Pride Before The Fall 328
For his new book Pride Before The Fall: The Trials of Bill Gates and the End of the Microsoft Era, " author John Heilemann got to do what many people reading this must have fantasized about a thousand times:
He flew out to Redmond, sat across from Bill Gates, and asked if he regretted his handling of the Microsoft antitrust trial, during which he alienated state attorneys general, the public and Justice Department trial lawyers, and enraged the federal judge trying the case with a series of provocative and intemperament public statements. Gates and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer had told reporters the trial was a "travesty of justice," that "we are absolutely confident we will win on appeal", and that they would "never" allow Microsoft to be broken up -- comments that helped convince Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson that Gates was unrepentant and that no solution short of a breakup could change Microsoft's predatory, monopolistic behavior.
To this day, neither Gates nor any of his aides has admitted an iota of wrongdoing before, during or after the catastrophic trial.
In one of the many dramatic incidents recounted in this astoundingly well reported book, Heilemann said he understood that Gates had "the right"..to make such statements.
"What I'm asking here is a tactical question. It was a moment of great political sensitivity. Wouldn't it have been better to keep your mouths shut?"
The look on Gates' face, recounts Heilemann, fairly radiated contempt. "We are defending principles of greated importance," he harrumphed. "Our right of appeal. Our right to innovate. Our right to have an appeals court sit and judge that." Even to mention tactics and sensibilities, he told Heilemann, was to sully those great principles with the grubbiness of politics.
Gates was unwavering. The company had done nothing wrong, the judge's findings were baseless, he had made no mistakes of any kind. He and Microsoft would be fully vindicated by the appeals process.
Pride Before The Fall is the best account we're likely to see of the downfall of Bill Gates, the wealthiest and most successful businessperson in the world, and until the antitrust trial, one of the most fawned-over. Heilemann sheds some piercing light on how the debacle that engulfed Microsoft could have been allowed to happen -- something analysts, competitors, geeks, CEO's, journalists, coders and Microsoft employees have been wondering for years and have never quite been able to explain. This book and story give credence to the old saw that has it that just because you're paranoid about somebody doesn't mean you're wrong.
Media coverage of Microsoft of is so riddled with hype and hysteria -- an exception has been Joseph Nocera of Fortune Magazine -- that Heilemann's account comes as a brilliant jolt, even to Microsoft-haters. He seems to have penetrated every nook and corner of the trial to tell this story.
The impending break-up of Microsoft was quite avoidable, according to almost every principal close to the case. Gates could have changed some of Microsoft's practices early on, especially those relating to the relationship between IE and Windows and PC makers. He could have settled. He could have accepted relatively generous mediation terms. He could have lobbied for support in Washington, instead of treating bureaucrats with contempt. He could have told DOJ lawyers and the judge the truth in his testimony. He could have avoided gratuituously offending the judge, members of Congress and the public, thereby tarnishing the previously wholesome image of his company, perhaps for good.
Why didn't he?
The patterns of powerful men (my only squawk with this book is that Heilemann didn't go into this history at all, but it is helpful) brought low by hubris -- Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, now Gates -- are eerily similiar. They all seem to have believed that the rules that govern other people didn't apply to them. They underestimated their enemies, and lacked friends who could tell them the truth. They surrounded themselves with people who told them what they wanted to hear. They were unable, when things went wrong, to apologize, acknowledge wrongdoing or change their behavior or tactics, or avert looming disaster that everyone else could see coming right at them.
Although his wrongdoings are not comparable, and there are plenty of serious questions about U.S. antitrust laws as they relate to a new kind of economy, Gates hubris fits the pattern. Despite the conclusions of every principal in the trial that Microsoft engaged in predatory, illegal and reprehensible business practices, Gates still can't accept it.
Before the trial, Heilemann points out, Gates was more than a high-tech billionaire. "He was the pristine embodiment of the high-tech myth. At an impossibly young age, he'd come out of nowhere, consumed with ideas and a pure burning passion. He had launched a company that unleashed an industry, and then led that industry as it transformed an economy. For a long time, Gates represented everything that was inspiring about this protean phenomenon taking shape in our midst -- its freshness and its ambition, its sense of possibility and its connection to the future. But like a figure lifted from classical tragedy, Gates sowed the seeds of his own undoing."
If anything, Heilemann understates Gates' unique public position during the late 80's and early 90's. Vice-presidents of the U.S. flew out to Redmond for his parties, editors of Time, The New Yorker and other magazines and publications visited him to write worshipful tributes and gather up his wisdom. Gates wrote a series of vapid and self-aggrandizing books that became instant best-sellers. The historical function of media, to harry and probe the powerful and famous, broke down.
Gates created a company that reflected his image, says Heilemann, and that fostered a worshipful culture of Gatesian omnipotence. He mastered a complex business, but failed to develop any peripheral vision, political sensibility, flexibility, or public relations antennae.
"In his arrogance, he lost whatever perspective he once had, and in his monomania he was unwise to the ways of the world....When his reckoning came, it was shocking and final."
Strong stuff, but Heilemann, a special correspondent for Wired and a former staff writer for The New Yorker , backs it up. He not only interviewed Gates, he had access to nearly every other important figure in the trial, from the judge and his clerk to Justice Department officials and lawyers on both sides. He also is clearly well-connected with the increasingly organized and embittered coalition of anti-Gates executives, lawyers and activists in Silicon Valley, seething for years over the way Microsoft did business.
One of the book's many triumphs is a penetrating look at the Valley's craven and incestuous corporate culture, which increasingly resembles not the new but the old order, the bitter, back-stabbing and opportunism of Washington. In the headquarters of the new economy, the old-fashioned laws of butt-covering and money-grubbing capitalism seemed to dominate. A couple of isolated oddballs did the right thing, but only a couple. Everyone else ducked or ran for cover.
