9 ms·

Bill Gates – A villain who lived to see himself become a hero? (2016)

43 points by ghgr 9y ago

usermac 9y ago
Ah yes, not mentioned in that narrative is a personal experience that happened twice in the 90's. I used a couple of tools to help fix software on PC's. MS bought them and took them off the market.
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
This comment is spot on: > I was a sysadmin through the tail end of the Microsoft desktop dominance. I'm glad that MS acted that way. It forever cemented in the minds of IT the danger of single vendor lock-in. [...] MS's bad behavior in the 90s and early 2000's bought us 50 to 100 years of lessons on what we need to avoid in the technology space.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  And yet people are still all too willing to throw all their eggs into one basket, with Apple or Google.
  - bennyelv 9y ago
    In my anecdotal experience, consumers yes, businesses less so.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Large businesses maybe; small and medium ones are more like consumers in this regard.
    - bni 9y ago
      Not my experience at all, businesses select Either AWS, Azure or Google cloud, today. Previously it was .NET/IIS or Java with vendor app server.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    And businesses with Amazon.
- skrebbel 9y ago
  I think he's very optimistic about the collective memory of tech people. I don't know enough about sysadmin work but programmers reinvent the same techniques every 10 years.
arsalanb 9y ago
While what the comment states may be factually correct, it is unfair, in my opinion. Classic example of people sitting in their couches at home to point out everything Bill Gates did wrong in an attempt to judge him for the right he's doing. Business is business, he did what he had to in order to see his company thrive. And now he's stepped back and wants to give back to society. Branding him as a villain who wants to buy his way into heaven is a cheap shot.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > Branding him as a villain who wants to buy his way into heaven is a cheap shot. Moreover, in reality the choice is usually between a villain "who wants to buy his way into heaven" and a villain who doesn't give a fuck. I'll take the former over the latter any time, because forever-saints with lots of money generally do not happen.
  - croon 9y ago
    > Moreover, in reality the choice is usually between a villain "who wants to buy his way into heaven" and a villain who doesn't give a fuck. I'll take the former over the latter any time, because forever-saints with lots of money generally do not happen. Indeed. There's also an immense difference between doing a genuinely good act for self-serving reasons (ie getting into heaven), and masquerading a self-interest as a noble good, meaning the act will have tangible negative effects, in conflict with its image. What I mean is that "buying your way into heaven" and being a saint with tons of money doesn't have any meaningful difference. It doesn't matter if I build wells and schools in a third world country for instantaneous euphoria or for delayed euphoria through praise or for speculated reward in the afterlife. As long as you're not building the school in order to indoctrinate the children into supporting your plans of world domination, you can and should do good for whatever reasons you want.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      I agree. > What I mean is that "buying your way into heaven" and being a saint with tons of money doesn't have any meaningful difference. It doesn't at the act of doing the spending, yes. The difference I meant was of history - by "a saint with tons of money" I meant someone who never did anything questionable throughout their entire life, and yet somehow still ended up in command of millions (or billions) of dollars. That pretty much doesn't happen (especially because there is always someone who'll find something questionable in everything and will spin it as evil; even Jesus got tried and executed for pissing off the establishment).
crdoconnor 9y ago
I wouldn't say that all of Bill Gates' charity work necessarily grants him "hero" status: https://www.alternet.org/education/how-bill-gates-and-his-billionaire-pals-used-their-enormous-wealth-start-privatizing https://www.alternet.org/education/how-bill-gates-and-his-bi...
bernardlunn 9y ago
Don’t think “villain” works - its just business. But I have forgiven years of dealing with crappy software as he has since saved so many lives
- majewsky 9y ago
  > Don’t think “villain” works - its just business. The biggest trick capitalism ever played on us is all the horrible behaviors that are justified as "that's just how the system works".
  - smcl 9y ago
    Yeh I'm saddened by how easily "it's just business" seems to be used to justify all manners of behaviour from petty bullying to ruining lives, or destroying careers or companies.
- 2_listerine_pls 9y ago
  Learn about his tactics before you voice useless opinions.
Nokinside 9y ago
