Is Gates' retirement Linux's chance?

[aioshin]

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3436284810.html

 

 

On June 15, Bill Gates announced that he would be retiring from Microsoft in July 2008, and everything changed.

 

It may be two years away, but when a giant the size of Gates moves, the world moves with him. And, in that movement, in this period of change, Linux may have its best chance ever to seize the marketplace momentum from Microsoft.......

 

[moved from Talk-Talk by spinynorman]

[Ixthusdan]

Gates started it. But today, Microsoft is its own monster. Gates would only create a wave if he started something else, the only amusing possibility.

[AussieJohn]

It won't make any difference. The way Micro$oft has been set up with the people it now has, it will continue down the same path.

Despite all the cr*p written about Gates, I don't think he has made any significant contribution to Windows for years.

A Linus Torvalds he definately ain't (hate that word but it fits). In fact I believe Linus may forgotten more than Gates has ever learn't.

 

In the handing out of Queens awards in different Commonwealth countries, lots of people in politics and big money get gongs but the one person who individually has probably conrtibuted more for the good of fellow man around the world in recent times (say 10-15 years), namely Linus Torvalds is never mentioned except to get the occassional letter of thanks from some world leaders. The Open Source worlds programmers and developers make a greater contribution to humanity around the world than Gates so called charity donations ever will. Really charitable people DON"T want fame or glory for their aid. With Gates there has to be loads of mass media publication. Sure the money is good for the receiving charity but that is not the pont here, which is that Gates is in reality "A POSER", he always has been as shown time and again, and he always will be.

 

Linux will just continue to do its thing and ultimately overtake Microsoft regardless. Just when simply doesn't matter but it will happen soon enough. Linux not ready for the desktop ???. I wonder what the heck I am using then and have been for at least these past three years.

 

Microsoft is on the downward slope and they know it. All the pretences are to keep its shareholders living in happy land and so keep the shares up. Even that is showing continuous signs of slipping.

 

Thus endith this sermon :D .

 

Cheers. John.

[tyme]

Linux's chance was the constant delaying of Vista. And the community didn't take full advantage of that - the most notable desktop advancement for Linux isn't stable yet (XGL and it's ilk). and by "desktop advancement" i really mean "eye candy that will attact the masses".

[Gowator]

I tend to agree with Ix .. though what John says is equally true I think the bottom line is that MS is its own monster with a life of its own with its own internal politics and its own ideas of the world.

[SilverSurfer60]

Once again AussieJohn speaks words of wisdom :-

It won't make any difference. The way Micro$oft has been set up with the people it now has, it will continue down the same path.

To add my own thoughts though, I feel Bill Gates gave the uninformed computing public something they could understand. In the early days it seemed like a good idea. Only when the power, money hungry business community saw the Windows Systems potential did the whole thing take on the 'Rule The world' attitude. At the time whem Microsoft was born there were a number of quite user friendly manufacturers producing computer systems, only they did not catch the eye of the big business world, otherwise I don't think even Bill Gates would be what he is today.

 

I neither love nor hate Bill Gates, I don't know him. I do hate the Windows System as it is impeding the progress of inventiveness ( I think that might be a new word :unsure: ), although the linux world is making a good job of progressing. Proving it can be done without monopoly.

 

Glad I got that off my chest, I can sleep tonight now.

Edited June 17, 2006 by SilverSurfer60

[iphitus]

Wont change anything. a whole lotta fus over nothing, and the author of the article is known to be strongly anti microsoft, so that discredits it entirely.

 

This seems a good spot to mention something i read on el reg today,

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/17/saint_bill/

Geeks get things very out of proportion, and the value of saving even one life should be more apparent to everyone than the cost of a poorly written Windows USB stack. When Microsoft is criticized, while the practices of arms dealers, pharmaceutical companies and extraction cartels around the world are ignored, its reminds us that some nerds place a very low value on human life itself.

 

you cannot deny that microsoft have made a big impact, even if Bill was a very lucky opportunist, taking things that were available at the time and using them, not quite expecting the success that his young company acheived. Without Bill having taken the opportunities he did, it'd be quite unlikely that things are the way they are now. I doubt we'd even be using x86 based machines, as before windows, the IBM PC was the only platform without a GUI.