Whatever the ultimate outcome of the appeals under way, it's hard to overstate the significance of the Microsoft trial. The case was a watershed. At times, Gates seemed very nearly broken, and the halo surrounding the company he built has vanished. The case will shape the nature of competition, innovation and law in the high-tech markets pushing aside the practices of the old economy. Economists believe that the outcome will set the rules for years to come. What's amazing is that everybody involved seemed to grasp what was at stake except for the primary target: Gates himself.
Heilemann nails Gates, and more importantly, explains him. Microsoft was brought down by the arrogant, delusional monomania of its founder, traits not perceived by his legions of profilers or challenged by his hordes of subordinates, a man who had clearly come to believe in his own immortality and was unable to grasp the realities of the world beyond his own company. For a man who believes in his own omnipotence, some bitter pills. The phrase "tech-smart but world dumb" is sometimes used to describe even brilliant programmers and computing executives. It captures Gates perfectly. In fact, he embodies it.
One of Heilemann's most telling scenes -- in one of the best books yet written about power and the new economy -- shows Gates, just as Microsoft lawyers readied their case, leaving other MS execs in charge, and heading off on a weeks-long vacation accompanied by his wife and bigwigs like financier Warren Buffet and new media scion William Randolph Hearst III. Gates had chartered a train to ferry his troupe around the American West on a sightseeing tour. Heilemann reports that Gates was surrounded by adoring minions and acolytes who made sure he never got bored or testy, who arranged for a string of experts -- archaeologists, historians -- to suddenly appear out of nowhere and describe a canyon or town.
The image is not of a new kind of leader for the new economy, but of a standard tycoon losing touch with reality, the Citizen Kane of cyberspace, his every whim satisfied, the number of people who can say "you're wrong" dwindling. Small wonder he couldn't bring himself to believe some geek programmers, Silicon Valley whiners and a handful of underpaid Justice Department lawyers could pose much threat.
Many developers, programmers and workers in the tech industry had for years perceived Microsoft as nearly satanic because of its staggering monopoly, its products of questionable quality, its ferociously proprietary ethic. They were right, able to see their world from a vantage point the off-line world still hasn't quite grasped. Many, many stories circulated about the company's arrogance and brutal business style.
Ironic that these sometimes paranoid-seeming notions turned out to be largely valid. The Microsoft culture that Heilemann presents was actually worse than many believed.
The feelings that many Microsoft employees had for their boss went beyond respect or loyalty, writes Heilemann, "and crept right up to the brink of infatuation: in one way or another, everyone in Redmond seemed to have a crush on Bill. Gates inspired this intense following without being, in any conventional sense, a charismatic or especially winning figure."
What he was, the book says, was very smart, and in the universe that he had personally created, "to be deemed smart -- or, better still, super smart -- was to be awarded the greatest accolade in the Microsoft lexicon."
But Gates' behavior before, during and after the antitrust case was anything but smart. At every critical juncture when a friend, colleague, attorney or ally needed to grab him by the threat and force him to come to his senses, nobody did -- either because he was considered above reproach or because, as Heilemann seems to suspect, he simply wouldn't have listened and won't to this day.
Microsoft is still a powerful corporation, and Gates still has many billions in the bank. There are tougher ways to fall. But Heilemann is dead on when he says the Microsoft era is over, done in by the same smart and flawed many who created it.
As for Pride Before the Fall, it's timely, economical and powerful. Skillfully reported, it captures better than any other our transition from one historic period to other. It has enormous moral and human punch, and is convincing and unsparing. It's gripping reading.
P.S. Full disclosure: Heilemann and I worked together as columnists at Hotwired several years ago.
You can purchase this book at ThinkGeek.
My name is.. (Score:1)
Hi! My name is.. (what?) My name is.. (who?)
My name is.. {scratches} First Poster!
Hi! My name is.. (huh?) My name is.. (what?)
My name is.. {scratches} First Poster!
Ahh emm.. excuse me!
Can I have the attention of Slashdot
for one second?
Hi kids! Do you like trollin'? (Yeah yeah yeah!)
Wanna see me rap to this tune that I've stolen? (Uh-huh!)
Wanna copy me next time Slashdot's pollin'? (Yeah yeah!)
Try goatse.cx [goatse.cx], get some fucked up shit rollin'? (Huh?)
My brains dead weight, I'm tryin to get my head straight
but I cant figure out which editor I wanna impregnate (Umm..)
Taco said, "First Poster, you a basehead!"
Uh-uh! "Then why's your face red? Man you wasted!"
Well since age twelve, I've felt like I'm someone else
Cause I hung my original self from the top bunk with a belt
Got pissed off and ripped Jon Katz's dick off
And smacked him so hard I knocked his clothes backwards like Kris Kross
I smoke a fat pound of grass and fall on my ass
faster than a fat bitch who sat down too fast
Come here slut. (FP, wait a minute, that's Cowboy Neal!)
I don't give a fuck, MS sent me to piss Slashdot off.
Hi! My name is.. (what?) My name is.. (who?)
My name is.. {scratches} First Poster!
Hi! My name is.. (huh?) My name is.. (what?)
My name is.. {scratches} First Poster!
Cracksmoker wanted to mod me down just before
Thanks a lot, now my karma's down to -4
I smacked him in his face with a keyboard, hit his sig with a warlord
and flogged his nuts with a mouse cord (Owwwwwwww!)
Walked in the strip club, had my jacket zipped up
Flashed the bartender, then stuck my dick in the tip cup
Extraterrestrial, runnin over pedestrians
in a spaceship while they screamin: "LET'S JUST BE FRIENDS!"
