Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft News

Bill Gates Speaks Out 571

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the amusing-stories-of-the-public-relations dept.
neoform writes "The Seattle PI is running an interesting interview with Bill Gates." In the article Gates comments on Vista, Google, and a few other pertinent topics. In an amusing bit of related news, an anonymous reader let us know that CNET is also running an interview with Gates. In the CNET interview Gates gives a very interesting response to one of the interview questions. "CNET: So that would be the philosophical difference between Microsoft and what Google is up to at this point? Gates: Well, we don't know everything they are up to, but we do know their slogan and we disagree with that."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bill Gates Speaks Out

Comments Filter:
  • by Kelson (129150) * on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:37PM (#13559903) Homepage Journal
    "Well, we don't know everything they are up to, but we do know their slogan and we disagree with that."

    From context he's probably not referring to "Don't be evil" -- but seriously, who can turn down a sound bite (sound byte?) like that?
    • by wan23 (636995) <wan23@em3.1415926ail.com minus pi> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:39PM (#13559924)
      From TFA: ... In fact, they have this slogan that they are going to organize the world's information. Our slogan is that we are going to give people tools to let them organize the world's information. It's a slightly different approach, based on the platformization of all of our capabilities and not thinking of ourselves as the organizer. So that would be the philosophical difference between Microsoft and what Google is up to at this point? Gates: Well, we don't know everything they are up to, but we do know their slogan and we disagree with that.
      • by Fahrvergnuugen (700293) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:54PM (#13560091) Homepage
        Quick... mod the parent down for being a spoil sport!
        • by tolan-b (230077) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:24PM (#13560388)
          Ok then, how about this one...

          ======
          Gates: Software in general, whether it was from Microsoft or somebody else, was not set up for an environment where all the computers were connected together. So it's not like there was some software that had this security capability and our software did not.
          ======

          Haw!
          • by Pharmboy (216950) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @05:51PM (#13561152) Journal
            THAT is the comment that made me flip back to Slashdot! No software was setup for all the computers to be connected together? I guess he never heard of Unix.

            That can't even be blamed on ignorance, because he knows better. That is genuine, straight up, in your face and looking you in the eye FUD. Maybe they need that on the boxes of Vista when it comes out:

            Windows Vista: The ultimate software for computers that are not connected.
            • by hawk (1151) <hawk@eyry.org> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @06:35PM (#13561490) Journal
              In all fairness, Unix didn't start all that secure. There was a default assumption of trust. Reasonable at first, but the environment changed over time.

              hawk

            • No software was setup for all the computers to be connected together? I guess he never heard of Unix.

              The internet would not have exploded into popular worldwide culture were it not for Windows' widespread adoption into the business world.

              That made computer familiarity fairly common amongst non-nerds and brought down the price to "reasonable" levels for non-enthusiasts and opened up the internet for many more people.

              I really wanted an Apple ][ when I was a teenager but the cost was way too high.
      • by ch-chuck (9622) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:59PM (#13560134) Homepage
        we do know their slogan and we disagree with that.

        It's kinda like talking with any politician, since M$ft wants to compete with Google they have to disagree at some level, even if they're trying to do the same things. It's like asking Ted Kennedy what he thinks about Bush's plan for, whatever, helping little children. Whatever the Bush plan is, Ted's gotta disagree with it, that's how the game is played.

        That is, even if Gates secretely admired google's plan and slogan and is competing out of jealousy and fear of losing market and customer brand name recognition, he must try to publically discredit google somehow. Even if he thinks they're doing all the right things, he has to discredit it somehow, they're taking people's freedom away, etc. Unfortunately, when the PC Pope speaks, too many listen.

        Guess Bill's part of the antidisenplatformization movement.

      • I think Chairman Bill was referring to Google's "mission", not their slogan.

        http://www.google.com/corporate/ [google.com]

        "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

        • by UnapprovedThought (814205) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @02:18AM (#13564094) Journal

          Billgatus of Borg:

          In fact, they have this slogan that they are going to organize the world's information. Our slogan is...

          In google's own words:

          Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.

          (my emphasis added)

          Note how Billgatus of Borg conveniently omits the part about making it universally accessible, as if to avoid an embarrassing contrast between Google's track record and the constant roadblocks his own company puts up.

          While Google was building its business with open standards and on the same level playing field that other search engines could use, MSFT was exploiting the closed nature of its Word format against its competitors. While Google was busy adding support for a wide variety of browsers, MSFT was breaking HTML standards in the hopes that only IE would remain standing. He had to leave that little detail out, otherwise it would dredge up memories of how MSFT became a convicted monopolist, and that would clash with the sparkling Mr. Clean image he was trying to project.