 

As for Bill himself, he hasnt done nothing, he has made countless large charitable donations. And while some of it is questionable and by no means is he is a saint, it's still a donation none the less. Without them, the charities and benefactors of charities, would be less many millions of dollars.

 

James

[scarecrow]

One shark less (albeit a big one) does not make swimming any safer.

[Gowator]

Wont change anything. a whole lotta fus over nothing, and the author of the article is known to be strongly anti microsoft, so that discredits it entirely.

 

Why should someone being anti-microsoft discredit anything.

... see below

This seems a good spot to mention something i read on el reg today,

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/17/saint_bill/

Geeks get things very out of proportion, and the value of saving even one life should be more apparent to everyone than the cost of a poorly written Windows USB stack. When Microsoft is criticized, while the practices of arms dealers, pharmaceutical companies and extraction cartels around the world are ignored, its reminds us that some nerds place a very low value on human life itself.

Well it seems to me that the world would be a better place without microsoft and its ilk..

Just because I dislike windows and microsoft doesn't mean Im not interested in "the practices of arms dealers, pharmaceutical companies and extraction cartels" around the world.

 

I am also anti-McDonalds and anti-starbucks and anti-disney. Mostly all for the same reasons...

I would rather not eat than eat anything from a Mcdonalds and I wouldn't watch a Disney film if it was free with free coke and popcorn.

 

Because all of these organisations and many more set out to limit out choices and put everyone else out of business, non of them is content with a decent income, they have to keep expanding and wreck the lives of everyone else who is in competition.

 

Arms dealers are no worse and in many ways much better in that they at least offer a choice of products!

and the old adage "guns don't kill people" is the same for burgers... no-one is forcing anyone to eat burgers, they are just removing the other choices. Microsoft is exceptional in that it has set out to destroy competition and not even compete. The list goes on forever but the world is certainly not better off for the loss of netscape, wordperfect or BeOS... nor are the families of those who lost there jobs.

The same is true for starbucks or mcdonalds who both set out to agressively underprice the competition, especially in terms of family run businesses who can't compete anyway, let alone with a HQ subsidising a campaign to practically give away the product. Neither does the consumer benefit for once the options are gone they don't come back.

 

Microsoft play the same market game as companies like Monsanto who's idea of marketing is the same as a street corner drug pusher. The don't understand or want to compete fairly so they go a step further in limiting choice for a consumer.

 

you cannot deny that microsoft have made a big impact, even if Bill was a very lucky opportunist, taking things that were available at the time and using them, not quite expecting the success that his young company acheived. Without Bill having taken the opportunities he did, it'd be quite unlikely that things are the way they are now. I doubt we'd even be using x86 based machines, as before windows, the IBM PC was the only platform without a GUI.

 

As for Bill himself, he hasnt done nothing, he has made countless large charitable donations. And while some of it is questionable and by no means is he is a saint, it's still a donation none the less. Without them, the charities and benefactors of charities, would be less many millions of dollars.

 

James

Large is relative, giving away spare change as a gesture means nothing.

Hitler was a great one for charities as well.

Monsanto give away sterile GM crops to third world countires too but it doesn't help them it just makes them dependant and meanwhile Micorsoft, Monsanto, Glaxo-welcome all spend far more bribing government officials and lobbying to prevent legislation or regulation of their activities.

[dexter11]

One shark less (albeit a big one) does not make swimming any safer.

LOL that sums it up pretty good.

[iphitus]

Why should someone being anti-microsoft discredit anything.

it just means that they're more likely to create an entirely sensationalised and unrealistic argument to further their point of view, and in this case, this is definitely what has been done.

 

Well it seems to me that the world would be a better place without microsoft and its ilk..

Just because I dislike windows and microsoft doesn't mean Im not interested in "the practices of arms dealers, pharmaceutical companies and extraction cartels" around the world.

 

The world would be a different place, and arguably, the consumer PC industry would be very different, and nowhere as near as developed as it is now.

