4 ms·

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

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.

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.