It's hard to describe the ruthlessness of Microsoft in the 80s and 90's and how ruthlessly Gates ran the company. Bill Gates was 'Gordon Gekko' of technology. He was an angry office bully and nightmare boss (he admits this himself). Gates didn't run Microsoft as a technology company. Technological merit was very low in the decision making. It was all about "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" (phrase used by U.S. Department of Justice to describe Microsoft). MS threw lawyers and dirty tactics against competitors. OEM's had to follow directions from MS. Only after Bill Gates resigned his position as a Chief Architect you started to see technological quality improve. Software startups and VC companies in that era needed so called "Microsoft Strategy". What to do when MS shows interest? Immediate sell out or fight until death. If you demo them your product, they can make a copy. You can sue them, but they just throw in more lawyers, buy out your chief architects with millions. If the company wins the court battle years later it's too late. MS could afford to lose in the court and still win. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation
adrian_mrd 9y ago
Also worth a read, for context: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2534391/microsoft-windows/for-bill-gates--antitrust-fight-was-a-personal-crucible.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2534391/microsoft-wind...
vanderZwan 9y ago
There are two things that I consider important to keep in mind when discussing this kind of stuff: the issues with celebrity culture, probably best captured in "celebrity is not harmless fun – it’s the lieutenant of exploitation" by George Monbiot, and (criticisms of) Great Man theory and how that highlights the importance of distinguishing the individual from the structural[0][1]. From Monbiot's writing: > Corporation means body; capital means head. But corporate capital has neither head nor body. It is hard for people to attach themselves to a homogenised franchise, owned by a hedge fund whose corporate identity consists of a filing cabinet in Panama City. So the machine needs a mask. It must wear the face of someone we see as often as we see our next-door neighbours. It is pointless to ask what Kim Kardashian does to earn her living; her role is to exist in our minds. By playing our virtual neighbour, she induces a click of recognition on behalf of whatever grey monolith sits behind her this week. Of course, Bill Gates isn't just a nerd-celebrity, he was the actual boss of Microsoft, and as such has a big impact on its culture and vision and all of that. Nevertheless, equating Bill Gates with MS is akin to saying that I am my neocortex while ignoring every other part of my body. With giant companies like MS and Apple, neither Gates nor Jobs were the company. A lot of faceless people steer the whole thing. Which brings us to Great Man theory: > You must admit that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown.... Before he can remake his society, his society must make him. — Herbert Spencer, The Study of Sociology "Bill Gates, head of evil Microsoft", did not happen in a vacuum. Microsoft and its people also enabled him. Now, I'm not saying that Bill Gates should be excused for all the shit that MS did when he was in charge there, but using a person as the personification of a giant company is really "primal", appealing to our tribal instincts. I actually do not think that this is bad! Creating complex social structures by repurposing old instincts is an efficient tactic, since it literally comes naturally to us. However, the risk is that we may not be aware of it. This can make a difference between us using our instincts to our benefits, or being exploited through them. It is important to become aware that individual and structural processes are linked and influence each other greatly, but that they not the same thing. The importance of this can be seen in modern discussions of racism or sexism: people often get defensive because they feel personally attacked when structural problems are raised, because they do not see the distinction. So on this topic: I am much more interested in the structural problems of MS, Apple and the tech industry in general. Debating whether Bill Gates is a villain or a hero is less interesting than looking at what his impact on all of this was, what to learn from that, and what can be done to address current structural issues. [0] http://www.monbiot.com/2016/12/22/imaginary-friends-2/ http://www.monbiot.com/2016/12/22/imaginary-friends-2/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory
mchahn 9y ago
Ironically, the evil businessman Bill Gates was always a nice guy. I had several business meetings with both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and they were on the opposite ends of the spectrum. I was on the same dais with Jobs at a conference and had a personal dinner with Bill in Tokyo. Steve was the biggest ahole on the planet while Bill was very personable. So I am convinced that Bill's current good deeds are reflections of his inherent personality and not related to his business persona. P.S. Sorry about the name-dropping.

