5 ms·

I get Bill and Warren, but Mark?

jmathai 10y ago
A reference to the rumors that he's preparing to run for office. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/zuckerberg-2020/513689/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/zucke...
geoka9 10y ago
Don't know about Buffett, but I don't get Gates either. He was a ruthless businessman using every trick in the book (legal and illegal) to solidify his company's monopoly.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- criddell 10y ago
  Well it wouldn't be Gates of 1992 running, it would be Gates of today. Have you changed in the past 25 years? I sure have.
  - spooterspooter 10y ago
    He'd have to be a fool to change the thing that made him one of the richest men alive. So I assume he's still quite ruthless.
    - criddell 10y ago
      Why? If somebody was the best marathon runner in the world and they retired and took up fly fishing, would you say they were fools for doing so?
      - spooterspooter 10y ago
        Yes. Would you trust Lance Armstrong not to cheat again?
      - InitialLastName 10y ago
        I'd say they were a fool if they willfully forgot how to walk.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  Every illegal trick? Come on. I competed against Microsoft (compilers) and they were a tough competitor. But I never saw anything illegal. Microsoft benefited a lot from their competitors simply being incompetent (see "In Search Of Stupidity" by Chapman.)
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    Compilers were one thing they didn't bundle. Whether they let you know everything about their operating system they knew is quite another matter. We now know there was no "Chinese Wall" between OS dev and app dev. Then toss in FUD for good measure, OED contracts that got them a DOJ consent decree for illegal activity and more...
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      I'm familiar with the famous IE "bundling" thing that the case revolved around. Microsoft gave away IE for free. How this was supposedly different from Microsoft giving away a long list of other tools, like a text editor, escapes me. As for me, I started with Netscape (free). I switched to IE (free) because IE crashed less often. I eventually switched to Chrome (free) because IE hung accessing github. Every operating system I have (OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, Windows) comes with a bundled browser. My phone comes with one. My Kindle comes with one. Most of the software I use daily is free. There was no evidence of monopoly pricing. The very fact that IE was given away was de facto proof they did not have a monopoly. The case never made any sense.
      - SmellyGeekBoy 10y ago
        Absolutely spot on. How an average user was expected to download an "alternative browser" without having a browser pre-installed was beyond me. The whole "browser choice" prompt was a farce. This is before we get into the part about removing Windows Media Player from some EU releases...
        WalterBright 10y ago

A reference to the rumors that he's preparing to run for office. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/zuckerberg-2020/513689/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/zucke...

geoka9 10y ago

Don't know about Buffett, but I don't get Gates either. He was a ruthless businessman using every trick in the book (legal and illegal) to solidify his company's monopoly.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
criddell 10y ago
Well it wouldn't be Gates of 1992 running, it would be Gates of today. Have you changed in the past 25 years? I sure have.
- spooterspooter 10y ago
  He'd have to be a fool to change the thing that made him one of the richest men alive. So I assume he's still quite ruthless.
  - criddell 10y ago
    Why? If somebody was the best marathon runner in the world and they retired and took up fly fishing, would you say they were fools for doing so?
    - spooterspooter 10y ago
      Yes. Would you trust Lance Armstrong not to cheat again?
    - InitialLastName 10y ago
      I'd say they were a fool if they willfully forgot how to walk.
WalterBright 10y ago
Every illegal trick? Come on. I competed against Microsoft (compilers) and they were a tough competitor. But I never saw anything illegal. Microsoft benefited a lot from their competitors simply being incompetent (see "In Search Of Stupidity" by Chapman.)
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  Compilers were one thing they didn't bundle. Whether they let you know everything about their operating system they knew is quite another matter. We now know there was no "Chinese Wall" between OS dev and app dev. Then toss in FUD for good measure, OED contracts that got them a DOJ consent decree for illegal activity and more...
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    I'm familiar with the famous IE "bundling" thing that the case revolved around. Microsoft gave away IE for free. How this was supposedly different from Microsoft giving away a long list of other tools, like a text editor, escapes me. As for me, I started with Netscape (free). I switched to IE (free) because IE crashed less often. I eventually switched to Chrome (free) because IE hung accessing github. Every operating system I have (OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, Windows) comes with a bundled browser. My phone comes with one. My Kindle comes with one. Most of the software I use daily is free. There was no evidence of monopoly pricing. The very fact that IE was given away was de facto proof they did not have a monopoly. The case never made any sense.
    - SmellyGeekBoy 10y ago
      Absolutely spot on. How an average user was expected to download an "alternative browser" without having a browser pre-installed was beyond me. The whole "browser choice" prompt was a farce. This is before we get into the part about removing Windows Media Player from some EU releases...
      - WalterBright 10y ago