Ninety-nine percent of my life I was lied to
I just found out Trollmastah gets more Firsts than I do (Damn!)
I told him I'd grow up to be a famous rapper
I'll make a record about trolling and name it after ya (Oh thank you!)
You know you blew up when the women rush your stands
and try to touch your hands like some screamin Linus fans (Aaahhhhhh!)
This guy at ALS asked for my autograph
(Dude, can I get your autograph?)
So I signed it: 'Dear ESR, thanks for the support, ASSHOLE!'
Hi! My name is.. (what?) My name is.. (who?)
My name is.. {scratches} First Poster!
Hi! My name is.. (huh?) My name is.. (what?)
My name is.. {scratches} First Poster!
Stop the tape, this kid needs to be locked away! (Get him!)
Taco, dont just stand there, OPERATE!
I'm not ready to leave, won't disconnect from this host (Fuck that!)
You'll have to format my HD, and even then I'll Ghost
(Huh yup!) Don't touch that modem, or else you be toast
I just drank a fifth of vodka, dare me to post? (Go ahead)
All my life I was very deprived
Can't troll IRL, giving jocks shit is suicide
(Whoops!) Clothes ripped like the Incredible Hulk (hachhh-too)
I spit when I talk, I'll fuck anything that walks (C'mere)
When I was little I used to troll people on IRC
HOW YOU GONNA K-LINE ME DUDE? (WAH!)
YOU DON'T KNOW MY IP! (WAHHH!)
I stay awake all night on Slashdot
Forget to click "anonymous", let the mods take their best shot (BANG!)
I'm stone psycho (Arrrggghhh!)
And by the way when you see Taco? (Yeah?)
Tell him that I'm gonna blow us his site like Waco
Hi! My name is.. (what?) My name is.. (who?)
My name is.. {scratches} First Poster!
Hi! My name is.. (huh?) My name is.. (what?)
My name is.. {scratches} First Poster!
Re:WTF? (Score:1)
1. Notes cost = $450.00 / seat
2. Ya get what you pay for.
Conclusion: Notes is worth $450.00 / seat. QED.
You just can't argue with logic like that.
Insightful? How about Just Plain Wrong? (Score:1)
In brief, a shareholder is an owner who hires an officer to run the company in the best interests of the shareholders.
In brief, MicroSoft is not strictly Bill Gates' company once he put up shares in an initial public offering. He was the founder and Chief Executive Officer for awhile, but he no more owns all of MicroSoft than you do. His shares give him an interest in the company, but he no longer owns the majority of shares. I'm not going to get into different kinds of shares here, however.
MicroSoft is not Bill Gates' to torch, since it is NOT despite your post "HIS empire to destroy if he so desires it", or else a lot of people who hold MicroSoft shares own something very different than they were told they were buying. In my view, MicroSoft shareholders may have a cause of action against Slick Billy for *not* settling the actions apparently despite shareholder instructions.
I realize you aren't a lawyer, but please don't offer legal opinions such as who owns the Evil Empire and I won't give you advice on coding.
By the way, we concur on our opinion concerning the Anti-Christness of Billy G.
_____________________________________________
Proud user of Red Hat Linux since May 1, 1999
stickiness factor (Score:2)
Mr. Katz (Score:2)
The original post is nothing more than a fawning attempt to pander to your audience. Perhaps if you had spent less time on referring to a mythical fall of a company that dwarfs the entire Linux movement in product line, revenue and longevity and more time focussing on the facts of the case and the potential that this apparent tactical mistake on the part of MS/Bill G. may have your article would be a better read.
Do not forget MS has been to the court of appeals before. Judge T is at best a little out of his water and at worst addled and the court of appeals seems to like MS. Add to this the new administration in Washington and we may find that Judge T is best off retiring early or having several cases overturned on appeal (slap!) because he has /slanted/ his opinion on MS publicly.
Re:WTF? (Score:1)
I have a strong suspicion that it's not quite that easy.
Just consider the syntax in the various stored procedures, e.g. Transact-SQL is used on both Sybase and MS's SQLServer. However, dependent upon the version of the latter, a working stored procedure in the former will fail run on the latter. Moreover, as of version 7 the extensions added would certainly not allow one to migrate to Sybase.
Having first starting with Oracle's PL/SQL, Transact-SQL seems to be a subset of the former, but Sybase deviates in version 11 from the SQL-92 standard in odd ways. Hence, seeming similar stored procedures may fail to yield identical results on different database products or in the worse case fail to even run. Moreover, the method of using temporary tables may differ between products.
In summary, an export to a new back end may require <B>significant</B> effort.
Re:Ummm... (Score:2)
Seriously, listen to yourself for a second. You sound just a _bit_ like you're wearing a tinfoil helmet... the fact is, Microsoft is a public company with truly staggering expenses and an entire culture _based_ on geometric expansion. It doesn't matter _how_ much money they have (and which set of figures are you looking at?), they're not spending it any slower.
I honestly, seriously believe that if Microsoft is absolved of all wrongdoing by the courts their next move is to run themselves into massive debt through uncontrolled expenditures and implode. It's possible this would destroy them a lot better than a court-ordered breakup. Steve Ballmer agrees with me and has made public statements about wanting to alter Microsoft's very culture into more of a culture of frugality (ha! not!). Who are you going to believe, me and Ballmer, or some PR flack feeding you nonsense about MS invincibility? That's what they're _paid_ to do...
Re:Ruling to be Vacated! (Score:2)
Re:Did I sleep through the fall of microsoft? (Score:2)
See more about their methodology in the document with the results, eg at http://www.netcraft.com/survey/index-200007.html
IBM was brought down (Score:1)
Read your history-- at one time, IBM was in the *exact* same position as MS, destroying competition not through superior products, but through superior market position and greater reach. It used suspicious contracts and marketting to lock customers in, and make them happy to *be* locked in, same as MS does now.