43 points by ghgr 9y ago

Ah yes, not mentioned in that narrative is a personal experience that happened twice in the 90's. I used a couple of tools to help fix software on PC's. MS bought them and took them off the market.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

This comment is spot on: > I was a sysadmin through the tail end of the Microsoft desktop dominance. I'm glad that MS acted that way. It forever cemented in the minds of IT the danger of single vendor lock-in. [...] MS's bad behavior in the 90s and early 2000's bought us 50 to 100 years of lessons on what we need to avoid in the technology space.

KozmoNau7 9y ago
And yet people are still all too willing to throw all their eggs into one basket, with Apple or Google.
- bennyelv 9y ago
  In my anecdotal experience, consumers yes, businesses less so.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Large businesses maybe; small and medium ones are more like consumers in this regard.
  - bni 9y ago
    Not my experience at all, businesses select Either AWS, Azure or Google cloud, today. Previously it was .NET/IIS or Java with vendor app server.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  And businesses with Amazon.
skrebbel 9y ago
I think he's very optimistic about the collective memory of tech people. I don't know enough about sysadmin work but programmers reinvent the same techniques every 10 years.

arsalanb 9y ago

While what the comment states may be factually correct, it is unfair, in my opinion. Classic example of people sitting in their couches at home to point out everything Bill Gates did wrong in an attempt to judge him for the right he's doing. Business is business, he did what he had to in order to see his company thrive. And now he's stepped back and wants to give back to society. Branding him as a villain who wants to buy his way into heaven is a cheap shot.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> Branding him as a villain who wants to buy his way into heaven is a cheap shot. Moreover, in reality the choice is usually between a villain "who wants to buy his way into heaven" and a villain who doesn't give a fuck. I'll take the former over the latter any time, because forever-saints with lots of money generally do not happen.
- croon 9y ago
  > Moreover, in reality the choice is usually between a villain "who wants to buy his way into heaven" and a villain who doesn't give a fuck. I'll take the former over the latter any time, because forever-saints with lots of money generally do not happen. Indeed. There's also an immense difference between doing a genuinely good act for self-serving reasons (ie getting into heaven), and masquerading a self-interest as a noble good, meaning the act will have tangible negative effects, in conflict with its image. What I mean is that "buying your way into heaven" and being a saint with tons of money doesn't have any meaningful difference. It doesn't matter if I build wells and schools in a third world country for instantaneous euphoria or for delayed euphoria through praise or for speculated reward in the afterlife. As long as you're not building the school in order to indoctrinate the children into supporting your plans of world domination, you can and should do good for whatever reasons you want.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    I agree. > What I mean is that "buying your way into heaven" and being a saint with tons of money doesn't have any meaningful difference. It doesn't at the act of doing the spending, yes. The difference I meant was of history - by "a saint with tons of money" I meant someone who never did anything questionable throughout their entire life, and yet somehow still ended up in command of millions (or billions) of dollars. That pretty much doesn't happen (especially because there is always someone who'll find something questionable in everything and will spin it as evil; even Jesus got tried and executed for pissing off the establishment).

crdoconnor 9y ago

I wouldn't say that all of Bill Gates' charity work necessarily grants him "hero" status: https://www.alternet.org/education/how-bill-gates-and-his-billionaire-pals-used-their-enormous-wealth-start-privatizing https://www.alternet.org/education/how-bill-gates-and-his-bi...

bernardlunn 9y ago

Don’t think “villain” works - its just business. But I have forgiven years of dealing with crappy software as he has since saved so many lives

majewsky 9y ago
> Don’t think “villain” works - its just business. The biggest trick capitalism ever played on us is all the horrible behaviors that are justified as "that's just how the system works".
- smcl 9y ago
  Yeh I'm saddened by how easily "it's just business" seems to be used to justify all manners of behaviour from petty bullying to ruining lives, or destroying careers or companies.
2_listerine_pls 9y ago
Learn about his tactics before you voice useless opinions.

