - although he has pledged to eventually give away close to everything he's earned)."
He takes from the rich
And gives to the needy
He keeps a little bit
But I'm not greedy!
-or-
They robbed the rich
And gave to the poor
except what they kept for expenses!
Let me crush your world image right now. ANYONE can promise to do ANYTHING thing
If you want to talk about how wonderful Bill Gates is, please just TRY to restrict yourself to ACTUAL activities.
And that "close to everything he's earned".... well, that all depends upon what YOUR definitions of "close" and "everything" and "earned" are and what HIS definitions are.
"If I were in the software business, I would hate Microsoft for what they are and what they symbolize."
Translation: If you were trying to support yourself and your family by doing honest work...
"If I were some starving person in Ethiopia, I would be saying, "fucking finally, someone is willing to put their money where their mouth is.""
Translation: If you were the object of his generosity....
So, it all comes down to whether you are the victim or the benefactor.
Let's try looking at this in a more enlightened mode, eh?
Look at the whole process. He breaks laws and amasses a HUGE personal fortune. But then he gives away a portion of that fortune. A small portion. A portion he will not even notice.
Now, to me, that doesn't seem like a person or behaviour that is "good".
I don't recall Robin Hood living in a castle with servants and such, all paid for by his "steal from the rich and give the table scraps to the poor".
The "anti-christ"? (Score:5, Insightful)
26... billion... dollars...
That's WELL over half of his liquid worth, and it nears 3/4 of his liquid wealth, which is currently sitting somewhere near $40-42 billion. And he's the "anti-christ"?
All built on crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Quit your bitching, Bill gates is probably a better man than you, and by the standards of Knight Hood, he definitely ranks up there with what has been knighted in the past, using intelligence and guile to achieve wealth and power, has always been the definition of Nobility, so try not being such a liberal baby for a minute and just accept, he's doing better than you, and no one gave it to him.
Re:Aristocracy!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Wishing Gates were on another plane of existence, and forced to use Emacs for eternity; now that's funny.
Re:DEAR FUCKING LORD (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not disagreeing with your point - open platforms can always outmaneuvre the competition - but the downside of open platforms is that evolution prefers an ugly hack delivered today to an elegant design delivered tomorrow.
Actually he won't be "Sir Bill"... (Score:3, Insightful)
As to does he deserve it? I don't see it personally, but then I miss the "Golden Age" when computers were all different (Amiga, Atari, Mac, etc). "Which version of XP do you want?" (Home, Professional, Media, Tablet) isn't quite the same really. As we have Billg to thank for the near monoculture of modern IT I find it hard to applaud.
Re:Check it as a PERCENTAGE of his total wealth. (Score:3, Insightful)
And tell me: do you go to church every Sunday and put $5 in the collection plate?
Which would be MORE than someone with ONE billion dollars giving away one hundred thousand dollars.
$100,000 > $60, even if the people donating the money have disparate incomes.
I'll be honest, the only donation I've ever made in my entire life was to the ACLU, and that was only $20. I'm a college student with no income to speak of, but Gates still has me beat (looking at this a little more objectively).
Also, keep in mind his Gates Foundation has a huge bank account (someone mentioned on the order of $45 billion, though I haven't verified that). Given such a large account, it can and probably will be a self-sustaining charity.
This would mean the Foundation living and donating off interest. It would also mean never needing future financial input. $60 could never hope to do that, even if it is the same percentage of income.
Re:DEAR FUCKING LORD (Score:2, Insightful)
I think, in the UK - which is what we're talking about right? - that honour must go to Sir Clive Sinclair.
Having said that, credit should also go to Commodore and the BBC (BBC 'B'), not to mention Alan Sugar of Amstrad (and, trust me, I tried not to - I still haven't forgiven him for killing off Sinclair and the QL!). Don't get me wrong, I'm not makingany value judgements about the quality or otherwise of any of these system - just the ability to penetrate the market and get into peoples homes, schools and businesses. Bill Gates was pretty late to the party, with his then chums at IBM.
Bill / Microsoft's Real Contribution (Score:5, Insightful)
Forget this list. Like a lot of "you owe Microsoft" style posts, it consists of accomplishments that are debatable either because their accuracy or whether they really stand out above their competition.
Microsoft's (as both a separate entity and alter-ego to Bill Gates) real contribution is in its history. Once again, Microsoft advocates often miss the mark by starting their list with "Internet for the masses" or the beginnings of Windows (with both points being dubious). It goes further back than that.
Microsoft's biggest contribution to computing is being a conduit for the process of making computer hardware a commodity. Kind of an odd turn of events since they were entirely a software company at this point. And likely more accidental than planned.
At this point in history, microcomputers were coming in to their own. They were no longer toys for hobbyists but rather important business tools. It hadn't taken long for IBM to notice that a market they had resoundingly ignored was quickly growing. IBM backpedaled and rushed out their own entry - the IBM PC. It was such a success in the business market that soon became a defacto standard. It might be worth pointing out that in IBM's rush to market, their IBM-PC product was heavily dependent on off-the-shelf components and and a licensed operating system from a small outfit based in New Mexico.
