4 ms·

Quite the opposite in my reading: Kildall's place in the history of computing is being the guy who did not become "Bill Gates" despite having all the right skil

by usrusr 8y ago

Quite the opposite in my reading: Kildall's place in the history of computing is being the guy who did not become "Bill Gates" despite having all the right skills and being at the right place at the right time. One difference between Gates and Kildall at the time was pedigree, and look how it turned out. (Now I'm off to reminisce about GEM)

skookumchuck 8y ago
What is your evidence that "pedigree" made the difference? Edit: how rude of me to ask for evidence!
- ataturk 8y ago
  Here's why: If Gates failed, he knew he could go back to Mom & Dad's place and be just fine. We don't all have that guarantee in life. My early years were punctuated with just how bad lower middle class life can be, my parents weren't poor, just lower middle class, but there was a ton of strife and not that great of a home or property to live on. Thus, every risk I took in my 20s had to be tempered by the "what if" game--if I fail at this, I have to move back to that shit life. Of five children, I am the only truly successful one, but I never could justify the really big risks that might propel me really far. Then again, it has long been my belief that successful entrepreneurs are selected and not simply lucky. So yes, pedigree is important, especially if that pedigree involves three-letter agencies like C-I-A, looking at you Google and Facebook.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  I didn’t downvote you, but to honestly answer your edit: you’re not being downvoted because you’re asking for evidence. You’re being downvoted because it seems unlikely your question is being asked in good faith. Do you actually believe there is an empirical basis for the person’s opinion that pedigree played a part, or are you just challenging it becuase you know there is no such empirical evidence for those two specific cases? Moreover it’s kind of missing the forest for the trees...yes, pedigree might not have literally been the differentiator between these two specific entrepreneurs. But do you have any meaningful critique to the basic idea that people with better than average starts in life have better than average outcomes? That is what is primarily under discussion here, not Bill Gates in particular.
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    usrusr said "in my reading" and that pedigree was the factor that made the difference. It is therefore fair to ask for a reference. IBM knew about Gates, and went to Kildall first (in fact, Gates suggested Kildall to them). Why would they have gone if "pedigree" was what they cared about? Kildall had what they wanted, Gates did not. It dropped in Kildall's lap, and he botched it. IBM went back to Gates, and Gates didn't need to be asked twice.
    - dctoedt 8y ago
      I remember reading somewhere that when IBM was looking for an OS and was starting to talk to Bill Gates, John Akers (IBM senior exec, maybe CEO then?) was briefed on it and said, "Isn't that Mary Gates's boy?" Akers and Mary Gates were both on the national board of directors for United Way — and reportedly Mary Gates had talked to Akers about the importance of the newer, smaller companies in the burgeoning computer industry. [0] [0] https://hbr.org/2005/12/how-to-build-your-network https://hbr.org/2005/12/how-to-build-your-network
      - skookumchuck 8y ago
        Obviously IBM was looking at Gates before noticing he was Mary's son. Don't forget that Gates was already a major player in the microcomputer software business, he didn't need any more "connection" than that. Of course IBM would go knocking on his door.
    - usrusr 8y ago
      Apparently you have read all the same references as I: without his maternal network, it is quite unlikely that Gates would have ever been in the position to suggest Kildall. Or to later not suggest Paterson as replacement, but instead resell him/his work for the markup that made Microsoft. Even if that network wasn't actively involved at all (e.g. by notifying Bill of the opportunity to supply BASIC, I think it is highly unlikely that it want involved at least that amount), the buyers at IBM would definitely have been aware of his family ties and unconsciously or not have awarded more default trust than to a random stranger. It is also not unlikely that Microsoft was given a chance in hope of currying favors with a certain person high in their own org chart or in fear of negative repercussions. Both the hoping/fearing and the favors/repercussions don't even have to happen voluntarily or consciously, it's hard enough to suppress those effects when you become aware of them and don't want to be that kind of person.
austincheney 8y ago
What about Ray Dalio? He dominated his industry almost as successfully as Gates and is about the same age. There is no pedigree benefit there. His dad was a jazz musician. Drawing a blanket conclusion from a single comparison of only two samples is a hasty generalization. Downvoting somebody out of comfort for your fallacy is kind of assholish.
- selectodude 8y ago
  Ray Dalio made his money on Wall Street before striking it out on his own. He didn't drop out of school or anything.
- usrusr 8y ago
  The existence of rags-to-riches stories elsewhere does not make Bill Gates an example of one. And that's what this whole sub-thread is about: is the riches to even bigger riches story of Bill Gates an example of rags to riches, just transposed upwards, or is it an example of dynastic headstart? When you look at that pivotal moment when MS and DR were sent off on completely different trajectories by the 800 pound gorilla that IBM was at the time, it's unquestionably the headstart one. While Kildall was just trying to get a good price for their product/expertise (solid middle-class thinking at its best, nothing wrong with that), Gates was already playing the high-level game, brokering between IBM and SCP by merit of a foot in the door via family ties.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  > Drawing a blanket conclusion from a single comparison of only two samples is a hasty generalization. It seems unreasonable and uncharitable to imply that people are building their worldviews off of the stories of Gates and Kildall alone.