Nokinside 9y ago

It's hard to describe the ruthlessness of Microsoft in the 80s and 90's and how ruthlessly Gates ran the company. Bill Gates was 'Gordon Gekko' of technology. He was an angry office bully and nightmare boss (he admits this himself). Gates didn't run Microsoft as a technology company. Technological merit was very low in the decision making. It was all about "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" (phrase used by U.S. Department of Justice to describe Microsoft). MS threw lawyers and dirty tactics against competitors. OEM's had to follow directions from MS. Only after Bill Gates resigned his position as a Chief Architect you started to see technological quality improve. Software startups and VC companies in that era needed so called "Microsoft Strategy". What to do when MS shows interest? Immediate sell out or fight until death. If you demo them your product, they can make a copy. You can sue them, but they just throw in more lawyers, buy out your chief architects with millions. If the company wins the court battle years later it's too late. MS could afford to lose in the court and still win. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation

adrian_mrd 9y ago

Also worth a read, for context: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2534391/microsoft-windows/for-bill-gates--antitrust-fight-was-a-personal-crucible.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2534391/microsoft-wind...

vanderZwan 9y ago

There are two things that I consider important to keep in mind when discussing this kind of stuff: the issues with celebrity culture, probably best captured in "celebrity is not harmless fun – it’s the lieutenant of exploitation" by George Monbiot, and (criticisms of) Great Man theory and how that highlights the importance of distinguishing the individual from the structural[0][1]. From Monbiot's writing: > Corporation means body; capital means head. But corporate capital has neither head nor body. It is hard for people to attach themselves to a homogenised franchise, owned by a hedge fund whose corporate identity consists of a filing cabinet in Panama City. So the machine needs a mask. It must wear the face of someone we see as often as we see our next-door neighbours. It is pointless to ask what Kim Kardashian does to earn her living; her role is to exist in our minds. By playing our virtual neighbour, she induces a click of recognition on behalf of whatever grey monolith sits behind her this week. Of course, Bill Gates isn't just a nerd-celebrity, he was the actual boss of Microsoft, and as such has a big impact on its culture and vision and all of that. Nevertheless, equating Bill Gates with MS is akin to saying that I am my neocortex while ignoring every other part of my body. With giant companies like MS and Apple, neither Gates nor Jobs were the company. A lot of faceless people steer the whole thing. Which brings us to Great Man theory: > You must admit that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown.... Before he can remake his society, his society must make him. — Herbert Spencer, The Study of Sociology "Bill Gates, head of evil Microsoft", did not happen in a vacuum. Microsoft and its people also enabled him. Now, I'm not saying that Bill Gates should be excused for all the shit that MS did when he was in charge there, but using a person as the personification of a giant company is really "primal", appealing to our tribal instincts. I actually do not think that this is bad! Creating complex social structures by repurposing old instincts is an efficient tactic, since it literally comes naturally to us. However, the risk is that we may not be aware of it. This can make a difference between us using our instincts to our benefits, or being exploited through them. It is important to become aware that individual and structural processes are linked and influence each other greatly, but that they not the same thing. The importance of this can be seen in modern discussions of racism or sexism: people often get defensive because they feel personally attacked when structural problems are raised, because they do not see the distinction. So on this topic: I am much more interested in the structural problems of MS, Apple and the tech industry in general. Debating whether Bill Gates is a villain or a hero is less interesting than looking at what his impact on all of this was, what to learn from that, and what can be done to address current structural issues. [0] http://www.monbiot.com/2016/12/22/imaginary-friends-2/ http://www.monbiot.com/2016/12/22/imaginary-friends-2/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory

mchahn 9y ago

Ironically, the evil businessman Bill Gates was always a nice guy. I had several business meetings with both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and they were on the opposite ends of the spectrum. I was on the same dais with Jobs at a conference and had a personal dinner with Bill in Tokyo. Steve was the biggest ahole on the planet while Bill was very personable. So I am convinced that Bill's current good deeds are reflections of his inherent personality and not related to his business persona. P.S. Sorry about the name-dropping.