Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluedevil2k | Hacker News Reader

That's incredibly naive. That completely devalues the hard work and genius of Bill Gates. Being rich had nothing to do with him spending the better part of his teens at the local university, working on their computer. Being rich had nothing to do with him selling his BASIC to MITS (Remember, he was hiding the fact that he was a student). Being rich had nothing to do with him selling an OS to IBM.

Your comment comes off as petty, and an excuse that unsuccessful people use to explain why they too aren't billionaires.

View on HN

>Being rich had nothing to do with him spending the better part of his teens at the local university, working on their computer.

Is that so? I was doing roughly the same thing at roughly the same time (perhaps a couple years later). I talked my way into the local university to use their Unix machine. Was I able to do that because I was the son of an Electrical Engineer and because I attended the private school next door to the university? Hell yes.

In 1968, the mothers of students in the school held a fundraiser so that they could purchase computer time on a mainframe DEC PDP-10, owned by General Electric. Both of the boys were very good with computers and programming. Gates and Allen contributed to the majority of use of all of the allowed computer time because they both enjoyed it so much. Because of how much time they had been using up on the computer, Lakeside made an agreement with Computer Center Corporation (CCC) so they could continue to provide computer time to their students.
...

However by 1970, CCC had gone bankrupt, which meant that the boys had to find another place to continue to work with computers. Luckily, Allen’s father worked at the University of Washington, so they gained access to computers there.

But what about all the other kids who didn't use the time? They had the same privilege and wealth and never created a software empire. Or, maybe, there were hundreds/thousands of kids around the country that had access at that time and Gates/Allen were some of the few that had the inner drive and competitive spirit to excel at it.

It's pretty likely, in the 1970s, that the majority of teenagers with access to computer time were quite well off.

Of course he probably still worked pretty hard, but lots of people wouldn't have been within 100 miles of a computer before they were 20.

That's a rather broad generalization with no data to back it up. As an example otherwise, look at Bill Joy, founder of Sun and the son of a school vice-principal.

And so what if both just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Success isn't pre-ordained. There's always a little luck in every success story.

It's not like you are bringing the data storm with your dismissals of the advantages of wealth in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

You're the one trying to prove a point, I'm merely dismissing it as non-fact based.

You literally said Being rich had nothing to do with him spending the better part of his teens at the local university, working on their computer.

Yeah, he spent the time at the local university because he wanted to, not because he was rich.

"in the 1970s, that the majority of teenagers with access to computer time were quite well off." -- now that's a claim that has no facts backing it up

His mom had a lot to do with the IBM deal. Whether you want to attribute her contacts at IBM that got her son in the door as a consequence of their financial status, is up to you. Personally, I doubt they are passing out personal favors to those with less.

Could be argued, if his family weren't rich, he probably wouldn't live close to a private university to begin with.

Also, he went to a private school that had a computer for him to use.

I watched an interview of his where he admitted that if he hadn't gone to private school, it is unlikely he would have ended up founding Microsoft.

> Could be argued, if his family weren't rich, he probably wouldn't live close to a private university to begin with.

That's a bizarre claim. College towns nearly universally offer some of the most affordable housing and high quality standards of living in the US. They tend to have far lower crime rates than US cities, and radically cheaper housing.

Paul Allen came from a middle-class background and went to the same Lakeside private school that Gates did.

>Being rich had nothing to do with him selling an OS to IBM.

Yes, a stolen OS he had no part in developing.

I don't doubt that he's a competent programmer (or was at one point). I see no evidence that he's a great one. There are programmers with ten times his ability who will never see 0.01% of his money.

What's your point? What makes you the judge of a "great programmer"?

Who cares if there's programmers with 10x his ability, you're talking like programming skills should equal wealth. Sorry, no matter Bill Gates' programming skills, he was a genius at running and growing a business. Two totally different skill sets.

>What makes you the judge of a "great programmer"?

What makes the market the judge? It's picked some really terrible technology.

>Sorry, no matter Bill Gates' programming skills, he was a genius at running and growing a business.

Why is "running and growing a business" a good thing? I would say Microsoft is pretty good evidence that it's often harmful.

Do you think Elizabeth Holmes, Al Capone, and Bernie Madoff deserve to be rich? They were all pretty good at what they did.

You're comparing criminals to Bill Gates? Really? Some people can't be argued with when they make wild baseless claims.

You're almost trolling. We're on the edge of defining what's good and bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com