I was surprised by this. Anyone know the levels of philanthropy of Bezos vs Gates? I've ready many times of the great work and resources (money and otherwise) that Mr Gates has contributed to many causes.
I don't know that I agree with it or not, but that is the thinking and it isn't completely unreasonable.
Note that Bill Gates has been getting a lot of money from Warren Buffet and other rich people. I don't know the break down (it is likely public information: I just don't care to look it up), but it isn't fair to say Bill Gates is working on his own, though he is clearly giving his valuable time.
Yeah I don't know about that. The majority of rich people decide what they want to do is make as much money as possible and distribute it to family members. It's there money so obviously they have the right to do just that.
I have a lot of respect for Bill Gates in that he has chosen to be as effective with his money as possible in positively impacting the world. I believe he has committed to giving away 99% (or 99.9%?) of his money to noble causes before he passes. As well as inspiring others to make similar pledges.
Microsoft's business practices, in my view, introduced greater inefficiency into the software and business ecosystem. They were a parasite that drained resources from every healthy business "organism" and no amount of philanthropy can make up for the opportunity cost paid for Gates to amass his wealth.
How is giving people something they want "depriving" them?
I have little use for Microsoft software, but, you know, lots of people like it.
I remember that era well. There were always plenty of machines available that didn't pay the so-called "Windows tax". I know. I bought (and installed Linux on) many of them.
You know what? The number of people (again, including me) who didn't want Windows? That was a rounding error, dude.
So yes, many of those machines sold with Windows pre-installed didn't have another operating system, but that doesn't mean that if Microsoft hadn't broken the law (those contracts they forced on OEMs were illegal) that people would have still chosen to buy those computers with Windows pre-installed. I consider people who were forced to use Windows because of the lack of alternatives killed by Microsoft's illegal business practices to be similarly paying the Windows tax.
Had BeOS gotten any reasonable market share, it would have quickly become a huge threat to Microsoft. It was miles ahead of Windows in terms of quality and some of its features are still, 20 years later, better than we have in current operating systems.
People (especially the kind of people who installed alternative operating systems) could, and did, assemble their own machines without paying any "Windows tax". At all.
Yes, some manufacturers cut a bulk deal to bundle Windows with complete systems.
No, that didn't make it impossible (or even particularly difficult) to avoid the so-called "Windows tax".
BeOS didn't even run on Intel hardware at first, btw. When I used BeOS (and I have used it, hands-on... have you?) it only ran on PPC machines. The port to Intel happened after the Return of Jobs and the decision to use NeXTSTEP (which became OS X) for new Macs. That's what killed BeOS, not the "Windows tax". The port to Intel was a late desperation move.
I'm tagging out now. I have better things to do than rehash a war that was over 25 years ago.
OMG...are you intentionally trying to be obtuse? This isn't exactly controversial stuff I'm talking about. There was a lawsuit and Be is very much on the record about Microsoft's tactics.
The lawsuit: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/20/be_inc_sues_microso...
Gassée's email: http://techrights.org/2008/08/19/oem-tactics-beos/
> ...assemble their own machines...
Do you even understand what OEM means? It has nothing to do with user-assembled machines. Yes, the minority of people who built their own systems could avoid the Windows tax. If you want to talk about a rounding error, that's basically the definition. We're talking the full systems that had Windows pre-installed. In order to not violate their OEM licenses with Microsoft, the only way those vendors could ship BoOS pre-installed was to dual boot with windows and give users absolutely no indication that BeOS was installed.
Get your facts straight before you start calling people names.
Which almost exactly overlapped the number of people who wanted to run Linux, or had even heard of it.
As noted above, BeOS didn't even RUN on Intel during the time in question. Gassée bet his company on persuading Apple to adopt BeOS as the new Mac OS.
He lost.
Congratulation, sir, I humbly admit to being trolled. With a little improvement, you might convince me you're human and pass your eponymous test.
Anyways, I'm done arguing events and facts I experienced first hand with someone so intent on ignoring what actually happened.