Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft

The Man Who Could Have Been Bill Gates 458

theodp writes "BusinessWeek discusses They Made America, a new book which claims Bill Gates got the rewards due Gary Kildall. The book attacks the reputations of key early PC era players - Gates, IBM, and QDOS programmer Tim Paterson - asserting that Paterson copied parts of Kildall's CP/M and that IBM tricked Kildall, allowing Gates to prevail and depriving Kildall of untold riches and credit for a seminal role in the PC revolution. Some material came from an unpublished memoir penned by Kildall after the University of Washington, where Kildall earned a PhD, picked Harvard dropout Gates as keynote speaker for the 25th anniversary of its CS program."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Man Who Could Have Been Bill Gates

Comments Filter:
  • Memory lane.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:08AM (#10564082) Homepage Journal

    I still have my boxed copies of CP/M-86, DR-C and DR-Fortran at home. Having used CP/M on an Apple ][+ with a Z80 card it was a pretty easy transition. To this day I still use Joe [sourceforge.net] as my editor. It's a virtual clone of WordStar that I used on the CP/M machine 20 years ago.

    Too bad DOS and MS won out, CP/M was the cat's meow at the time.
  • Bil Gates... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:12AM (#10564120)

    I'm sure we've all had experiences of people telling us how clever Bill Gates is inventing Windows, or the Internet or whatever.

    The real shame is that certain computer museums in the USA perpetuate the myth that the manufacturers of software like Bill Gates were actually the inventors of it. I also think that Steve Jobs is a cool guy but doesn't deserve much space in the history of computing. Commercialising and inventing are completely different things.
  • No big surprise... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drlake ( 733308 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:13AM (#10564128)

    I can't say I'm surprised to hear that Bill Gates wasn't the innovative programmer he's made out to be, but then we already knew that. His strengths have always been elsewhere, mainly in the form of making some pretty good business decisions. Because of that, this Kildall really couldn't have been Bill Gates - he obviously lacks the business sense.

    I do find the assertion that it was all a conspiracy with IBM laughable, though. First, why would IBM care? Second, if IBM had a clue about the future value of DOS back then, they would have bought it outright rather than choosing to license it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:17AM (#10564157)
    The cool thing about that book is that the first edition was written in 1984, and so offers a timely perspective on the formation of the computer industry. It's not a "looking back" history where facts get muddled over time. Everything is fresh. The second, 1999, edition updates with the history that happened since, and everything remains timely. I read the first edition in college, and bought the second when it came out.

    The book was made into a movie [imdb.com] a few years ago, which I believe aired on TNT (if memory serves). I see it is now also available on video.
  • Re:Memory lane.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by turgid ( 580780 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:18AM (#10564163) Journal
    Too bad DOS and MS won out, CP/M was the cat's meow at the time.

    My mother is a business studies teacher. Back in the 80's they used to have Amstrad PCW word processors in the classrooms for teaching word processing and spreadsheets. They were 4MHz Z80 machines with a single 3" floppy (180k) disk, 256k RAM and a proprietary cheap and nasty dot-matrix printer. They had monochrome bitmapped green screens. They ran CP/M 2.2 (IIRC) and came with Locomotive BASIC. One Saturday afternoon I hacked up a little Z80 disassembler in BASIC which followed jumps and calls/returns. Great fun. The teacher got a 512k model with dual disk drives :-)

  • Wait a second... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by WhatsAProGingrass ( 726851 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:19AM (#10564167) Homepage
    "Kildall seemed to represent the best hopes of the nascent computer industry. But by the time he died at age 52, after falling in a tavern"

    "Kildall's then-wife, Dorothy McEwen, the company's business manager, refused to sign their nondisclosure agreement. She is now ill with brain cancer and can't remember the events, according to daughter Kristin Kildall."

    Do we see a trend here?
  • Re:Bil Gates... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:22AM (#10564192)
    You certainly have no clue as to Steve Jobs involvement in Apple's technologies and products.

    Yes I do.

    Jobs is brilliant at making great products, about understanding what will work commercially, etc. He'll look at something and say, hey, that's cool, we can do something with that. He's great at that. But that's different to inventing technology.
  • Re:Bil Gates... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:24AM (#10564211)
    Yes, in the case of software, commercializing, while just as important, is harder.

    But is it as worthy of our admiration?

  • Re:Wrong person (Score:5, Interesting)

    by !ucif3r ( 713159 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:28AM (#10564243) Homepage
    Actually Bill Gates was not a Negotiator. I don't know where you got that from. The people at IBM would not even have agreed to work with him because he was so arrogant if it wasn't for how convincing Paul Allen was.

    Paul Allen was pretty much the brains and the charm behind getting Dos into the PC. Bill was just his friend.