          And useful? I certainly find it more useful if searches return what I'm searching for instead of just ads. If MSFT manages to kill Google, I would expect search results to degenerate back to the highest bidder model of ads mixed into the search results. Google has done a much better job of managing their PR with this, steering clear of hotmail-like flashing ads and pagerank gambits and maintaining some semblance of believability. And, they've done it without pulling their hair (or toupees) out, or throwing chairs or lodging the sort of epithets one would expect from a knuckle-dragging world wrestling federation circus act. It's a contrast that had to be swept under the carpet.

          So, how does The Collective answer to Google's mission statement? (voice=polyphonic Borg collective + squeaky Billgatus)

          Our slogan is that we are going to give people tools to let them organize the world's information...

          (and I would sardonically add) ...in a EULA-bound fashion, so that we can revise the agreement at any time to, in effect, appropriate the intellectual property rights to ourselves, without having to spend a cent storing it. It shall all be assimilated. Eventually people will have to buy our systems just to access that information and Google will find itself locked out by our DRM. Resistance is futile. (/sardonicity)

          Also, what's this talk about "giving" tools to people? My, how generous that sounds. Does he mean like another toolbar? Gee, thanks. Or perhaps he means a tool in the sense of a talking paperclip? Or maybe a 3-D flipping crowbar to open up those DRM files long enough to read their EULAs? Or how about a free spyware remover that doesn't remove the #1 brand of spyware, which has a EULA claiming it is illegal to try to remove it. Hmmm. Everyone bow to the unbounded generosity?

          One thing's for sure, Google's API has gotten onto his radar, so I'm guessing they may also try to beam down another shipment of EULA-laden developer tools in the hopes they can cut Google off at the mindshare pass. They are trying to kill Google, but for the moment it looks like they will have to brainwa^Wtrain a lot more nine-year-olds. Anyone who knew what was going on a scant few years ago and strains long enough to remember it would have to conclude that this is just another whitewash.

      • The interesting thing is that it makes even less sense if that is the proper context. It's obvious that Google is leading the way in organizing the world's information because they are capitalizing faster and greater than Microsoft did back in it's 80's boom. We are in the information age so this makes perfect sense. Those who captilize on the theme of the age gain and grow the most.
        • by wo1verin3 (473094) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:32PM (#13560484) Homepage
          Index a mans fish and he can eat for a day...

          Teach a man how to index fish and he doesn't need to keep using your software/service...

          Or something like that...

          It sounded better in my head.
        • by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:54PM (#13560681) Journal
          I think this all goes to show just how much of a myth the notion of Microsoft as an innovator really is. DOS was basically borrowed technology. Windows was pretty much a take-off on earlier GUIs (and in particular the Mac). Windows 95 support for the Internet was an almost afterthought, IBM knowing before Microsoft that the Internet was going to be the next Big Thing. Guys like Yahoo really defined the portal and now online search technology is largely the territory of Google.

          In the past, Microsoft has been able to use its money, clout and luck to gain and grow its market share. Now suddenly it is face with a company which has, for all intents and purposes (for better and/or for worse) become as synonomous with online searching as Coke is to soda pop and Kleenex is to tissues. It doesn't have the direct resources to take Google on. Its own attempts to replicate Google simply haven't drawn in the crowds, and its luck really has failed it. Ballmer can throw chairs around all he wants, but Microsoft has been out-Microsofted by another company, and it must scare the hell out of Redmond because they know only too well that its not being first on the bandwagon that counts, its being the guy that is seen as the bandwagon that does, because, really, Google is no more an innovator that Microsoft is. It just got lucky, latched on to an existing idea and managed through some good marketing techniques to drive it to the front of the pack.

          • by imidan (559239) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @05:57PM (#13561200)
            You could have made almost exactly the same comment when Microsoft was struggling to come up with a web browser that could compete with Netscape, the application that most new computer users thought of as "The Internet" at the time. Sure, it may scare them, but they've shown themselves to be quite capable of displacing their competition when it matters. I'm not saying that MS will inevitably win, but I *am* saying that while they may be worried about Google's industry presence, I doubt very much that they're not confident in the plan that they're working on to come out on top.
          • Google is no more an innovator that Microsoft is.
            Minor nitpicks to an otherwise good post. The idea of a "search engine" was obviously not a new thing but google's claim to fame was PageRank. Organizing results was a major problem at the time. Also, I'm sure everyone knows the Google story. Marketing techniques had nothing to do with their quick popularity.
          • Google is no more an innovator that Microsoft is. It just got lucky, latched on to an existing idea and managed through some good marketing techniques to drive it to the front of the pack.

            I have to disagree with you here. Google was driven to the front of the pack through word of mouth. It was/is a damn fine search engine. How many Google commercials, advertisements do you see? Advertising for gmail for instance was done purely by word of mouth by allowing it through invites only.