Take a look at IBM today-- it has greater global reach than MS, superior products, and embraces the Free/Open Source software movement. Yes, it's not completely converted, but IBM bases its technology on standards. Mostly.
Not that IBM is a model company; but it was brought down from its position of dictatorship, and is today a stronger company because of it.
Of course he is immortal (Score:2)
For interesting reading... (Score:5)
The 1999 Shareholder Meeting [microsoft.com]
See the previous years as well. Their shareholders consistently advise Microsoft to settle with the government, and they're basically shrugged off.
Re:This is a lil' weak (Score:2)
If and when such a book is published, I expect we'll see a headline about it here. In the meantime here's a few slashdot stories which refer to criticism against Linux:
1 [slashdot.org]
2 [slashdot.org]
3 [slashdot.org]
Obviously there are more.
--
Ummm... (Score:2)
Also, Microsoft has enough capital to survive, intact, if it never sold another product for a decade.
Microsoft can ignore any judgement passed against them, with impunity. Bill Gates isn't worried, because there's nothing to worry about.
Short of levelling Redmond with a tac nuke (and it wouldn't surprise me if B.G. bought surplus Star Wars anti-nuke technology), how do the US courts think they're going to actually get Microsoft to split up?
By throwing stones?
Sorry, but in this battle, Goliath has depleted uranium armour, and the stones are paper mache.
Look, if things got really bad for Bill, he's enough money to finance an army large enough to seize control of the country, should he wish. Worse, the US military's mostly using MS products, making any kind of opposition a joke.
Paranoia? Probably. But that's not the point. The point is, if it =DID= come to a showdown, Microsoft would win. So how exactly are they fallen?
What fall? (Score:2)
--
Re:Ancient History (Score:2)
Re:far be it for me to defend mr bill... (Score:2)
As long as there's gravity... (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft, dying? Or do you mean Linux? (Score:2)
Yes they are.
skillful riposte. are you going to hold your breath til you turn blue when someone says "are not"?
--
Re:FIRST NAZI (Score:2)
--
Did I sleep through the fall of microsoft? (Score:4)
Sorry, Jon, you're way off on this one. MSFT stock may be in the toilet right now, but that doesn't mean they're about to shut down.
Live by the lower TCO. Die by the lower TCO. (Score:2)
Now that NT has some serious competition with a lower T.C. of Aquisition, M$ has started on a slow inextorable death spiral. Why do you think they are trying
Since most shops using NT have sys admin staff, the OS itself doesn't matter anymore. Its now somebody job to get the systems up and running. That Linux is better is nice. What will kill M$ is that Linux is cheaper. But better has never mattered. Good enough is good enough. The people who buy the products don't use them.
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Yep. No doubt that when any of the following:
- Bill Gates's conviction (or death)
- Microsoft's stock price falling below a certain level
- Microsoft losing money for several consecutive quarters
The backdoors are used to punish American businesses for the arrogance in believing that they could fnction without Bill Gates's benevolent vision and guiding hand.Actually, I'd say it was mainly the folks outside the tech industry that overestimate Microsoft's importance.
--
Re:Did I sleep through the fall of microsoft? (Score:2)
I wonder how many of these were given a small fortune's worth of hardware and software by MS.
I suspect they've been doing that a lot lately. There is a start-up I am close to, hasn't even received funding yet, is getting offers of free hardware and software from MS. Six figures worth! The condition is that they re-write all the unix-based stuff to become a pure W2K shop.
Re:Linux == "communistic"? (Score:2)
The reason communism is associated with evil, is that regimes practicing forced communism were, in fact, evil. It is the force that was evil though, not the social ownership per se. However, it is also true that there is no workable method for allocating socially owned material objects. That is to say, that communism (as applied to material things) is inherently contradictory; and hence the association of communism with evil is not that ridiculous, since there was in fact no way of communism coming out good.
Except that now, in a domain of information instead of physical things, there is. And so we can expect the knee-jerk opposition of right-wing yahoos for a while more. Don't worry about it. The difference between information and physical things is apparent enough that in time, such complaints will simply melt away.
Re:WTF? (Score:3)
I'm not saying that MS will do what IBM did in the last 5 years. But big companies with an active large market share do not die easily.
Arrogance is relative, indeed. (Score:3)
Hrrm... let me get this straight. Some random ass-munch on Slashdot, on the strength of sheer force of ego, presumes to post that this guy, who has been a staff writer for the New Yorker, a Washington correspondent for The Economist, and covered political affairs for Wired and HotWired, that he's a hack.
Sorry, who's the troll here?
-----
"You owe me a case of beer. Sucka'."
Heilemann's article on same for Wired (Score:4)
Heilemann did an article for Wired a couple of months ago called The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth [wired.com] on exactly this subject. I'm assuming that the book (which I haven't read) is essentially a more in-depth look at the same thing.
When I started the article, I was hopeful that it would be an even-handed analysis of how Microsoft had come by the drubbing they'd received at the hands of Jackson. (Although - pardon the pun - the jury is still out on whether it will stick.) I couple pages into it, I started to become disappointed: it seemed to me at that point to be shaping up to be a tale of how a dedicated band of young lawyers turned a foundering investigation against an evil empire around, and blah blah blah.
I'm glad I stuck with it. The article was indeed even handed, and still managed to be damning. For example, Heilemann asked Ballmer point-blank if Scott McNealy was right when he said that Microsoft licensed Java in bad faith (with the intent of breaking the contract). The response, edited for space:
It's such a weird picture - Ballmer starts off saying "Of course we entered into the contract in good faith," but seems to immediately do a 180, and finishes up with "Of course we didn't. And the Sun people wore morons to think we did."