Enter Compaq. Compaq was the first to produce a legal IBM-PC clone in their Compaq Portable product (although not the first clone to market or first "portable" computer). This was done through a meticulous and expensive reverse engineering process. This was a necessary step since the hardware involved was available but the underpinnings of the IBM-PC, its BIOS, was not. The investment paid off - Compaq had a fully functional clone which launched the company to becoming one of computing's major players.
However, Compaq's success would have been questionable if it wasn't for Microsoft. The reason to go through this tedious reverse engineering was to create a machine that functioned just like an IBM-PC. The BIOS was one piece. The operating system was another. But unlike previous microcomputer products, the OS was not owned by the manufacturer. Compaq licensed the same OS, Microsoft's DOS, that ran on the IBM-PC.
I find it hard to believe that Bill Gates foresaw this turn of events. It is very likely that he simply saw software as being as important as hardware, that the microcomputer would take off, and that getting a portion of each IBM sale would lead to more profit than an outright buyout of DOS. Or maybe Bill reflected on their success with BASIC and did, in fact, see a day when their OS could be licensed in the same manner.
In any case, Compaq was the first of many. More clones came to market. This challenged IBM's product and lead to a situation where the "IBM-PC" became a compatibility standard as much as an available product. Clone companies continued to compete on price and features as the "IBM-PC" market shifted away from IBM's proprietary product to a commodity.
And Microsoft collected a fee for each "IBM-PC" sold.
There are a couple interesting points worth stressing here.
IBM began this process, albeit unintentionally, by relying on off-the-shelf parts that any other manufacturer could also purchase. IBM then attempted to protect their product with proprietary firmware. There are some echos of this behavior in today's computing environment.
Microsoft rode the wave of the hardware market becoming a commodity. Whether this was luck or not might be open to some debate but they
He does NOT give to charity! (Score:2, Insightful)
Biggest charity in history (Score:1, Insightful)
It is despicable that you cannot see past your petty grievances.
geez. (Score:5, Insightful)
the main standard for modern knighthood is CHARITY. to maintain a knighthood you have donate a huge percentage of your time and money to charitable causes.
Bill has given over 20 billion dollars to charity. He is among the highest individual contributors to aids charities.
disliking the software is one thing, but slamming him getting a knighthood like this is just lame. STFU.
Re:Nice "thought process" there. (Score:3, Insightful)
All that they can. Their time, their "IP" (If you actually believe in that), their minds. The resources that they do have they give.
IBM (Score:4, Insightful)
Hateraid for all. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All built on crime? (Score:3, Insightful)
NO he started off with a multimillion dollar trust fund.
then Kildall, and IBM *GAVE* it to him...
But I digress, at one point Bill was a world class coder (can't comment now, what has he written). He is now a screwd businessman and a very clever tactician.
He has learned to manipulate the world markets and the financial infrastructure to give him riches beyond the dreams of avarice.
The only thing I can possibly say against him is that he
has no scruples/morals/and hopefully no concience (else he would not be able to sleep)
He is the essence of might makes right. and I really hope he never wakes up and realises what he has done.
Yes, Microsoft assisted the software industry in the beginning when standards where needed in order to generate the critical mass of common infrastructure needed to get us off the ground. but now, microsoft equates what is good for microsoft with what is good for the world, and these two points no longer co-incide.
We need to treat infrastructure computing as we do science. Openness, HONESTY and peer review.
Microsofts stance is no longer HONEST. they profess that their vision is what is best for the customer. this is dishonest. their vision is what is best for microsoft.
Honesty above all else. I know it is a foreign idea in advertising (which is what Microsofts vision is) but I truely believe that honesty is what computing needs.
I know, in todays world of shareholder confidence and ENRON, honesty is not fashionable. Well, sometimes fashion is too expensive.
Re:Nice "thought process" there. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also important to remember that people like Carnegie and Rockefeller were even more reviled in their time than Gates, and far outdid him for pure sleaze and avarice. But their principal legacy was a number of magnificent philanthropic works, which arguably did far more to improve society than their business practices did to debase it. Howard Hughes is an even better example; his fortune went towards medical research and is the basis for one of the largest private funding sources in the nation.
I despise Microsoft and refuse to buy, use, or support their products whenever possible, and I don't respect Gates for the way he acquired his money, but I think the fact that he's using his fortune to make the world a better place far is far more important than his past misdeeds. In fifty years, he'll be remembered for helping improve Africa, not for a collection of lousy but ubiquitous software. Larry Ellison, on the other hand, will be known as "that asshole with the yachts."
"The Widow's Mite" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, the important question is whether he gives greater in proportion to the average citizen. There is a parable in the Bible:
'And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, "Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had."' - Luke 21:1-4
Who's to say that if people used free software that some/many wouldn't give, overall, the same amount to charity instead of giving it to Gates?
Re:Bill Gates is a Criminal (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is this relevant? Well the current British government is one of the most devious bunches of lying deceitful bastards this country (the UK) has had the misfortune to be run by. They aren't giving him this because of his wonderful contribution to IT.