          • by WhiteWolf666 (145211) <sherwin@amiran . u s> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @08:20PM (#13562323) Homepage Journal
            My opinion?

            Google is the anti-MS.

            They do the opposite. They market via word of mouth, and by having solid, simple, well-designed products. At google, the baseline is elegant, practical, high-performance engineering. If a product isn't *really* good, it never leaves the lab. If a product isn't *near-perfect*, it never leaves beta. Contrast that with MS. Most often, version 1.0 and 2.0 of an MS product is terrible, or even non-functioning. I'm not taking about beta versions, or lab versions; I'm taking about the crap they sell to people. Even these 1.0 versions, however, are introduced with all kinds of pomp and circumstance.

            Enter Google. When was the last time you 'bought' a Google product without *knowing* that it was awesome? The products that they do 'sell' (ads, google earth, and google appliances) they sell unobtrusively, and I've never met someone who purchased one that didn't already *know* that the product was have extremely high quality. They do most of their development in-house, and they pursue paths of research almost as radical as the MIT media lab, but with a healthy dose of practicality.

            The search engine was not innovative.

            A clear, concise search engine, using page rank, a *very new* way of relating millions of search results WAS innovative. They continue this trend even now, its just not as well publicized, because they have to keep up with the Search Engine Optimization firms.

            Maps and driving directions are NOT innovative.

            Clear, easy to use, visually attractive maps, with a natural language interface, a well-documented API, an excellent ties to the aforementioned search engine?

            That's innovative.

            Not all innovation is flashy user interfaces and silicon gadgets. There is such a thing as innovative database design, and brilliant code.

            Google is not out-Microsofting anyone. Microsoft's business strategy is well-known: Entering an existing market, form an alliance with the 2nd strongest player, gut that players efforts with your own product, and outspend the top player on marketing dollars. That's it.

            I've *never* seen an intrusive ad for Google. I've *never* heard of Google screwing another business.
            I've *never* heard of Google participating in dishonest negotiation.

            While fanboys may choose to deny it, MS's tendancy towards these underhanded tactics is well-documented, both in terms of court cases (where they tend to PAY the settlement for being guilty, and move on (Novell (DR-DOS), Stacker, etc. . .)) and leaked documents (halloween memos, anyone?)

            Google's had a bit of luck, but they've also put a lot of hardwork and intelligence into their business.

            Microsoft, on the other hand, has built its empire on marketing, dollars, manipulation, and outright fraud. They've even been found guilty, and forced to pay settlements; but to MS, that's the cost of doing business.
      • by xgamer04 (248962) <xgamer04@NosPAM.yahoo.com> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:02PM (#13560162)
        Gates: ... platformization ...

        I pray to God every night that this does not become a widespread buzzword.
      • by shotfeel (235240) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:38PM (#13560534)
        we are going to give people tools to let them organize the world's information

        Question is, after you let me organize it all, will you allow me to access it and how much will it cost?
    • Is Google known for any other slogan? I think that statement says a lot, either on purpose or otherwise.
      • by Jason Scott (18815) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:46PM (#13560021) Homepage
        If you do a Google Search for "Google's Slogan", all you get is "Don't be Evil". I don't think there's any other known slogan, except maybe "Sorry about that, but it's still in beta."

        I'm going to assume this is a mistranscription or a bad editor; otherwise, this is the single greatest thing to come out of Bill Gates' mouth, ever.
        • by Coryoth (254751) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:29PM (#13560435) Homepage Journal
          If you do a Google Search for "Google's Slogan", all you get is "Don't be Evil".

          More importantly a search for "google slogan" on MSN search [msn.com] turns up mostly results with "Don't be evil" - in fact that's pretty much all the results on the first page say. Of course this is third parties usually talking about "Google's unofficial slogan", but the point is, in terms of popular perception "Don't be evil" is Google's slogan, regardless of what their official slogan actually is.

          Jedidiah.
        • by Bogtha (906264) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:41PM (#13560564)

          I'm going to assume this is a mistranscription or a bad editor; otherwise, this is the single greatest thing to come out of Bill Gates' mouth, ever.

          It's just a misleading summary. This one is still champion:

          "There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed."

          Other gems, from the same interview: [cantrip.org]

          If you really think there's a bug you should report a bug. Maybe you're not using it properly. Have you ever considered that?

          Sit in and listen to Win 95 calls, sit in and listen to Word calls, and wait, just wait for weeks and weeks for someone to call in and say "Oh, I found a bug in this thing". ...

        • by vandelais (164490) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @06:34PM (#13561483)
          SPIEGEL: When one puts the sentence "Bill Gates is the devil" into the Internet search engine Google, one gets thousands of hits. Does this bother you?