by usrusr 8y ago

skookumchuck 8y ago

What is your evidence that "pedigree" made the difference? Edit: how rude of me to ask for evidence!

ataturk 8y ago
Here's why: If Gates failed, he knew he could go back to Mom & Dad's place and be just fine. We don't all have that guarantee in life. My early years were punctuated with just how bad lower middle class life can be, my parents weren't poor, just lower middle class, but there was a ton of strife and not that great of a home or property to live on. Thus, every risk I took in my 20s had to be tempered by the "what if" game--if I fail at this, I have to move back to that shit life. Of five children, I am the only truly successful one, but I never could justify the really big risks that might propel me really far. Then again, it has long been my belief that successful entrepreneurs are selected and not simply lucky. So yes, pedigree is important, especially if that pedigree involves three-letter agencies like C-I-A, looking at you Google and Facebook.
throwawaymath 8y ago
I didn’t downvote you, but to honestly answer your edit: you’re not being downvoted because you’re asking for evidence. You’re being downvoted because it seems unlikely your question is being asked in good faith. Do you actually believe there is an empirical basis for the person’s opinion that pedigree played a part, or are you just challenging it becuase you know there is no such empirical evidence for those two specific cases? Moreover it’s kind of missing the forest for the trees...yes, pedigree might not have literally been the differentiator between these two specific entrepreneurs. But do you have any meaningful critique to the basic idea that people with better than average starts in life have better than average outcomes? That is what is primarily under discussion here, not Bill Gates in particular.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  usrusr said "in my reading" and that pedigree was the factor that made the difference. It is therefore fair to ask for a reference. IBM knew about Gates, and went to Kildall first (in fact, Gates suggested Kildall to them). Why would they have gone if "pedigree" was what they cared about? Kildall had what they wanted, Gates did not. It dropped in Kildall's lap, and he botched it. IBM went back to Gates, and Gates didn't need to be asked twice.
  - dctoedt 8y ago
    I remember reading somewhere that when IBM was looking for an OS and was starting to talk to Bill Gates, John Akers (IBM senior exec, maybe CEO then?) was briefed on it and said, "Isn't that Mary Gates's boy?" Akers and Mary Gates were both on the national board of directors for United Way — and reportedly Mary Gates had talked to Akers about the importance of the newer, smaller companies in the burgeoning computer industry. [0] [0] https://hbr.org/2005/12/how-to-build-your-network https://hbr.org/2005/12/how-to-build-your-network
    - skookumchuck 8y ago
      Obviously IBM was looking at Gates before noticing he was Mary's son. Don't forget that Gates was already a major player in the microcomputer software business, he didn't need any more "connection" than that. Of course IBM would go knocking on his door.
  - usrusr 8y ago
    Apparently you have read all the same references as I: without his maternal network, it is quite unlikely that Gates would have ever been in the position to suggest Kildall. Or to later not suggest Paterson as replacement, but instead resell him/his work for the markup that made Microsoft. Even if that network wasn't actively involved at all (e.g. by notifying Bill of the opportunity to supply BASIC, I think it is highly unlikely that it want involved at least that amount), the buyers at IBM would definitely have been aware of his family ties and unconsciously or not have awarded more default trust than to a random stranger. It is also not unlikely that Microsoft was given a chance in hope of currying favors with a certain person high in their own org chart or in fear of negative repercussions. Both the hoping/fearing and the favors/repercussions don't even have to happen voluntarily or consciously, it's hard enough to suppress those effects when you become aware of them and don't want to be that kind of person.

austincheney 8y ago

What about Ray Dalio? He dominated his industry almost as successfully as Gates and is about the same age. There is no pedigree benefit there. His dad was a jazz musician. Drawing a blanket conclusion from a single comparison of only two samples is a hasty generalization. Downvoting somebody out of comfort for your fallacy is kind of assholish.

selectodude 8y ago
Ray Dalio made his money on Wall Street before striking it out on his own. He didn't drop out of school or anything.
usrusr 8y ago
The existence of rags-to-riches stories elsewhere does not make Bill Gates an example of one. And that's what this whole sub-thread is about: is the riches to even bigger riches story of Bill Gates an example of rags to riches, just transposed upwards, or is it an example of dynastic headstart? When you look at that pivotal moment when MS and DR were sent off on completely different trajectories by the 800 pound gorilla that IBM was at the time, it's unquestionably the headstart one. While Kildall was just trying to get a good price for their product/expertise (solid middle-class thinking at its best, nothing wrong with that), Gates was already playing the high-level game, brokering between IBM and SCP by merit of a foot in the door via family ties.
dwaltrip 8y ago
> Drawing a blanket conclusion from a single comparison of only two samples is a hasty generalization. It seems unreasonable and uncharitable to imply that people are building their worldviews off of the stories of Gates and Kildall alone.