I'm gonna buy the book. The article was worth the price of admission just for that.
-----
"You owe me a case of beer. Sucka'."
Re:Did I sleep through the fall of microsoft? (Score:2)
But the fact remains that Apache has been hovering at 60% for over a year and IIS at 20%. From month to month one goes up by 1%, comes back down the following month, goes back up the one after and so one and so forth. This little statistical dance has been going on for quite some time.
Unless Microsoft sustains that 1.82% growth month after month from now on (possible, but I'd be very surprised), it is a bit premature to even *suggest* that IIS might be catching up to Apache. Apache still has 3 times the market share of IIS.
The original poster said "IIS is still gaining on Apache" (the highlight is mine). Please. This is the first month ever that Netcraft has shown a possible gain from IIS over Apache. Isn't the word "still" a bit premature??
Re:On the subject of hubris, Jon... (Score:2)
Re:On the subject of hubris, Jon... (Score:2)
Actually what I was saying was they're not all bad despite them being big in part because of unfair business practices. I rail against Microsoft's products and practices as much as the next guy, but I am also willing to give them credit for some things that they do well (or at least better than anyone else).
Re:On the subject of hubris, Jon... (Score:3)
As far as "delusional" goes. Gates' "delusion" of his pre-eminence as a technological messiah looks to the majority of the world to be a fact.
I think the article, and presumably the book, has a level of arrogance that assumes some kind of failure of Microsoft that has not and may never happen. As much as some of us would like to think otherwise, Microsoft, a half _trillion_ dollar company is not going away any time soon. I personally don't think that's a bad thing even if they are in dire need of a good spanking, but as my bio says, I'm a "shameless Microsoft user".
Re:This book is too early and presumptous (Score:2)
You'd like GW to let up, but it's out of his hands now. Even if the DOJ would let up (but really why would they forfit a game that they won by a big margin) the states AJ are ready to continue rhe case with or without the Feds. Microsoft will be attacked until the bitter end and get a lot more that just a slap on the wrist.
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Don't believe the tech hype. There are really powerful companies out there, and Microsoft is among the smaller of them.
Try AOL-Time/Warner. Try Monsanto. Try the Royal Dutch Shell companies. Those organizations have power the way MS can only dream of. Given that Microsoft is the current 500 lb gorilla of the tech world, don't think that it translates to the rest of the econmomy.
Honesty (Score:2)
Arrogance != Honesty
--
ohmigod! jon! (Score:2)
one day, i hope katz writes about macintosh -- good things, mainly -- so that the heads of thousands of slashdot readers will explode all at once.
he's a good writer with good points. people pick on him for the silliest of reasons. it debases the dialogue on this page when people start flaming him. i am rather disappointed by the intelligence and maturity of some of the posters here.
God complex (Score:2)
Katz hit upon Clinton, Nixon, and a few others. However, these are by far not the best examples. Tribal leaders, European kings and queens of the Middle Ages, and various other kingdom leaders throughout time - most specifically leaders of monarchs - have exhibbited such trains. These leaders, or powerful people, have errected huge monuments to themselves - the pyramids being a prime example of such.
It's not a terribly new thing. People of great stature who are looked to as leaders and heros fall into corruption more times than not. Look at Hollywood - that place is notocious for having messed up people.
-------
CAIMLAS
Re:Financially speaking... (Score:2)
I still believe it's a perfectly valid point that whatever little vengeful plans anyone in the computer world has against Microsoft would not just affect Bill Gates in a profoundly negative way.
The world can operate without Microsoft. But I don't think we're ready for that yet. We would need an adequate replacement for a desktop OS (don't say Linux, it's not ready yet), we would need the stock market to jump ship on them slowly (as in not causing a market crash), and we would need 19,000 Microserfs to have new jobs lined up. If that happens, I think it's perfectly fine if Gates and Co. go down in flames. Otherwise, who are you really hurting there? A lot more people who don't deserve it than ones who do.
Don't forget that you'd be stranding MILLIONS of licensed Windows users, who depend on that OS and programs written for it in their business and personal lives. Few of these people can pick up Linux or MacOS tomorrow and make a smooth transition. Granted, the software will be there and the company won't be... but you still need tech support and bugfixes (lots of em), and no other company will want to do that for the sake of charity.
Notice that none of my arguement tries to downplay or deny what they've done in the past. I know they have been unethical... although not THAT bad recently in my opinion... and I believe people have a right to feel that way. Just think of the consequences first, though, to OTHER PEOPLE when you plot your revenge.
And no, Microsoft doesn't hold up the world. As a matter of fact, if they ever went away, I'm sure other companies would step up to the plate to take their place, although it would be a painful transition. But it would be possible. Just don't think that anyone's ready for that yet.
One more thing... with the dominance of Windows and the advent of Linux, the business of operating systems isn't too profitable anymore. Linux is free, it's difficult to start another OS from scratch and get a lot of people to use it (e.g. BeOS), and it's not really feasible to make a Windows clone without breaking a few copyrights. So why would anyone else wanna be in the operating system business right now? Let MS have it for now and let them deal with all the bullshit like new peripherals/drivers, compatibility, bugfixes, security and stability, etc. I don't see anyone else lining up to deal with these responsibilities....
Re:Financially speaking... (Score:2)
I mean, what the Justice Dept. wants to do is GREAT for me! My family (not me personally) owns MSFT stock, and while I'd rather not see my parents die old and poor... I think two is better than one in this case. But ignoring that...
