5 ms·

Seeing him speak so candidly like this makes me think of how unfairly Bill Gates was vilified during Microsoft's peak in the 90s.

by bgentry 15y ago

redthrowaway 15y ago
Oh, it was entirely fair. Microsoft only stopped being evil once Gates left. Its predatory and monopolistic behaviour was driven primarily by him, personally. Bill Gates is, I suspect, a much better person now than he was in the 90s, and the world is a better place because of it. His current laudable campaigns do nothing to detract from his past misdeeds, however. He was evil, now he's good. I'm glad that he's devoting the same energy and passion to stamping out Malaria and AIDS as he did stamping out Netscape and Linux. Hopefully he'll be more successful, as well.
- oldstrangers 15y ago
  This is some of the most ridiculously biased shit I've ever read on HN. Please explain his past misdeeds that are so unforgivable that his $30 odd billion in charitable donations can't even erase.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    I don't think anything erases the past. On the whole, the world is a lot better off for having Bill Gates in it. But just because he's doing a lot of good now doesn't mean the bad he did doesn't count.
    - oldstrangers 15y ago
      He had aggressive business practices? That's what makes him evil? He wanted IE and Windows to win out over Netscape and Linux? Give me a break. That is as mundanely not-evil in the business world as you could get.
      - mixmastamyk 15y ago
        "Give me a break" == lazy. Being willfully ignorant of MS's numerous misdeeds is not an argument. And if you don't have all the facts available, perhaps you should refrain from commenting.
      - vidarh 15y ago
        Aggressive isn't the problem. Illegal, immoral and anti-competitive was the problem.
        shingen 15y ago
        I've yet to see a large company that wasn't illegal, immoral, or anti-competitive by the utopian-fairy-nerd standard. That standard is more immoral than anything Microsoft ever did. It requires companies to kill themselves once they achieve too great a level of success.
        geebee 15y ago
        But there can still be an order of magnitude difference between what these large companies do. Just because they all fall short of a "utopian-fairy-nerd" standard doesn't mean they're all equally reprehensible! Reminds me of something pg wrote in "what happened to yahoo" http://paulgraham.com/yahoo.html http://paulgraham.com/yahoo.html "It's hard for anyone much younger than me to understand the fear Microsoft still inspired in 1995. Imagine a company with several times the power Google has now, but way meaner. It was perfectly reasonable to be afraid of them."
        rbanffy 15y ago
        > the utopian-fairy-nerd standard. And this is how we got on the mess we are, when regard for what's right takes a back seat to how much money one can make. No. I won't play by these rules.
  - prodigal_erik 15y ago
    The money he's spending is extorted from our industry. If you believe the good somehow outweighs the harm, do you also believe that every tech company and every computer user should be robbed and the proceeds used to further help the poor, with no vote and none of the burden being shouldered from outside tech? It disturbs me that there's still no real restitution sought from people who knowingly, deliberately attack our society's mechanism for allocating most all resources.
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    Doesn't it depend on the harm caused by his misdeeds? If his business practices caused $100 billion or more of harm to humanity (by holding back the tech industry), could $30 billion wash that away? I don't know how you could calculate the cost of Gates' misdeeds in a way that people would agree on, but I find it entirely reasonable that some people feel that the harm far outweighed the giving and that some people feel the opposite.
    - chollida1 15y ago
      > I don't know how you could calculate the cost of Gates' misdeeds in a way that people would agree on, but I find it entirely reasonable that some people feel that the harm far outweighed the giving and that some people feel the opposite. That's interesting. From my perspective of growing up with computers in the 80's and 90's, Microsoft was a net positive for the industry. They took a really fragmented and immature industry and helped push it to the mainstream and helped allow computers to be a part of pretty much everyone in the first worlds life.
  - jacquesm 15y ago
    Every time I buy a computer that has microsoft windows release 'x' installed which I then wipe to install Linux I subsidize Bill Gates' ability to be a philanthropist.
- tfb 15y ago
  Maybe Bill Gates was never truly "evil". Maybe he just did what he had to do to amass the wealth that is required to do truly great things like stamping out Malaria and AIDS. Who is to say he wasn't planning his philanthropy all along? I certainly am. It's one of the main driving factors behind the business goals I work towards every day. I think Bill Gates has always been kind of misunderstood.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    That's entirely possible, but it was never the impression that I got at the time. True, I could be grossly misjudging his motivations in the 90s, but I don't think so. I think he was driven to be successful for its own sake. I'm certainly glad that he's turned to philanthropy, but I think applying his current actions as the motivation for his actions 15 years ago smacks of revisionism.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    Or maybe his current philanthropy is his way of assuaging the guilt over his prior evil, and not a planned "the ends justify the means" rationalization for his evil from the outset.
  - sateesh 15y ago
    Does that mean that as long ends are noble you are not worried about the means ?
  - oldstrangers 15y ago
    I think Bill Gates is generally misunderstood because we don't fully appreciate just how intelligent he is. He's not routinely creating or providing answers (in the way that a scientist like Einstein was constantly offering up new ideas), so it's hard to really measure. He's inherently private, which only hinders our understanding of him even more. But I think historically, we will look back on him as having some of the most influential and profound ideas (and decisions) of the 21st century. No one person has done as much for humanity as Bill Gates has, perhaps in the history of the world. The only comparisons are perhaps to someone like Jonas Salk.
- jeswin 15y ago
  Evil will be passing your personal information to governments which want to put your life in danger. Or destroying the environment. Or willfully having inadequate safeguards for profit. And bundling a web browser with the OS.
  - paganel 15y ago
    > Or willfully having inadequate safeguards for profit. In the early 2000s Steve Ballmer himself visited my (rather unimportant) East-European country and had a one-on-one with the then PM about the software-procurement decisions the Government was about to take. Soon enough it was decided that all Government-run institutions in the country should be fitted with Windows-run computers, using only Microsoft software. A lot of my compatriots' tax money (and my own money) went directly into MS' coffers (when it could have find a better use in other, more important places), but I can see that 10 years from that moment some of it is invested in trying to cure malaria. Well, at least we weren't robbed for nothing.
- bad_user 15y ago
  Microsoft only stopped being evil once Gates left. Since Gates left, Microsoft stopped winning or creating products people want, turning slowly into a patents troll instead. Also, Microsoft's "evilness" during Gates pales in comparison to what Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon are doing right now.
- slackerIII 15y ago
  "Microsoft only stopped being evil once Gates left" Having worked there and talked to the employees, I'd blame the consent decree more than Gates leaving. But I'm curious what your sources are.
- jonhendry 15y ago
  There's still evil at Microsoft, but it reportedly has turned inward, emanating from HR.