BTW you are wrong about operating system portability. Every manufacturer had its own OS and its own hardware architecture. Only Unix had any pretentions to real portability and it was a bit player in the pre-MS-DOS age.
Re:Bill Gates is a Criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
In every profession, the exertion of the greater part of those who exercise it, is always in proportion to the necessity they are under of making that exertion... and, where competition is free, the rivalship of competitors, who are all endeavouring to justle one another out of employment, obliges every man to endeavour to execute his work with a certain degree of exactness... Rivalship and emulation render excellency, even in mean professions, an object of ambition, and frequently occasion the very greatest exertions.
This comment on the benefits of competition between companies in the same field was written by that well known commie, anti-capitalist Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter I, Park III, Article III.
I spend a lot of time knocking Gates not because I'm envious or anti-capatilist but because his business practises are anti free market, predatory, anti-competitive and just generally centered around filling the Gates bank account regardless of the damage his activities may inflict on others.
One of the most often used quotes by so called "capitalist" politicians is that small business is the engine that drives the economy. This is mainly founded in the idea that for new, small companies to succeed in any market place, particularly one that is dominated by large, wealthy corporations they have to exercise levels of creativity and innovation that established businesses with their large internal beurocracies seldom match.
Gate's crime isn't that he charges for his software, it's that he has used unethical and immoral methods to beat competitors to a bloody pulp and maintain a monopoly that has for years, had an adverse effect on competition.
Seriously, If Microsoft had had real competition through the 1980s do you think that Windows 95 and 98 would have been as piss poor, bug-ridden and insecure as they were? OK 2000 wasn't as bad but it's still a freaky piece of crap based on the nasty piece of work that NT had become. And Gate's response to compettion from Linux? Good programming? Better software? Nope, stuff a hand up Darl and hurl the FUD about, bring in DRM and start patenting everything in site.
The worst part of it from my country is that the politicians and Microsoft victims are so fucking stupid that they wont even help themselves. Newham council think they're clever because they used Linux to knock MS down to price. Once Longhorn's out and installed do you think Newham will have an option to swap? If MS pulls a patent war out of the hat and Linux gets killed off what do you think is gonna happen, price cuts all round from Microsoft - BOLLOCKS!
If Gates gets a knighthood, the British government will be effectively condoning a method of business business lacking in rules, morals and ethics.
If Microsoft were so sure of the superiority of their products, they'd use open standards and let the consumer decide. Until then you've got Windows, Office et al.
Adjust for culture and location. (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone is "good" as long as s/he has enough money.
Other cultures and nations might spawn their own "heros", but most of the US population will never hear of them, nor ever care.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bill Gates is a Criminal (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost every one of Microsoft's "victories" has involved similar illegal behavior.
You were doing quite well until you reached this line. Most of the first decade of M$ successes had nothing to do with illegalities or monopolies. It was just straight out business deftness. That was the time of BOGU (read up on that one), when M$ could hardly dictate its terms to anyone.
Re:Bill Gates is a Criminal (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you'll need to provide more evidence of your claim.
Sure, it's nice to think about "hey, what if..." arguments, like "hey, what if Microsoft wasn't there, and everyone all shared their source code, and all the problems were solved, and everyone lived happily ever after."
It's possible you're right, but nobody seems to even examine the alternative case. I imagine a world without Microsoft, where no platform or human interface is standardized, the average computer literacy is equal to the average literacy on a BSD system today, I can't share a file with my friend because none of our hardware matches up and the formats are all different.
Would hardware be as cheap if a manufacturer could only market each device to 15% of the market? Maybe there would be a standard, but let's face it, microsoft did turn some standards (as in some committee agreed on something), into standards (as in everyone can actually use it).
Maybe you're right. But I'd never trade in the current reality, which is something spectacular, for a parallel universe in which Bill Gates was never born.
I'd just be too worried that the computer industry would turn into an appliance, with accessories and weird quirks, like so many companies have actually tried to do. Every company out there wanted to turn a computer into some kind of appliance it seems, except MS. We may be able to connect to the internet today, but that would probably have the same fate as the telcom industry. I don't know that MS is the company that really allowed computers to become what they are today, but I believe they played an important role.
I run gnu & linux, I love open source software, and free software, and all the development behind them. I don't like MS software much myself, but I at least appreciate its significance.
Re:The "anti-christ"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bill Gates is a Criminal (Score:2, Insightful)
People want an operating system that only works on _one_ platform. They want _one_ platform, _one_ OS. Most people don't like computers, they just want something to run their applications on.
Nerds seem to value the OS as some important component of a computer system - and in some cases it is. But to John Q. Public, they use a computer to run their applications. That's what Gates understood, that's what Jobs and Wozniak understood.
Microsoft didn't set anybody back 20 years, that's ridiculous. High end computing continued, eggheads continued making Unix better and better. Linux is a pretty freaking good example of that. You just don't understand the difference between mainstream computing and high end computing. Windowx XP is one of the most technically advanced operating systems ever made, end of story. Nobody got set back for anything.