          Gates: Slashdot runs a lot of duplicate stories.
    • Seriously, RTFA (Score:3, Informative)

      by colin_n (50370)
      "(Google has) this slogan that they are going to organize the world's information. Our slogan is that we are going to give people tools to let them organize the world's information."
      • "(Google has) this slogan that they are going to organize the world's information. Our slogan is that we are going to give people tools to let them organize the world's information."

        Well, that isn't Google's 'slogan'. It's a badly done rephrasing of Google's mission statement. Surprising that Bill Gates got that wrong; you'd think he'd still bone up on that kind of thing before an interview, the way he used to before he became such a big shot. But anyway:

        What earthly good is it to me if MS is going to

    • In fact, they have this slogan that they are going to organize the world's information. Our slogan is that we are going to give people tools to let them organize the world's information.

      This is the slogan difference that Bill Gates was referring to. Still, a hilarious way to sum things up in the interview. "We disagree with the other company's slogan." Genius business insight there, buddy.

      It's like people who's entire political philosophies are capable of being summed up by bumper stickers. You ju

  • by Namronorman (901664) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:38PM (#13559911)
    Microsoft has to learn how to accept competition and not try to kill it or buy it out. Competition leads to innovation, which is exactly what this industry lacks in a lot of areas.
    • And despite what a lot of people will think on the surface (whoa look at how cool Microsoft has made Office 12), it is really Apple, Linux and the Open Source competition that has made Microsoft get its ass in gear.

      How else do you explain the sudden amount of creativity and motivation that Microsoft is having with its interface?

      Microsoft and the Windows folks are going to act all high and mighty that their OS now has these cool features, but they will not realize what is driving it. Competition.
      • by Gogo0 (877020) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:59PM (#13560135)
        This isnt a troll (I swear), but perhaps they are finally competing because they cant buy the competition?
        You cant buy an open source project (at least not to stop it), and Apple is going to do its own thing regardless of MS (this is how it has always been).

        MS bought Visio and plenty of other apps. I if an open source project created an office productivity application, would MS suddenly have their own version out soon?
      • by interiot (50685) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:01PM (#13560147) Homepage
        Seriously, this ex-Microsoft guy [scottberkun.com] has it spot on:
        There are specs I wrote for UI features in 1998 that are unchanged today, 7 years later, in a world where browser usage has changed dramatically.
        Why was the least amount of browser development done during the period of the greatest amount of web growth?
        "You're still here? It's over. We won. Go home. Go."
      • by The Lynxpro (657990) <lynxpro@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:29PM (#13560436)
        "And despite what a lot of people will think on the surface (whoa look at how cool Microsoft has made Office 12), it is really Apple, Linux and the Open Source competition that has made Microsoft get its ass in gear."

        Not to mention AOL (which consistently beat MSN throughout the dial-up era)*, Palm (held off Microsoft for several years in the PDA market), Nokia (fending off Smartphone via Symbian), TiVo (mopped the floor with UltimateTV - leading to Windows Media Center improved annually), Adobe's PDF format, Sun's Java, and Sony (Playstation2). And Google thrashing Microsoft in search.

        While Apple's Mac OS X is forcing improvements with Windows, its in the other media areas that Apple is thrashing Microsoft interests consistently. The cablecos and satellite companies have settled on Apple supported H.264 as the HD codec of choice over Windows Media. The Windows Media codec may be eliminated from the Blu-Ray format before its market debut, and as it stands, H.264 is also supported with the HD-DVD format. The Microsoft supported DVD+R spec did not trump the Apple backed DVD-R format and now combo drives are the norm. And Apple's iPod/iTunes support of Dolby's AAC audio codec has seriously frakked up Microsoft's WMA format dominating the MP3 player market.

        If Corporate America ever is successfully persuaded to switch to Linux or OS X and open source application suite software, Microsoft will be toast...and I don't mean that application by Roxio either.

        *Forgot to mention how AOL's AIM (and AIM supporters like iChat) is still more popular than MSN Messenger.

      • I realize it! (Score:5, Informative)

        by bmajik (96670) <matt@mattevans.org> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:39PM (#13560548) Homepage Journal
        I'm a microsoft employee that is thankful for the pragmatically positive effect that competitors have had on us.

        When i started at MS, we were getting our lunch eaten in security/reliability issues compared to linux.. (which frnakly sucks at security and reliabilty compared to some other UNIX variants) We had customers tell us "you get your sh@#$ straight or we're jumping ship". They had heard, experienced, or both, that they could get better uptime and fewer successful attacks from other platforms.

        That's what we needed - the execs heard that we had a competitive threat, so there was executive support to let the really brilliant guys push through huge expensive work on reliability, correctness, security, maintainability, etc. In the past, enough customers were willing to pay for something like Win95 that we only had to make something as good as Win95 (which i never used, btw, as i had given up PC's for Solaris/SPARC by that time..)

