Comment by cbozeman | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cbozeman | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> (Or maybe I'm 25 years younger in a corporate environment that has thoroughly taken control of this kind of thing.)

You're 25 years younger in a corporate environment that has thoroughly taken control of this kind of thing.

> BillG said, in effect, that the prank was not in good taste, and that it made Microsoft look stupid rather than clever - especially as a catch-up to Sun Microsystems.

He was pissed because, while a "joke", it was an valid and accurate criticism as well. Sun was miles ahead of Microsoft and many other companies, in several different ways. Microsoft dominated because Gates was a ruthless son of a bitch who repeatedly broke laws that were poorly enforced back then.

I had a whole tirade typed out, but I realized that HN is full of true believers in the "New Bill Gates". I'm not. He's trying to buy a legacy so he can overwrite the shit one he had when he was at the helm of Microsoft. Sadly, it'll work because people have short memories.

Could you spill the beans a little? I’m really curious about happened in the 90s with Microsoft that antagonized them so much (was born in 99, so I’ve only seen the Bill Gates who’s saving lives in Africa)

Microsoft as led by Bill Gates was an aggressive, anti-competitive entity.

They crushed competitors with the motto "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish", where they'd start to embrace an open standard, extend it with their own customizations, and use that to crush the competition.

They tried to do it with Java, but Sun prevailed in a lawsuit against them.

Before that they crushed word processor rival WordPerfect (though arguably, WP did not handle the migration to GUI properly), and spreadsheet rival Lotus 1-2-3 this way. They leveraged their control of the Platform (Windows) to control any software market they wanted, such as internet browsers, crushing Netscape, leading to an anti-trust lawsuit [1] that almost caused Microsoft to have to split up (arguably saved by Bush Jr. being elected to office).

There was also the SCO lawsuit against Linux, but that was after Bill Gates stepped down from CEO, so it's at Steve Ballmer's feet.

Needless to say, he (& Microsoft) accumulated so much ill will that it basically required a generation turnover (as you've demonstrated ;) ) to forget.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents

I think if you’re responsible for eradicating polio, you can be as shitty as you like.

I'm pretty sure even something like that doesn't give you carte blanche for, say, murdering people. So there's a line to be drawn, and reasonable people can disagree on where exactly to draw it.

People aren't allowed to change? Improve?

What shitty things did you do 25 years ago you're willing to let me judge current you on?

People can and do change and improve, but the point is that it's quite a luxury when you make billions breaking laws and then use those billions to create a perception that you are now somehow this wholesome person.

But that's not the point. The point cbozeman made was Gates was not good 25 years ago and cbozeman does not believe that Gates has changed, but instead "he's trying to buy a legacy so he can overwrite the shit one he had when he was at the helm of Microsoft." cbozeman's point is not "it's quite a luxury when you make billions breaking laws and then use those billions to create a perception that you are now somehow this wholesome person". scrollaway's point is that people can change.

My point is, it's quite easy to make claims without proof. I know next to nothing about "new" Gates or "ruthless son of a bitch" Gates. Your claim that Gates has not changed needs some sort of evidence to be taken seriously.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com