The whole point of the posting was about a book that consistently says "Microsoft has fallen"... when it's not true at all. But it's wishful thinking on part of the Slashdot crowd. I just don't like that idea... everyone on here hates Bill Gates, that's fine, he's a great villian. But they're still around, and I think there's a lot of GOOD reasons why the government shouldn't try their best to bankrupt them... although I don't mind if another company does that on their own, as it would be fair competition (and fun to watch).
However, I don't see that happening soon. Linux can't do it, and probably shouldn't. I'd rather see Linux destroy Sun anyway. Sun represents everything evil against the Open Source movement - closed source, expensive hardware, few options, dumb lawsuits and bullying to protect shoddy technology (Java). Microsoft sells an operating system that none of you like but isn't targeted toward you anyway... and they don't represent real competition to anything that anyone on here does anyway. And they make more money on investments and MS Office anyway. It's like saying, instead of just admitting you don't like cheesy teen romantic comedies, that you want Freddie Prinze Jr. and the rest of them to die horribly.
Or maybe not. It's late, my analogies suck.
Anyway, my first idea was that we'd rather see an honest MS than a dead MS. Can anyone agree on that?
Financially speaking... (Score:3)
Once again, we fail to see the irresponsibility of our desires. MSFT is still listed on the DJIA. It still heavily swings the NASDAQ index too. Gates, Allen, and Ballmer might be still filthy rich off their own company's stock, but there are a large number of middle class, blue-collar investors that have a significant amount of Microsoft shares... not for lack of portfolio diversity, but because their share value went steadily up for a while and the overall eventual wealth of MSFT holdings well outweighed the wealth of... let's say, AT&T or Exxon stock. And don't forget the large number of mutual funds with a big portion of Microsoft stock... generally the financial world still thinks that it's something to hold onto, maybe even a bargain right now.
I don't condone unethical behavior, but compared with the other giants in the industry, they're in good company. (Intel, Sun, Oracle... hell, even Hemos is whining about RAMBUS today, and you tell me which company you'd rather see die) But more importantly, we'd rather see Microsoft REFORM and avoid unethical behavior... correct? A company of their size and clout could contribute very much to the computer industry... as they have already, although not as much to our line of interests... and I think they would be more beneficial honest than dead.
Of course, the typical 3-year-old child way of thinking is to bring bulldozers to Redmond, put 20,000 people out of work, destroy the personal finances of millions of middle class people, crash the stock market, remove the current lynchpin of the OS business (possibly collapsing the computer industry if people go back to using bank calculators rather than learn *nix), create a nightmare for the retail world, and hand the wheel over to... well, no one is quite ready to take their place just yet.
Hey, you're entitled to your own opinion.
Re:Microsoft, dying? Or do you mean Linux? (Score:2)
Yes they are.
--
SecretAsianMan (54.5% Slashdot pure)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Re:Did I sleep through the fall of microsoft? (Score:4)
Re:Come on Jon.... (Score:2)
Got my hopes up there for a second; I thought it would be fiction of some sort about the linux movement bringing down Microsoft (perhaps a history what-if scenario). Heh, that wouldn't be a bad premise to write a book, now that I think about it. Maybe that'll keep Katz busy for awhile and outta our hair?
Watcha say, John? Try some fiction for a chance? (Hell, original content, even :).
Phew (Score:2)
Premature (Score:2)
A) Bush as the new President
B) Ashcroft now over-seeing the trial
C) Open Source revolution
D) Competing OSs (do they have a shot?)
E) Microsoft's increasing unpopularity
F) Microsoft's HUGE installed base
All of these undetermined factors, or maybe variables, will tell the tale. But this book is far too premature. I think MS is still on top of the food chain, as much as I HATE to admit that.
Re:On the subject of hubris, Jon... (Score:2)
As of this moment, Microsoft is worth $309 billion, that is much closer to a quarter of a trillion dollars than half of a trillion dollars.
Microsoft, dying? Or do you mean Linux? (Score:3)
Microsoft is not evil nor ruthless. They're attributed these qualities because they're on top, but to get to the top, you only need to be the best at what you do. Microsoft took computer code, and envisionned it as a product, to be marketed and sold appropriately. Business-wise, it's a brilliant strategy, and doesn't involve screwing anybody. That vision of the world of software will keep on going, and is the real issue here.
And judging by the market, at least one of these visions is taking a serious credibility hit.
He won the majority of the votes COUNTED (Score:2)
"Fall" of MS? (Score:2)
And I will certainly bet a beer that the .NET middleware platform will contain undocumented APIs that MS applications developers know about that no one else does... Five years after the breakup (if it occurs), the MS application company antitrust case defense begins with "Your Honor, we did everything that the government demanded the last time we were in court. Are you going to punish us again because they claim now that they didn't get it right?"
Re:Bill Gates (Score:2)
Where did Bill get the $50k to buy his reverse-engineered copy of CPM (became DOS 1.0)?
His Dad is/was a prominent attorney in Seattle.
Draw your own conclusions, but don't claim that Bill is the ol' pull-'em-up-by-the-bootstraps entrepeneur.
Re:WTF? (Score:3)
Sorry again, but this is a common mistake. Very few organizations use Microsoft to "run their business". They use Microsoft for file servers where they store their mountains of Word, Excel and PowerPoint documents. But, despite what the paper-pushers and PHB's of the world might want you to believe, Word and Excel documents, and most especially PowerPoint presentations do not run the business. And they could just as easily be ported over to Word Perfect, WordPro, StarOffice, 1-2-3, or any of thousands of other business document formats. (We did it before from WordStar to Word Perfect and then from Word Perfect to Microsoft Word.) And for e-mail and other group-ware, Lotus Notes is still more popular with corporate America - although I can't for the life of me figure out why companies think this brain-dead software with its piss-poor user interface is worth $450 per user.