        Today, nothing can leave Microsoft without the "security gurus" giving their stamp of approval. (i.e. the guys like Michael Howard). There's a formalized process, a list of stuff to check for, all threat models are reveiwed, we have a bunch of internal tools that look for known-uglies in code bases..

        None of this existed 5 years ago and today it's mandatory for all shipping products.

        Obviously there's more work to do on security and reliability, but today we have the corporate willpower to dump a lot of investment at these problems, and the results are encouraging - Server 2003 has very few issued critical udpates compared to past MS products, and even compared to some distributinos of linux.

        The other thing we're finding is that for lots of things, F/OSS people can clone our stuff (UI, feature set) in less time than we can design, write, test, and ship it. Outlook's 11th version is what's out in the market place right now, but something like Evolution (which let's be honest, is about as blatant an outlook clone as you can make without the underlying technologies _also_ being Microsoft stuff) is only a few years old and is functional for a good number of scenarios.

        Freeware clones/reimplementations benefit from the UI, the feature set, the "flow", the architecture, and most importantly, the MISTAKES that we've made, so that F/OSS teams can deliver a reasonably functional app that works reasonably well in a very short amount of time.

        We definitely know about Eclipse and what it does. People on the inside ask "why would i use VS instead of Eclipse?" and its up to us to make sure there's a good answer.

        So yes, i think most microsoft employees understand and even appreciate that competition makes us work better, and that alot of that competition today is Apple, F/OSS, and Google.
        • Re:I realize it! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Spy der Mann (805235)
          So yes, i think most microsoft employees understand and even appreciate that competition makes us work better

          Too bad the Microsoft execs disagree with that. :(
        • Re:I realize it! (Score:3, Interesting)

          by gig (78408)
          I stopped using Microsoft products a few years ago and it has been a wonderful experience. The reason I stopped was to get away from the awful file formats that are pushed on you all the time, from Word to Windows Media they are awful. However the true pleasure has been getting away from the lousy software features that are always trying to guess what you're about to do and always guessing wrong ... perhaps best signified by that paper clip from Office. I don't know what the reasons are to use Microsoft pro
  • by phoenix.bam! (642635) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:39PM (#13559926)
    (Google has) this slogan that they are going to organize the world's information. Our slogan is that we are going to give people tools to let them organize the world's information.

    The slashdot blurb wants to you to think that gates is disagreeing with the do no evil slogan. Silly decepticons running slashdot.
  • With the latest pre releases of betas, including 64 beta, and trying not to be evil, etc., gates is going after the one market he never had, computer geeks. We all like linux. We hate evil giant copy-right suing corperations. He's trying to change his ways, and wether it works or not, it will help there PR, CS, and will let us try out and see new products to make us happy. I am all for it. Go bill! Join the force! Leave the dark side!
  • Out of context (Score:5, Informative)

    by genedefect (845080) * on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:41PM (#13559938)
    Nothing like taking a reply to one question completely out of context... So Google is not offering development capabilities yet. Of course, I expect they will. But they're not in that game at all today. In fact, they have this slogan that they are going to organize the world's information. Our slogan is that we are going to give people tools to let them organize the world's information. It's a slightly different approach, based on the platformization of all of our capabilities and not thinking of ourselves as the organizer. So that would be the philosophical difference between Microsoft and what Google is up to at this point? Gates: Well, we don't know everything they are up to, but we do know their slogan and we disagree with that. He was not referring to the "Do no Evil"
  • by aborchers (471342) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:41PM (#13559945) Homepage Journal

    "Gates: Software in general, whether it was from Microsoft or somebody else, was not set up for an environment where all the computers were connected together. So it's not like there was some software that had this security capability and our software did not. As we use the Internet to connect everyone up, then the need to essentially have suspicion and only listen to certain other systems, and if flaws come up to have those updated very quickly, that became a new requirement."


    What can one say to something so far off the mark?

  • by Xeleema (453073) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:41PM (#13559949) Homepage Journal
    "I'm Feelin Lucky"
    They were so cocky about it, they even put it on a button...those bastard!!
  • Proof! (Score:3, Funny)

    by imboboage0 (876812) <imboboage0@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:42PM (#13559956) Homepage
    We'll match what they do

    Ha! I knew it! This whole time we were right about Microsoft's plan! Their only goal is to copy! (or buy, whichever is more economical)
  • According to an inside source ("The 12 Simple Secrets of Microsoft Management" by David Thielen), Microsoft's motto actually is "Total World Domination".
  • by linzeal (197905) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:43PM (#13559965) Homepage Journal
    I mean Bill Gates will always rail reactionary against anything he sees as a threat to his business model. I think the real question is why do we care what he has to say in the first place, he may be a savvy businessman but his days as a heady proponent of technology has long been overshadowed by his more nefarious practices.
  • "Software in general, whether it was from Microsoft or somebody else, was not set up for an environment where all the computers were connected together." -bill g.
    • Re:Favorite Quote (Score:3, Interesting)

      That is an interesting comment (real quote or no), since it could either be interpeted as correct or incorrect; depending entirely on context.

