XunilNewb

Y'know, I think people are more than a little hard on Mr. Gates. Sure he made mega bucks from a product that due to its ubiquity brings consternation to millions of users every day but lets put things into perspective. Windows ain't that bad, 3.1 was great and despite it's security flaws and persistant nannying XP aint bad either.
This post isn't really about Gates' products or company ethics though. What bothers me is the sheer ammount of malice and bad mouthing that goes out to Bill. Has everyone forgotten (or just plain ignorant of the fact) that Mr. Gates is the greatest philanthropist to have ever lived. He has given more money to charity than ANYONE, EVER. He is weilding his economic might to crush maleria in third world countries and is one of the few Americans with any significant financial clout, to do anything about the AIDS epidemic in Africa (an epidemic that could so easily be halted by the large Pharmaceutical monopolies!) Add to this that Gates has pledged his entire fortune (bar a small sum to tide over his family) to charity upon his death! No wonder the American Government are so scared of his monopoly, such a shift and redistribution of wealth will undoubtedly rock a few tankers, perhaps the "little brown people" in africa might even stop dying of aids - who'd 've thunk it.
To be honest I believe that these days, Apple has a far more aggressive marketing strategy including bold moves like buying out Emagic (a coputer/music production hardware/software company) and making sure that all support for windows is dropped. That left a lot of people in the lurch, with unsupported hardware and a potential breach of service agreement to boot!
Apple, their crippled itunes dependant i-pod that doesn't do half the things it could do, soon as the 4G version of cuLinux for ipod comes out I'm installing it and I'm NOT gonna dual boot, Linux Baby Yeah!

Anyway, Apple rant aside, Bill aint a bad guy although to refer back to the title of this post and the events that will occurr upon his death... Perhaps, hmmmn...

I'm Gonna Kill Bill...

Edited for language content.

Skie

Not everyone in the Linux community thinks the same way. In fact, I recently noticed that what the main kernel developers want is completely different then what the users want. There's quite some consternation over this.

Do you really think Windows 3.1 was great? Did you like rebooting every hour on the hour because of a blue screen? Windows isn't that bad, but not everyone likes the same thing. Linux is all about choice. Windows doesn't give as much choice as Linux does. Yes, there aren't as many applications, games, etc for Linux, but Windows only gives you 1 GUI/window manager/desktop. Yes, you can get window blinds, but you're still using Explorer under it. With linux, if you don't like KDE, you can switch to Gnome or Fluxbox or Window Maker or any number of other options.

Another thing that people don't like about MS is their desire to run everyone out of business. I don't remember exactly when this happened, but MS changed some things that broke a lot of other applications. AIM is the only one I can remember off the top of my head right now. It caused a big stink in the developer community.

One of my big issues with Windows (and I'm sure many others think the same way) is that Windows encourages you to run as an Administrator. This puts you at a huge security risk. Run the wrong program and your whole computer is compromised. With linux, you're strongly discouraged from running as root unless you need to. If you're logged in as a regular user, and you run the wrong program, the worst that'll happen is you lose some of your own files. The system itself is still secured (provided a new found exploit isn't taken advantage of).

Windows is easy to use. But sometimes too easy. The new "Windows generation" really doesn't know how to use a computer. I mean really use a computer. I grew up using DOS 3.x (before there was such a thing as Windows). I learned how a computer worked, how to install an OS, the programs, how to setup my config files so that I can get the most memory available to play a particular game, etc. Today, everyone just knows how to turn it on and start clicking. Many of this newer generation just can't make good techs. I've talked to many clueless individuals that are supposed to be techs.

You can't please everyone. No matter how hard you try. You'll always have those that rebel. If Linux were to become the main OS that 99% of people used, I guarentee that there'll be a group that will be just as anti Linux as they are anti MS today. They'll find some other OS that will be their OS of choice. Those that are most vocal in their hatred/disgust at MS really don't help the cause of Linux. In fact that hinder it.

I use Linux because I want to. I like it. I like it better then Windows. I have various reasons for my decision, ranging from work, security, stability, etc.