    IMHO: He got lucky.
  • Re:Bil Gates... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kahei ( 466208 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:29AM (#10564258) Homepage

    Heh, that's a better reply than the geek rage I was expecting... I'm afraid I don't know the answer, though.

    I do know that people with bright ideas come and go but those with the huge persistence and blind arrogance required to forge a new business area are rare and valuable.

  • Re:Trusting IBM (Score:5, Interesting)

    by acomj ( 20611 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:34AM (#10564288) Homepage
    I worked at IBM research. Basically if you develop something on IBMs time with IBMs resources they own it. A lot of companies are like that.

    Some people like it because if IBM likes the idea they'll throw IBM resourses at it and let you develop it and pay you to do it.

    They give you a lot of resourses to get your idea off the ground and will reward you if its a successful product. If its credit your looking for do it yourself.

    They even tell the interns, if you have an idea and you want to develop it DON"t tell it to us.

  • Don't forget Novell (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ToasterTester ( 95180 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:36AM (#10564309)
    MS got the deal with IBM. But MP/M the multiuser version of CP/M was reversed engineered and became the "secret" filesystem of early Novell. That was why Novell brought DR to avoid a lawsuit, it wasn't just to get DR-DOS. So Kildall lost out there too.
  • by PenguinRadio ( 69089 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:37AM (#10564323) Homepage
    I've heard the story about how IBM was left standed, but I've also heard that's just an urban legend and they did come to some agreement, went into some talks, and didn't come to an agreement on other matters. The NDA was just something that caught on to the storytellers, but wasn't totally true.

    So I recall hearing somewhere...
  • by museumpeace ( 735109 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:55AM (#10564493) Journal
    It has brief bios of many of my heroes [Edison was a nerd, right?] with interesting insights into how they wrestled their ideas into realities, who they fought, what they did differently from contemporaries.
    In my 30 years of programming, many of them at startups, I know of nothing to compare to the myriad drained lives, burnt hopes and stolen thunder that bob and sink in the wake of Mr. Gates. Larry Ellison may be a runner up to Gates in this grim category but that is usually how those two fare in their competition. For every millionaire Gates made, there was a company out there that had a good idea and smart people who still couldn't grow in the shade of Microsoft. To name names would rub salt in the wounds of some good friends...lets just say having a great idea and a willingness to work hard are not enough to insure success. The lucky ones were assimilated.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:58AM (#10564522)
    What's missing from this explaination is that Tim Patterson was *porting* CP/M code from 8080 assembly to 8086 using simple macro tricks, and rewriting the BIOS as needed for his particular board. Gary Kildall provided him with CP/M source to do this. What Tim "sold" to Bill Gates was not his to sell, the macro-hacked source of CP/M. If Kildall's lawyer had focused on that aspect, they might have taken back the ownership of PC-DOS and been the dominate firm.

    Gates didn't win because he was a better businessman, unless being a "better businessman" means being an ammoral, back-stabbing thief.

    I think I just answered my own question.
  • Re:Wrong person (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pdawson ( 89236 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @10:01AM (#10564543)
    The last project he personally wrote code for I'm told was a version of MS Basic on ROM for the Tandy TRS-80 Model 100, a lovely little machine I use for taking notes in class. 2.4Mhz 8085 CPU, 32Kb CMOS Ram that served as RAM and storage, full size KB, RS232 port, and ran for 20-25 hours of use on a set of 4 AA batteries.
  • Re:Memory lane.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @10:01AM (#10564547) Homepage Journal
    Dos 2 also introduced a nested directory structure pipes, and I think redirection. At that time Gates was sure that Unix was the future and Microsoft even had it's own version called Xenix. When development of OS/2 started they sold Xenix to a company called SCO. A lot of Unix like stuff ended up in DOS.
    Digital Research never made applications. They believed that they should only make OSs and programing tools. I often wish Microsoft would have adopted that model as well.
  • by Bob Bitchen ( 147646 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @10:14AM (#10564655) Homepage
    It's true and it's also true that IBM did business with him because the CEO of IBM at the time knew Bill Gates' mom. "...you're Mary's son? Ok sure here's the goose that lays golden eggs..." So it helps to know people, definitely helps and it is what makes the world go 'round.
  • by mwood ( 25379 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @10:16AM (#10564672)
    It takes all of that, but none of the others will get anywhere without persistence.

    Persistence without talent, education, or genius, on the other hand, generally leads to the kind of fame that most of us would rather avoid. It's the single driving quality of that leechlike salesman you'd love to punch in the nose, or the lunatic-fringe politician who just won't go away even though he never comes within 1/100 of winning. It's the life and breath of tin-pot dictators and fanatics.