      In the context of *all* software, that is probably true originally. Early big iron certainly did not like to talk to other machines. It was a bit of a hack, if I recall correctly. Early micros were totally independant.

      On the other hand, by the time MS was on the scene (the CPM days) there were quite a few machines written from the ground up to talk to each other. In w
  • by Tibor the Hun (143056) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:44PM (#13559986)
    So, and I'm not trying to be a smartass, the same guys whose flagship product can't empty a recycle bin without seizing, are trying to be leaders in speech and video recognition?

    Clippy AV: "Hello User/Bear/Shrub, I see you've brought a Hammer/Salmon/Exhaust Manifold. Would you like me to assist you with it?
    [No] [Cancel]

  • by kevcol (3467) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:44PM (#13559987) Homepage
    Better news would have been the 'face off' with Napoleon Dynamite. [metronews.ca]
  • by CyricZ (887944) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:44PM (#13559989)
    Software in general, whether it was from Microsoft or somebody else, was not set up for an environment where all the computers were connected together. So it's not like there was some software that had this security capability and our software did not. As we use the Internet to connect everyone up, then the need to essentially have suspicion and only listen to certain other systems, and if flaws come up to have those updated very quickly, that became a new requirement.

    Of course software was set up for networked communication. Most UNIX (including *BSD and Linux) systems since the late 1970s have been network-aware in some form or another. And they have experienced nowhere near the problems that Microsoft's software has.

    Now it's intriguing that he's suggesting that it might be necessary to "only listen to certain other systems". That sounds an awful lot like a DRM-style situation for the Internet. Imagine not being able to connect to an FTP server running on Windows, only because you're using Mozilla or the FreeBSD ftp client, and such non-Microsoft products are deemed "insecure".

    • by mihalis (28146) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:07PM (#13560223) Homepage

      What in heaven's name is he talking about?

      [SNIP]

      Of course software was set up for networked communication. Most UNIX (including *BSD and Linux) systems since the late 1970s have been network-aware in some form or another. And they have experienced nowhere near the problems that Microsoft's software has.

      I assume this is a mistake, surely you meant to say "and experienced a huge number of security problems because UNIX was never designed with security as a prime consideration, and neither was the internet".

      For example, off the top of my head, there was the Morris Worm, remote root exploits in hundreds of versions of sendmail, similar problems with DNS. Default email relaying in SunOS and Solaris for many years. The list is endless.

      Now, it's true, a lot of progress has been made and lots of unix systems can be fairly secure now in skilled hands - a far more modest claim than yours.

  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:45PM (#13559996) Homepage
    "Software in general, whether it was from Microsoft or somebody else, was not set up for an environment where all the computers were connected together. So it's not like there was some software that had this security capability and our software did not."

    So, what was IBM's SNA (Systems Network Architecture)? Chopped liver?

    That's right up there with "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."
  • Richer? (Score:5, Funny)

    by CSHARP123 (904951) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:45PM (#13559999)
    Q: You showed Office 12 here for the first time today. How do you think users are going to react when they see such a different look? Gates: As Office has gotten richer, .....

    He meant to say as Office gor Bloated and I got Richer...

  • by alienfluid (677872) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:45PM (#13560002) Homepage
    slashdot is becoming more like a cheap tabloid everyday - making up sensational headlines from sentences in articles used out of context to sell their news to the readers. whatever happened to fair, unbiased news for the nerds? are the editors listening?
  • by SlothB77 (873673) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:46PM (#13560018)
    Since we are talking about slogans, I know what Google is against. I want to know what they are for? Do not be evil sounds nice and all, but I know they have some very tilted leanings [that may seem evil to some people] and a heck of a lot of information. But, saying what you are against is not inspirational. Saying what you are for, that inspires people.
    • by Adelbert (873575) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:24PM (#13560392) Journal
      Ultimately, Google are for making money. As are Microsoft. As are Apple, Novell, Red Hat, basically any for-profit organisation. Sometimes, they will do something that one perceives as noble, if only to increase turnover.

      Corporations have a legal mandate to make money. It doesn't mean they can do no good, just that they are opposed to good deeds if they result in the haemorraging of cash.

      Personally, I'm a big fan of the work Google do (at the moment at least). Just don't expect them to honestly set out inspirational visions for their future.

  • In Summary: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by blackmonday (607916) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:48PM (#13560030) Homepage
    In Summary:

    Google slogan: "Do no evil".
    Microsoft slogan: "Resistance is Futile".