Seeing him speak so candidly like this makes me think of how unfairly Bill Gates was vilified during Microsoft's peak in the 90s.

by bgentry 15y ago

Seeing him speak so candidly like this makes me think of how unfairly Bill Gates was vilified during Microsoft's peak in the 90s.

redthrowaway 15y ago

Oh, it was entirely fair. Microsoft only stopped being evil once Gates left. Its predatory and monopolistic behaviour was driven primarily by him, personally. Bill Gates is, I suspect, a much better person now than he was in the 90s, and the world is a better place because of it. His current laudable campaigns do nothing to detract from his past misdeeds, however. He was evil, now he's good. I'm glad that he's devoting the same energy and passion to stamping out Malaria and AIDS as he did stamping out Netscape and Linux. Hopefully he'll be more successful, as well.

oldstrangers 15y ago
This is some of the most ridiculously biased shit I've ever read on HN. Please explain his past misdeeds that are so unforgivable that his $30 odd billion in charitable donations can't even erase.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  I don't think anything erases the past. On the whole, the world is a lot better off for having Bill Gates in it. But just because he's doing a lot of good now doesn't mean the bad he did doesn't count.
  - oldstrangers 15y ago
    He had aggressive business practices? That's what makes him evil? He wanted IE and Windows to win out over Netscape and Linux? Give me a break. That is as mundanely not-evil in the business world as you could get.
    - mixmastamyk 15y ago
      "Give me a break" == lazy. Being willfully ignorant of MS's numerous misdeeds is not an argument. And if you don't have all the facts available, perhaps you should refrain from commenting.
    - vidarh 15y ago
      Aggressive isn't the problem. Illegal, immoral and anti-competitive was the problem.
      - shingen 15y ago
        I've yet to see a large company that wasn't illegal, immoral, or anti-competitive by the utopian-fairy-nerd standard. That standard is more immoral than anything Microsoft ever did. It requires companies to kill themselves once they achieve too great a level of success.
        geebee 15y ago
        But there can still be an order of magnitude difference between what these large companies do. Just because they all fall short of a "utopian-fairy-nerd" standard doesn't mean they're all equally reprehensible! Reminds me of something pg wrote in "what happened to yahoo" http://paulgraham.com/yahoo.html http://paulgraham.com/yahoo.html "It's hard for anyone much younger than me to understand the fear Microsoft still inspired in 1995. Imagine a company with several times the power Google has now, but way meaner. It was perfectly reasonable to be afraid of them."
        rbanffy 15y ago
        > the utopian-fairy-nerd standard. And this is how we got on the mess we are, when regard for what's right takes a back seat to how much money one can make. No. I won't play by these rules.
- prodigal_erik 15y ago
  The money he's spending is extorted from our industry. If you believe the good somehow outweighs the harm, do you also believe that every tech company and every computer user should be robbed and the proceeds used to further help the poor, with no vote and none of the burden being shouldered from outside tech? It disturbs me that there's still no real restitution sought from people who knowingly, deliberately attack our society's mechanism for allocating most all resources.
- fpgeek 15y ago
  Doesn't it depend on the harm caused by his misdeeds? If his business practices caused $100 billion or more of harm to humanity (by holding back the tech industry), could $30 billion wash that away? I don't know how you could calculate the cost of Gates' misdeeds in a way that people would agree on, but I find it entirely reasonable that some people feel that the harm far outweighed the giving and that some people feel the opposite.
  - chollida1 15y ago