 

As for not shopping at Mc Donalds, Starbucks and Co, that's your choice. I dont work like that, I go where there's a product. I stopped using windows, because I found a product I like more. I'd happily go to starbucks, because I like their coffee, and I dont mind a Big Mac once in a while -- though not a regular thing.

 

And companies underpricing competition? Well why the hell wouldnt they? They sell more, albeit at a slightly lower profit margin, and they make more money, that's what businesses do Gowator, make money. Businesses arent around to be philosophical and moral perfections, they exist to make a profit.

 

How did the companies end up in the position to undercut competition? They had a good product and it sold well. If linux is good enough to replace windows on the desktop, it will eventually -- if Microsoft dont adapt to combat it. Major changes dont take place overnight Gowator.

 

Large is relative, giving away spare change as a gesture means nothing.

Hitler was a great one for charities as well.

Monsanto give away sterile GM crops to third world countires too but it doesn't help them it just makes them dependant and meanwhile Micorsoft, Monsanto, Glaxo-welcome all spend far more bribing government officials and lobbying to prevent legislation or regulation of their activities.

a donation is a donation. (period). And I'd like to see those who received the change, say it means nothing. As for calling it spare change, back that up with numbers, otherwise, you're just spinning conjecture.

 

Once you become so desperate for a argument or point to make, that you compare Bill to Hitler, you've really gone far off the tracks and I cant take anything you really say seriously... cmon, Bill Gates = Hitler?

 

Besides, this whole thread is entirely irrelevant, if we all RTFA again we see that:

Updated: Founder Bill Gates will continue as chairman for the company, while two chief technology officers will step in to take his other roles.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1977401,00.asp

 

James

Edited June 17, 2006 by iphitus

[arctic]

I will only say one thing: he worked a lot in the past years, like it or not, and did an okay job for Microsoft (and a horrible job with respect to many users and other companies). He deserves a break. I think no one will argue that someone who worked more or less hard for over 30 years has every right to say: "It's time that I step down and relax a bit".

[Ixthusdan]

Well, this is interesting.

 

Why do I not like Microsoft?

It is not because they are successful or that they are a business or that they take full advantage of their market position. I am a capitalist, after all.

But, being a capitalist is not tantamount to being immoral. I realize that it is a poular notion in some circles, including a certain political party in the US. Interestingly, I saw a list of high income folk in my government, and wouldn't ya know that there are as many poiticians from both parties on the top of the offficial filthy rich capitalists list! :lol: Which brings me back to why I do not liike Microsoft.

 

Integrity.

 

Whether one is rich or not is simply a life situation. Whether or not one has integrity is a quality of character. Rich and poor folk can have integrity, meaning wealth is not a factor. Like the rich politicians who decry capitalism but are hugely wealthy from its practice demonstrate a lack of integrity in their criticism, so Microsoft lacks integrity from its so-called "expansion" of technology. If they were really interested in technology, they would have developed the ideas of the companies and people they have purchased over the years. Instead, they made their purchases in order to squelch competition, even though it was a better tech idea. And what they did not squelch, they out-right stole. The company has no integrity.

 

So, I do not like them because they are not the type of organization that I support. If a linux distro were making lots of money, so what? It is the corporate integrity that I look at, and not their financial success.

[tyme]

Hitler was a great one for charities as well.

Oh how we so quickly reach Godwin's Law. Please read the Godwin's Law FAQ - specifically #4.

 

Also note that discussing Hitler rides the line of politics, which is not permitted in Talk-Talk, so please tread carefully folks.

[Ixthusdan]

That is equally amusing! And I think Godwin was on to something. It seems based upon a logical fallacy in relating an action to a characteristic that is not derivative of that characteristic. For example, both the neighborhood child molester and I buy bread at the same grocery store. Therefore, I must also be a child molester! So goes this particular fallacy.

 

But, in a defence of Gowater, I think he was saying that benevolent donations in and of themselves come from all sources and do not necessarily mean the giver is a wonderful person. Our world does tend to fall into that same sort of thinking, doesn't it?