Most serious software for "running the business" runs on high-speed servers from Sun, IBM, HP, DG and others. The critical business software is giant Oracle databases. And even there Oracle is not all that crucial since a database is a database. The data could just as easily be put onto a Sybase, Informix, DB/2 or other database system.
Re:WTF? (Score:5)
Sorry, but until it's not all about money anymore (yeah, right) either General Motors - in terms of revenues - or General Electric - in terms of market capitalization - is the most powerful, influential company in the United States. Microsoft is number 84 on the Fortune 500. In deference to our international friends, Microsoft is only number 216 on Fortune's Global 5000. Hell, Microsoft didn't even know what a lobbyist was until the anti-trust case was filed.
The fact that Microsoft's stock price has dropped from a high of $120 per share in December of 1999 to around $58 per share today is a pretty good indicator of a company on the ropes, if not dying. Regardless of how much you love Bill Gates that does not change the fact that Microsoft is only as powerful as it is because it used anti-competitive practices to ensure that we all had to use their products regardless of how much we thought they sucked. I would challenge you to point out the last time Microsoft was truly innovative and didn't just "adopt and extend" some existing technology.
Shakespeare wrote the first book about microsoft (Score:2)
Wired article: The Truth, The Whole Truth, and... (Score:4)
Re:BillG forgot the "Evil Overlord Rules of Thumb" (Score:2)
24. I will maintain a realistic assessment of my strengths and weaknesses. Even though this takes some of the fun out of the job, at least I will never utter the line "No, this cannot be! I AM INVINCIBLE!!!" (After that, death is usually instantaneous.)
This seems strangely relevant.
Was brought down ? (Score:3)
"Microsoft was brought down"
Damn, I must have blinked and missed it !
Stalin died in '53. The Berlin Wall didn't go up for nearly another decade, let along get torn down. It's a bit early to be predicting the Death Of Microsoft, no matter how much wishful thinking is behind it.
Hmmm (Score:2)
I don't know if this is totally true, they did have to get people to work for them, and I know programmers that think MS is great. They also do turn out a few good programs. SOME programmers might thing MS is satanic, but I know others that think Linux is communistic, and many think that's worse.
--
How much do you value these methods? (Score:4)
He should have compromised what he really thought.
He should have "played the PR game".
He should have coddled bureaucrats.
He should have paid attention to "political sensibilities".
From the perspective of Fortune or Business Week, that all sounds right and proper.
But from a hacker perspective?
I'm not saying Gates is a hacker (although he is indeed really damn smart), but if you align yourself with those ideals, is it really correct to deride someone for being forthright and stubborn in the defense of their position?
John Carmack
Misuse of the term "literally" (Score:2)
Katz, if you say you literally could not put down the book then there was something physical preventing you from doing that. Does the book come with a coating of superglue on the cover?
Mantle
Re:Come on Jon.... (Score:2)
Half a billion dollars can buy an awful lot of treachery. For Mister G, it's just a really big cheque.
--
Re:Come on Jon.... (Score:2)
A 20 foot fall, and a 200 foot falls can both be considered "being brought down". This was a 20 foot fall (should have been jolting, and a warning of what may be to come, but Mr. Gates is a bit too well padded to notice anything more than some temporary discomfort).
The 200 foot fall may be on it's way -- A "bringing down" of another magnitude.
--
the PC is not the be all and end all though..... (Score:2)
Ouch.
I'm going to state something first, prattle on like an idiot for a couple of paragraphs, and then try to return to my original point.
I'm sorry, but I have to call you out there. When I was cutting my teeth (Around the same time as MS was gunning for pre-eminence, circa 1990, to paraphrase Andy Grove). MS-DOS hadn't even entered my lexicon. Granted it was easier for me, being European, but I started on the C64, and found my home on the Amiga.
"Ho!", you cry, "An Amiga zealot with revenge on his mind. He shouldn't have bought into inferior technology". Again, although I (and I freely admit this) do have something of an axe to grind with MS over the Amiga issue, it isn't that which makes me hope that their days of pre-eminence are over. It is the simple fact that the One Microsoft Way almost became reality across computing. If they'd been allowed to continue as they were before the proceedings, the nightmare reality of Microsoft products being the only viable solution in the world could have come to pass. Doesn't that scare you in the slightest?
The thing I like most about geek culture is that it makes a virtue of diversity. Not 'fitting in' is the norm. Through our computers we can express ourselves, and I only like working with a computer I can truly express myself with (And no, I don't mean through desktop wallpaper and movable icons). When there's only one candidate for what you can run on your machine, it smacks of a frightening level of digital totalitarianism that flies in the face of everything I love about computing and technology in the first place. Microsoft's eventual goal was (and still is, in many ways) to make sure that it is the only option. If I want to use *NIX instead of Windows, Navigator instead of IE, even DR-DOS instead of MS-DOS , that's my prerogative. MS were all in favour of taking that away, therefore I was, and am, willing to fight them using any and all means at my disposal. .NET frightens me, and I hope that if it does succeed, it doesn't stop those that don't like or wish to use its model from enjoying technology to the fullest.
OK, rant over. I'd just like to state that I do have friends who did grow up with MS-DOS, and will defend it and the PC architecture to the hilt. But I find that, thanks largely to MS, I'm shackled to an architecture I hate programming for (Extended AT) and frequently using an OS which I find painfully counter-intuitive and lousy to code for (and it ain't Linux :).
Microsoft helped make computing a far less exciting and enjoyable pastime for me, and I certainly feel that I owe neither them, or Bill Gates anything.