  • by LegendOfLink (574790) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:51PM (#13560059) Homepage
    OK, we all know Gates is the biggest douchebag in Silicon Valley, but who would win in a fight: Larry Paige & Sergey Brin vs. Gates & Ballmer?

    I'm fairly certain Paige would thoroughly pound Gates into the floor; but Ballmer is really freakin' scary. That one I'm not so sure of. I'm picturing Ballmer being able to take out both Paige and Brin at the same time.

    Then again, Ballmer having Gates as a tag team partner would actually be a hinderence, so I'm thinking Paige and Brin would just barely be able to People's Elbow his ass into submission.
  • by saddino (183491) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:52PM (#13560070)
    Well, we don't know everything they are up to, but we do know their slogan and we disagree with that.


    char* slogan = "Don't Be Evil";
    char* corporateSlogan;

    if(corporateID == GOOGLE)
        corporateSlogan = slogan;
    else if(corporateID == MICROSOFT)
        corporateSlogan = &(slogan[6]);
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @05:18PM (#13560896)
      From what I've seen of Microsoft software, it'd be more like this:

      char* slogan = "Don't Be Evil";
      char* corporateSlogan;

      if (corporateID == GOOGLE)
          corporateSlogan = slogan;
      if (corporateID == MICROSOFT)
          corporateSlogan = &(slogan[23]);
  • by lazarus (2879) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:03PM (#13560175) Journal
    Gates on open source:

    "There are some zealots that think there should be no software jobs, that we should all, like, cut hair during the day and write code at night."

    Either he just doesn't get it, or he's refusing to acknowledge what open source software (and the GPL) really is. Software development *is* services... It's professional services. Work you get paid for. Work you pay someone else to do. Open source spurs innovation because it both allows you to stand on someone elses shoulders and forces you to make your shoulders available to someone else.

    That OSS developers cut hair for a living to support their "habit" is ridiculous. Would you let a slashdot member cut *your* hair?

  • by danharan (714822) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:07PM (#13560212) Journal
    I know most people here have an allergy to corporatey stuff, but a mission statement is different from a slogan. Here's M$'s mission statement:

    Our Mission [microsoft.com]

    At Microsoft, we work to help people and businesses throughout the world realize their full potential. This is our mission. Everything we do reflects this mission and the values that make it possible.

    I'm not so sure what their slogan is: You will be assimilated?

    In any case, it's clear that the only thing most of us thought as a slogan for google was Do no eviiil. The bit about organizing the world's information and making it useful- well, that's their mission statment.

    With a CEO that throws chairs around and a tech with both-feet in mouth disease, I'd be selling M$ shares right now.
  • by putko (753330) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:10PM (#13560248) Homepage Journal
    I'm thinking this is some lame attempt to pump up the stock.

    Bill Gates puts the psycho Ballmer in charge. Ballmer would be great if his only job was to crush little, cash-strapped companies run by twitchy VCs.

    But when MSFT has to compete with a real company, that has real money, and can hurt them, the psycho stuff doesn't work -- chair throwing. It makes them look bad in the press, like they are desperate.

    In earlier times, Ballmer could throw the chair, say "fuck" and "pussy" all he wanted, and nobody would really talk about it, because they'd be thinking --- jeez, if I blab about this, who knows if it will bite me in the ass.

    Now that the emperor has no clothes, that shit doesn't work.

    So then they have to trot out the Nice Bill to give interviews that dispute the "we are evil" tag, and try to make things look like it will all be OK.
  • by aapold (753705) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:10PM (#13560255) Homepage Journal
    be lawful evil.
  • by Kazoo the Clown (644526) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:14PM (#13560292)

    It's too much work, even with better tools, I've got things I'd rather be doing. While I may not trust Google to do it the way I'd like, what they end up with will be more than I have interest in doing by myself...

    And just what does Gates mean by "tools to organize"-- I doubt he means web-spider programs that will generate your own search engine database-- would it not likely mean that the tools would access a Microsoft database (that they apparently, haven't even bothered to organize) and you could then organize your links into Microsoft's data? Yeah, that sounds better than what Google's doing :-)...

  • gates, google (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:15PM (#13560308)
    I believe Google will stumble big time in the near future as it spreads itself out into too many businesses. It is really pure hubris on Google's part to think that it can handle the creation of a new Internet backbone *and* a consumer OS among all the other things it is trying to do.

    Perhaps their biggest mistake was pissing Microsoft off so much with the Kai Fu Lee deal. In trying to overachieve on too many goals, the last thing they need is Redmond as an enemy. The last thing they need is Ballmer and Gates fighting them every inch of the way.

    The amount of clout, IP, and coding prowess that MS wields should not be trivialized. The way to kill MS is to silently make them irrelevant and avoiding a war. Google just blew that strategy.

