4 ms·

I have one question: is it right to destroy a whole culture just to be the good guy afterwards?

Loughla 12y ago
That depends. If it is a truly just, and wise society that comes out in the end, one where everyone is better off. . . . It's the chaotic good versus lawful good argument. If the end result is peace and prosperity for all people in equal ways, then why not? What's the saying about omelettes and eggs?
- Vektorweg 12y ago
  Thats what the most crazy evil people in history said in their defense: in the end, it would have been peace -- the mass murdering dictators. There are better ways to achieve a better living for everyone. No one needs to suffer or to die for that. The path is important.
  - hnnewguy 12y ago
    What exactly is your point in this thread? Are you somehow trying to draw an analogy between Bill Gates and "mass murdering dictators"? We get it. Bill Gates made some reprehensible business decisions, in his time, that hurt people. He also made some good ones, and created vast amounts of wealth for many, many people. Microsoft continues to do so. I'd argue it nets out. Now, in the twilight of his life, he's spending his time and wealth helping society. He didn't destroy the software world, or its "culture". What is it you do that allows you to throw so many stones?
    - Vektorweg 12y ago
      Gates took wealth from many, many people and gave it to the few. It is the inversion of free software. You don't see how he hurt the society and how much more wealth could have been created without his decision. I don't throw stones because of the mistakes someone made. I throw stones because of the lack of will or understanding why to fix the own mistake when he is capable of it.
      - Loughla 12y ago
        "You don't see how he hurt society and how much more wealth could have been created without his decision." "Gates took wealth from the many, many people and gave it to the few." Those two sentences do not mean the same thing. Your argument, when you boil it down, is that Bill Gates kept wealth and power for himself and his company, instead of allowing others to have it. That's called capitalism, I think. I do good, I get money, I don't have to share it if I don't want to.
        Vektorweg 12y ago
        It isn't the point that Gates made money. The point is: at what cost? In capitalism, its considered fair to hurt people within legislation, just to make oneself rich. It is argued as the market and "the better shall win", but we are far away from sane market mechanics. More often people suffer than profit from it. The overall goal is to make everyone happy. But this can't be achieved by our capitalism.
bernardlunn 12y ago
The PC was the greatest tool given to man in a long time, the Internet would have been impossible without it. What is your beef? That Gates was a fierce competitor in a competitive business?
- Vektorweg 12y ago
  He shouldn't have made his software closed source. Too many business men followed him, leading to a vast amount of bullshit software no one can easily relay on to make something better. The free software culture slowly recovers. But we are still far away from the good old and worthy traditions for commercial software developers.
allemagne 12y ago
Has Bill Gates destroyed cultures? Companies, sure.
- Vektorweg 12y ago
  I'm talking about the free software culture.
  - astine 12y ago
    Microsoft actually predates the free software movement. And proprietary software predates Microsoft. And free software 'culture' still exists, in as much as it ever did.
Ensorceled 12y ago
I don't believe so either, but you seemed to be confused as to why you are being down-voted.
- Vektorweg 12y ago
  I expected that. But I don't stop to say what needs to be said. Its another topic in how far down-votes are a good idea. Somehow, its a populist regulation of communicating non-conform thoughts.

That depends. If it is a truly just, and wise society that comes out in the end, one where everyone is better off. . . . It's the chaotic good versus lawful good argument. If the end result is peace and prosperity for all people in equal ways, then why not? What's the saying about omelettes and eggs?

Vektorweg 12y ago
Thats what the most crazy evil people in history said in their defense: in the end, it would have been peace -- the mass murdering dictators. There are better ways to achieve a better living for everyone. No one needs to suffer or to die for that. The path is important.
- hnnewguy 12y ago
  What exactly is your point in this thread? Are you somehow trying to draw an analogy between Bill Gates and "mass murdering dictators"? We get it. Bill Gates made some reprehensible business decisions, in his time, that hurt people. He also made some good ones, and created vast amounts of wealth for many, many people. Microsoft continues to do so. I'd argue it nets out. Now, in the twilight of his life, he's spending his time and wealth helping society. He didn't destroy the software world, or its "culture". What is it you do that allows you to throw so many stones?
  - Vektorweg 12y ago
    Gates took wealth from many, many people and gave it to the few. It is the inversion of free software. You don't see how he hurt the society and how much more wealth could have been created without his decision. I don't throw stones because of the mistakes someone made. I throw stones because of the lack of will or understanding why to fix the own mistake when he is capable of it.
    - Loughla 12y ago
      "You don't see how he hurt society and how much more wealth could have been created without his decision." "Gates took wealth from the many, many people and gave it to the few." Those two sentences do not mean the same thing. Your argument, when you boil it down, is that Bill Gates kept wealth and power for himself and his company, instead of allowing others to have it. That's called capitalism, I think. I do good, I get money, I don't have to share it if I don't want to.
      - Vektorweg 12y ago
        It isn't the point that Gates made money. The point is: at what cost? In capitalism, its considered fair to hurt people within legislation, just to make oneself rich. It is argued as the market and "the better shall win", but we are far away from sane market mechanics. More often people suffer than profit from it. The overall goal is to make everyone happy. But this can't be achieved by our capitalism.

bernardlunn 12y ago

The PC was the greatest tool given to man in a long time, the Internet would have been impossible without it. What is your beef? That Gates was a fierce competitor in a competitive business?

Vektorweg 12y ago
He shouldn't have made his software closed source. Too many business men followed him, leading to a vast amount of bullshit software no one can easily relay on to make something better. The free software culture slowly recovers. But we are still far away from the good old and worthy traditions for commercial software developers.

allemagne 12y ago

Has Bill Gates destroyed cultures? Companies, sure.

Vektorweg 12y ago
I'm talking about the free software culture.
- astine 12y ago
  Microsoft actually predates the free software movement. And proprietary software predates Microsoft. And free software 'culture' still exists, in as much as it ever did.

Ensorceled 12y ago

I don't believe so either, but you seemed to be confused as to why you are being down-voted.

Vektorweg 12y ago
I expected that. But I don't stop to say what needs to be said. Its another topic in how far down-votes are a good idea. Somehow, its a populist regulation of communicating non-conform thoughts.