XunilNewb

I pretty much agree with you yo, I hate XP's nannying and the fact that i can login to linux under my standard user name and then SU to root if I need to is great.
My main point though, was that Bill gates as a moral agent seems like a good guy all things considered. Dude if he ends world hunger it will all have been worth it, lol.
As for 3.1, that was quite a while ago wasn't it, perhaps the last few years have blurred my memory.

Skie

To some, you're a saint, to others a devil. Just because he's giving doesn't mean it obsovles him of what some see is monopolistic business practices. Not trying to bash or defend him in either way. I don't like him, but I don't hate him.

batty_professor

World hunger?, and then winner of the Miss America beauty pageant. Money isn't the answer to world hunger, world Peace, world what-have-you. If anything money is the root of the problem with all of these and more.

40sondacurb

What you are saying is communism... we tried that and it didn't work (Russia, China, North koreans are so malnurished the don't grow above 5 foot).

But in regards to Bill, Microsoft does do most of the inovating, and inovating cost money. Microsoft can not afford to be a sheep in a pack of wolves and if you don't like it tuff thats capitalism and Bill played the cards he was delt.

PS. Lets say we all drop windows and move to linux, the hackers will find just as many if not more security flaws in linux as in windows. Security flaws will happen to the most used opperatiing system not the one that makes the most money.

batty_professor

I didn't say a thing about Communism. The promise that communism made to the people it was to serve was "we will take care of you" And it was therefore counter-productive and a dismal failure. My point was appearantly missed, for if you throw money at such problems greed comes into play. Then the money is wasted. And you still haven't solved anything. Communism "gave the man a fish" but never taught him how to catch one.

Also in too many of those places, the greedy unfortunately control the people through the food supply. If you control the food supply, you control all who are subject to it.

40sondacurb

Just don't talk c*** about Bill. We can't all live in your hippy world of love and peace the real world is much more complicated than "Bill have money so bill evil". At least he does better things with his money than most billionars and if you looked into what he has done with his billions you wouldn't say the money has corrupted him. BILL

XunilNewb

I don't actually recall ANYONE trying communism as outlined in Marx's manifesto. Karl Marx is was famed for having said that most of his supporters were "more Communist" than him. What did he meen by that? OK then I'll tell you. Karl Marx wrote a detailed critique of the socio-economic system of capitalism. When you look at the core economic principle of Capitalism you are pretty much left with the basic rule, in which for the system to sustain itself - the parties living under the system must constantly produce and consume more (hence we live in a world where waste and consumerism are rife - they have to be under present system). Marx looked at this frankly stupid system and linked with his ideas on historical dialectic, decided that one day the system would crash and a new social order would arise. The Communist manifesto was essentially a guideline, an alternative system to capitalism that maintains a much better balance in terms of resources etc.
Unfortunately, like many thought provoking texts (ie Thus Spoke Zarathustra - Hitler), Marx was heavilly misunderstood and people took the oportunity to install a dictatorship. - Hence "most of my supporters are more Marxist than I am".

To be honest I think the worst thing to come out of (attempted) "Communism" was the use of this "terror word" to justify wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan etc. Which incidentally was when the Americans tought the Middle East how to fight with terror tactics (including the ubiquitous car bomb) and armed many fracticious militant groups. Back then the word "Communism" was used to the same effect "Terrorism" is used today. A catch all justification for war for profit. Just imagine the look on the Iraqi peoples faces when in 1991 they were just about to rid THEMSELVES of Saddam and America pops its head round the border and says "NO, we require Saddam to crush the evil Iranians, here, have more weapons and training on us!!!" Jesus Fsck!

I'm not a Goddam hippy or a communist or a capitalist (though i am a consumer). When I said Bill could end world hunger I ended the comment with LOL, does that not suggest to you that my toungue was well and truly lodged in my cheek?!?!?!?

40sondacurb

my last 2 post are directed twards Batty professor. Look at the titles of my last 2 post... both addressed o the proffesor.

your a bit confused XunilNewb

Jason

closing threads. instead of discussing the idea, people seem to have chossen to attack others.