    And the kicker is that billg's graciousness in the interview towards google actually tells me that MS has already won even before the coming battle starts.
  • by maxpublic (450413) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:16PM (#13560318) Homepage
    But I don't think that someone who completely gives up license fees is ever going to have a substantial R&D budget and do the hard things, the things too hard to do in a university environment.

    Bill's ability to completely and utterly ignore any portion of reality which doesn't promote The Microsoft Way(TM) is truly extraordinary. From the way he talks I've come to think he actually believes the shit that spews forth from his pie-hole, in a very Howard Hughes-ian sort of way.

    Max
  • Gates Drunk? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrCopilot (871878) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:18PM (#13560340) Homepage Journal
    From TFA:
    At any point in our history, we've had competitors who were better at doing something. Novell was the best at file servers. Lotus was the best at spreadsheets. WordPerfect was the best at word processing.

    So its not just me. Even the Founder knows they suck (comparatively)

    Right now, because of the breadth of what we do, we have that in many areas. Nokia is way ahead of us in phones; we're closing the gap. Sony is ahead of us in video games. We're just on the verge of something (the Xbox 360) that will help us close the gap there. In Web search, Google is the far-away leader. Big honeymoon for them. Even if they do "me, too" type stuff, people think, "wow." nd Apple in music has done a fantastic job.

    We interupt this Bill Gates Honesty Break to bring you the following.

    In those areas where somebody else has done well, that's great. We'll match what they do, we'll bring new things to it, do it better and integrate it in with other things. And so it's very healthy for the consumer. We see that in search, we see it in music. It's not new at all that that's out there

    Translation: We make inferior products, bundle them, make exclusive deals, failing all else we buy the competitor and bury/integrate their product.

  • by stlhawkeye (868951) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:19PM (#13560354) Homepage Journal
    "Software in general, whether it was from Microsoft or somebody else, was not set up for an environment where all the computers were connected together. So it's not like there was capability and our software did not. As we use the Internet to connect everyone up, then the need to essentially have suspicion and only listen to certain other systems, and if flaws come up to have those updated very quickly, that became a new requirement."

    Ok, he's right there ... if this quote was from like 1962. Before there was teh webbs, before there was teh netz, before there was teh Microsoft, before there was teh UNIX, there was an operating system that was designed from the ground-up to incorporate advanced/enhanced security features (relative to the times), and it was called Multics.

    Unix has been established as a legitimate operating system since the 1970's. I guess you could say the "C" version would be the birthday of modern Unix, so we're talking 1973. Was Bill Gates out of grammar school yet at this point?

    Native TCP/IP support was built into the kernel in the early 1980's, a few years. http://www.computerhope.com/unix/xenix.htm [http]">Micros oft itself created a Unix port, and it probably doesn't surprise any of us that SCO ended up with it. The similarities between how SCO and MS behave in the industry and market aren't totally coincidence.

    So, Bill, you HAD a network-ready and relatively secure operating system 25 goddam years ago. And you're saying that it's just now that anybody cares about networking, communications, or information security? Security has been a concern since the fucking 1960's, and your own friggen company had a Unix build.

    Jesus H. I normally don't jump on the bash-Microsoft bandwagon and often grapple with some of YOU Slashdot turds for doing so, but if this isn't a bunch of merry sunshine blown up the collective asses of industry journalism, I don't know what is.

  • by fbg111 (529550) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:29PM (#13560437)
    "At any point in our history, we've had competitors who were better at doing something," Gates said

    And still are, I'd wager, even the defunct ones... :)

    Software in general, whether it was from Microsoft or somebody else, was not set up for an environment where all the computers were connected together. So it's not like there was some software that had this security capability and our software did not.

    Solaris, 'Network is the computer', most other *nix's, Linux...
  • Wrong damn slogan. (Score:4, Informative)

    by blanks (108019) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:54PM (#13560689) Homepage Journal
    "In fact, they have this slogan that they are going to organize the world's information. "

    No it wasn't the "do no evil" slogan. I'm guessing most of the post in this thread will be made on this comment the submitter had made, who should pull his head out of his ass and stop tryin to flamebait.
  • by kaoshin (110328) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @05:17PM (#13560886)
    This means that Microsoft is actually good, because the new slogan for Google is "Don't be evil, unless it's necessary for the greater good." [theonion.com]
  • by wandazulu (265281) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @05:28PM (#13560988)
    ...how can we capitalize on what *could* be a nice bit of PR disaster for M$, showing that Gates is off his rocker, not to be trusted around children, etc. It's simply wrong that he should think M$ came up with everything and let it stand at that; think of the readers who *don't* know better and are that bit more lulled into thinking computers were invented by M$.

    It's sort of a bizzare reversal of the phrase: every time Bill lies, a cash register goes "ring!"

May the bluebird of happiness twiddle your bits.

Working...