    I agree with Cal's observations but not his conclusion. Persistence and determination can accomplish nothing worthwhile if you have no idea what you are doing.
  • Re:So Basically (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jimicus ( 737525 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @10:27AM (#10564809)
    Not necessarily. Microsoft is famous for having invented most of the tricks in the book to establish and maintain a monopoly position - see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#Monopoly_an d_legal_issues [wikipedia.org]

    There is also evidence to suggest that Microsoft were following similar practices many years before the DoJ case. See also "The Microsoft File: The Secret Case against Bill Gates" [amazon.com]

  • Re:Memory lane.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by stevey ( 64018 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @11:25AM (#10565570) Homepage

    Funnily enough I used to like the FCBS when I started writing in assembly under DOS 3.3.

    They allowed you to do globbing via FindfirstFile, and FindNextFile, (or whatever they were called!).

    This was much simpler than using other functions - because the space inside the PSP was already setup for them.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @11:27AM (#10565588)
    In the late 80s I worked in a Seattle office with a Japanese-American mid-level manager who was on the Seattle United Way board alongside Gates' mother. At a board meeting just after Newsweek came out with Bill on the cover, she said to Mrs. Gates, "I see your son on the cover of Newsweek!" Mrs. Gates replied, exasperated, "Yes, he still won't wear a tie!"

    Then I knew a tech analyst in NYC who heard from one of Gates' #2s that, as Bill's mother was in her final, fatal illness, she asked him to please settle down and marry (evidently there were employees charged with procuring short-term bed companions for him). So he put together portfolios on four candidates, and his mom chose Melissa for him.

    Ah, mothers!
  • Re:Wrong person (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kombat ( 93720 ) <kevin@swanweddingphotography.com> on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @11:28AM (#10565606)
    The man had a poor business sense and he didn't see the value in doing what he needed to do to win.

    Yeah, poor guy. He had ethics.


    Are you suggesting that is impossible to be both ethical, and a successful businessperson? What about co-ops? Google? Saturn? If you'd RTFA, you'd see that in this case, "doing what was needed to win" consisted of "delivering a 16-bit version of your OS by next summer." Kildall couldn't/didn't. Gates did. So the contract went to Gates. Where does ethics enter into this? Gates had vision where Kildall didn't. This has nothing to do with ethics.
  • by corren ( 559473 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @12:03PM (#10566067)
    Offtopic yes, but this is one of the best photos I took of Tim rallying here in Washington State. From June of 2004:

    Tim Paterson [kennethjames.com]

  • by NewIntellectual ( 444520 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @12:11PM (#10566156)
    It's easy to forget that Gates was a real programmer before he started focusing just on the business. Beware of letting envy at his success (and that is the real source of 99.9% of the negative comments about him, admit it) mask those origins.

    I started with computers around 1978-9 with the Radio Shack TRS-80. I began with BASIC but progressed to Z-80 assembly language. At one point I disassembled and studied the 12K Level II BASIC ROM, written in Z-80. 12 kilobytes of Z80 assembly is not a lot of space for a reasonably sophisticated (circa 1979) language interpreter so some clever hacks were employed. One that still sticks with me was the error code section. The routine that looked up the 2 letter error code used the contents of the 8 bit E register. But if you looked at the section preceding that routine, there were mostly a series of 3 byte instructions, a 16 bit LD BC,nnnn (BC being the 16 bit concatenation of the 8 bit B and C registers), one after the other. This was very puzzling at first but then I noticed that the jumps to print the error code were *within* those instructions. It turned out that the operand, nnnn, was itself an instruction: LD E,err ! Dropping down after that were LD BC instructions that did not alter the contents of E, which eliminated the need to have many jump instructions and hence conserving the precious 12K resource.

    From my understanding it is likely that Gates worked on that code, given that it originated as a Microsoft product and that he was still coding at that time. If so, it is obvious that he was not just a great businessman but a superlative "hacker" as well.
  • Re:Free Stuff (Score:2, Interesting)

    by FuzzyBad-Mofo ( 184327 ) <fuzzybad@nOSPAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @12:25PM (#10566347)
    Can these be used to develop commercial software? Are they limited trial versions which stop working after a predetermined time?

    I ask because that's my previous experience with "free" tools from Microsoft. (too lazy to read through the EULA)
  • by bcrowell ( 177657 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @12:44PM (#10566576) Homepage
    Interesting facts, but I don't think your interpretation of them makes sense. Gates steered IBM to Digital Research; he didn't have to do that. Although there are many stories of the IBM-DRI meeting floating around (Kildall was out flying, or his wife wouldn't sign the NDA), it's 100% clear that the DRI people's behavior and/or bargaining tactics drove IBM away.