    > I don't know how you could calculate the cost of Gates' misdeeds in a way that people would agree on, but I find it entirely reasonable that some people feel that the harm far outweighed the giving and that some people feel the opposite. That's interesting. From my perspective of growing up with computers in the 80's and 90's, Microsoft was a net positive for the industry. They took a really fragmented and immature industry and helped push it to the mainstream and helped allow computers to be a part of pretty much everyone in the first worlds life.
- jacquesm 15y ago
  Every time I buy a computer that has microsoft windows release 'x' installed which I then wipe to install Linux I subsidize Bill Gates' ability to be a philanthropist.
tfb 15y ago
Maybe Bill Gates was never truly "evil". Maybe he just did what he had to do to amass the wealth that is required to do truly great things like stamping out Malaria and AIDS. Who is to say he wasn't planning his philanthropy all along? I certainly am. It's one of the main driving factors behind the business goals I work towards every day. I think Bill Gates has always been kind of misunderstood.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  That's entirely possible, but it was never the impression that I got at the time. True, I could be grossly misjudging his motivations in the 90s, but I don't think so. I think he was driven to be successful for its own sake. I'm certainly glad that he's turned to philanthropy, but I think applying his current actions as the motivation for his actions 15 years ago smacks of revisionism.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Or maybe his current philanthropy is his way of assuaging the guilt over his prior evil, and not a planned "the ends justify the means" rationalization for his evil from the outset.
- sateesh 15y ago
  Does that mean that as long ends are noble you are not worried about the means ?
- oldstrangers 15y ago
  I think Bill Gates is generally misunderstood because we don't fully appreciate just how intelligent he is. He's not routinely creating or providing answers (in the way that a scientist like Einstein was constantly offering up new ideas), so it's hard to really measure. He's inherently private, which only hinders our understanding of him even more. But I think historically, we will look back on him as having some of the most influential and profound ideas (and decisions) of the 21st century. No one person has done as much for humanity as Bill Gates has, perhaps in the history of the world. The only comparisons are perhaps to someone like Jonas Salk.
jeswin 15y ago
Evil will be passing your personal information to governments which want to put your life in danger. Or destroying the environment. Or willfully having inadequate safeguards for profit. And bundling a web browser with the OS.
- paganel 15y ago
  > Or willfully having inadequate safeguards for profit. In the early 2000s Steve Ballmer himself visited my (rather unimportant) East-European country and had a one-on-one with the then PM about the software-procurement decisions the Government was about to take. Soon enough it was decided that all Government-run institutions in the country should be fitted with Windows-run computers, using only Microsoft software. A lot of my compatriots' tax money (and my own money) went directly into MS' coffers (when it could have find a better use in other, more important places), but I can see that 10 years from that moment some of it is invested in trying to cure malaria. Well, at least we weren't robbed for nothing.
bad_user 15y ago
Microsoft only stopped being evil once Gates left. Since Gates left, Microsoft stopped winning or creating products people want, turning slowly into a patents troll instead. Also, Microsoft's "evilness" during Gates pales in comparison to what Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon are doing right now.
slackerIII 15y ago
"Microsoft only stopped being evil once Gates left" Having worked there and talked to the employees, I'd blame the consent decree more than Gates leaving. But I'm curious what your sources are.
jonhendry 15y ago
There's still evil at Microsoft, but it reportedly has turned inward, emanating from HR.