    I don't think it was a class thing. I think it was more of an east-coast/west-coast thing, or a new-industry/old-industry thing. Digital Research was at one time called Intergalactic Digital Research. The culture there was very casual. When I worked there, they had beer parties every Friday afternoon, and people walked around in their socks. IBM was famously buttoned down, and, e.g., there are stories about IBMers being sent home from work because they wore blue socks instead of black ones. I think a thread running through the legends, which probably represents some truth, is that Kildall and his wife took a little bit more of an arrogant attitude with IBM than they should have, possibly because at that time DRI was a big player in the microcomputer industry, and IBM wasn't.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @01:24PM (#10567017)
    When a large corporation comes to you hoping for you to provide them with an operating system for what is to be one of the largest computer launches of all time you do not treat them like shit.
    From what I have heard of the situation the IBM people bent over backwards when approaching Kildall.

    Even if Kildall did end up providing them with the operating system is it highly unlikely he would have had the smarts to include a non-exclusivity clause to sell his OS to other companies.
    If Kildall did end up making the operating system IBM would have gotten the lions share of the profits instead. This is due to the fact that it would have been signifigantly more difficult for the clone computers to be made.
    Really love him or hate him the openness of the PC architecture can really be traced back to the moment when Gates signed his deal with IBM.
  • by davidsyes ( 765062 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @01:48PM (#10567275) Homepage Journal
    GET'em, TIGER.

    If only there could be a retroactive suit to go back and put a cap in ms' corrupt corporate ass.

    This kind of information, if made required reading, could put one HELL of a dent in ms' filthy image.

    Would it be safe, legally, to put this knowledge into a GNU/GPL file and deliver it onto websites or onto Linux disks and other media? I know it's not good to deliver scathing commentary or facts about a ruthless, cutthroat, vile, filthy, uncouth, deserving-to-be-strangled-asshole-company, but sometimes...

    David Syes
  • by davidsyes ( 765062 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @01:59PM (#10567383) Homepage Journal
    Subterfuge
    Trickery-dickery

    It's too bad Apples own lawyers MISSED that. It's a height of folly for a lawyer to miss injected specfics that are an attempt to "minefield" a contract into oblivion.

    Gotta be careful with those "version #" and "any version" clauses.

    It's this kind of tricky-dick stuff that mires musicians and novelists, especially the publishing houses that CLAIM to be PROTECTING themselves when they demand the author submits to the publisher's ownership/control:

    --all drafts,
    --sketches
    --blueprints
    --models
    --dia grams
    --plans
    --audio/visual recordings
    --notes

    and other nouns. They are not just doing due diligene to ward off complaints or suits, you know. They are trying to hem up the author who two years into a 3-year contract starts negotiations with another publishers. If said author surrenders ALL that material, other than the manuscript itself, said author most likely is SCREWED, and even unable to present that non-selling, non-performing material to a new suitor.

    Capitalism and business law at its best.

    That is why, as an aspiring author and as an artist NONE of my drawings or works leave my ownership. Anybody wanting to play the game with ME is only getting a non-exclusive license for a limited period of time in which to ATTEMPT to make a buck. By no means do they acquire and blocking or obstructing rights to hem me in. If I can create drawings, then they can go make their own if they want control over drawings.

    Authors, whether of software, books, drawings, or what-nots MUST become non-conformists and use everthing at their dispose, from copyright, to copyleft, to creative commons, to GPL/LGPL/ and more. SOME RIGHTS reserved is better that ALL RIGHTS surrendered.

    David Syes
  • of course there are (Score:3, Interesting)

    by samjam ( 256347 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @03:50PM (#10568573) Homepage Journal
    When your post gets +modded it becomes more visible and more people moderate it.

    Slack moderators don't concentrate on modding up more than down. Slack moderators also don't browse at -1, but +2, so by the time your posting becomes visible the good moderators start to leave off and the bad ones knock it back down again.

    And of course, in a crowd the size of the slashdot crowd there is room for any number of moderator conspiracies to co-exist, no doubt there is more than one of the type you mentioned.

    its the same sort of behaviour that swings online polls widely as the two extreme opposing camps canvas their friends and set up vote spoofers whenthey start to loose.

    The answer is to meta-moderate.

    It doesn't neccessarily mean that the bad moderators lose mod points in future but it does help make sure that the sort of moderators slashdot has are the sort of moderators it's readers appreciate.

    Sam
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @05:40PM (#10569671)
    This message sure did appear on Dr. Dos boxes when you tried to install windows 3.1. I had to explain to many a PHB that this was just a fake message implanted by MS.

This file will self-destruct in five minutes.

Working...