M$ not a monopoly, but (Score:2)
Perhaps if these smaller companies would stop selling out, the problem would go away. Competition is definitely needed, and while Linux and BSD are slowly creeping into the general publics awareness, they do not have the marketing clout (nor, fortunately, the complete lack of soul) that M$ does. I think we all know how M$ likes to take the R&D of others and steal it. Sometimes they actually buy out the company. Sometimes they actually copy the innovation of the other company thus drowning the market once again (forcing the company to go out of business and then buying them). Or they just lock out the protocol, API, application, etc. with their latest patch (keeping in mind that I consider 95 part 2, 98 and 98SE to be mere patches to the original 95). This forces the other company to go out of business (then M$ buys the patents and such) or just sells out to M$. Then we have Neanderthal Technology (NT or NoT) at ummm, well I wanted to say at work but it just doesn't fit. NT is great for outsourced network engineers, on call ALL the time for the constant problems with NT.
Back to the central point, since M$ likes to use other's work and research for themselves, perhaps the Open source community should allow ourselves to partake in that bit of market strategy. I don't mean copy work, but if you notice a movement that is working (people seem to be adopting it and it spreads like wildfire) then by all means let Linux et al. jump on the bandwagon. I don't understand why people HATE m$ to the degree that anything even remotely associated with them is automatically shut out. That is childish behavior that is in essence self destructive (most illogical and emotional behavior is).
I also think that the software industry needs to mature and develop a steady professional association both on the individual and market level. If done right, and it is done so in many other areas, then if any one group like M$ tries their crap like before, I will specifically target the guerilla marketing and intimidation, then I believe that the threatened companies should be able to safely tell M$ to blow it out its respective arse. Some might say this is already the case with the open source movement, but remember that the open source movement has all the signs of being a fad. Which means that many "supporters" will all drop out when it becomes trendy to leave. On the other hand, since more businesses everyday are adopting Linux and BSD for mission critical systems (I personally and bucking for some more DoD servers running on SecureBSD and Linux) I think that this might not happen soon. People are fickle and very silly, but maybe we can hold off the stampede until later. I could be (I hope I am) wrong, and maybe this is just my cynicism rearing its ugly head.
To summarize my rant, we need to police ourselves. Dont adopt the same unethical tactics, however we should keep our eyes open to things that work. Like Balmer goofily admitted (as if we didn't already know) M$ is commited to closing protocols and locking down ideas to only run on their systems. That pisses everyone off, even many traditional M$ supporters. If we give them what they want, CHOICE we win no matter what.
Re:Gates could have what? (Score:2)
Re:BillG forgot the "Evil Overlord Rules of Thumb" (Score:2)
Real Audio interview with John Heilmann (Score:2)
Click here [theconnection.org] for The Connection's Pride Before the Fall web page.
Click here [bu.edu] for the Real Audio interview.
Re:It Depends How You Define "Fall" :) (Score:2)
Word and Excel each eventually displaced Word Perfect and Lotus 123. They created better applications and marketed them very competitively. Admittedly, some of that success was based on good Windows 3.0 support, as their application developers had experience on the Macintosh platform when other PC software vendors were struggling to shift their paradigms.
If .net turns out to be a major new platform (this time reinventing Sun's wheels instead of Apple's), perhaps they will once again have a similar platform-shift advantage as they did when their windows 3.0 based apps were much better than poorly converted dos ones.
I hope it doesn't turn out like that. I use linux about 95% (most CAD software only runs in windows), and I really want linux to "win"... total world domination, or something like that.
It's easy to underestimate Microsoft. Many have before.
Do Not Underestimate The Power Of The Dark Side
Re:Microsoft, dying? Or do you mean Linux? (Score:2)
How about dishonest? Even when testifying in a court of law under oath?
*This* is stuff that matters... (Score:2)
And I thought it was a slow news day ! The submission queue must be full. I'm ready to yell "duplicate!" when it'll be posted in a few minutes..
Cheers,
--fred
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Even then, IBM was still a great deal better than Microsoft is now. I think this guy is a bit premature in his assessment, but I can see Microsoft taking a very nasty fall because
they don't realise that keeping the customer happy takes a lot more than just lying about the alternatives, and just like IBM did they've made some bad enemies, like, ironically, IBM.
Come on Jon.... (Score:4)
While I *do* think that good and economics will win in the end and Microsoft will at best exist as a shadow of what it is now it is *really* early to talk about their decline and fall in the past tense. It would be better to say that this will be one of the factors that will bring balance to the market and cause everyone to have to compete based on merit instead of marketing buck and monoply power. But don't go using the past tense just yet.
arrogance is relative (Score:4)
Sorry, who was the arrogant one here?
Pandering :) (Score:2)
Flattery will get you nowhere here. :)
Some onerous EULA? (Score:2)
Wow. Microsoft must have had a hand in the licensing agreement for that book!
Re:FIRST NAZI (Score:2)
Re:Ancient History (Score:3)
Re:You must have checked a long time ago... (Score:2)
Imminent End of Microsoft!@#$ (Score:3)
Bill Gates (Score:3)
At some point we all learn to compromise because we have to, not because we want to. In the beginning so did wild Bill. Things have changed, it's now his game, he has more money than all of us combined. He DOES (did) run the biggest company in the world, and he, through his own manipulation (be it good or bad), created from scratch his own wealth. He is walking proof that "the system" works for those who know how to use it. He's not some rich boy who took Daddy's money and added a little more to it. He was a middle-class boy who took some of daddy's money, and his own skills (even if not technical) and turned it into an empire.
It is HIS empire to destroy if he so desires it. He's a smart boy, he knows what would be the BEST way of preserving his company, but maybe he doesn't want to. He built that company from nothing and it's being taken from him. If he can't run it his way, he'd probably rather not run it at all. Even if this process "ruins" him (maybe only a few hundred million left), he will always live comfortably. He's merely standing up for what he believes in and for that I admire him, it's a sign of character and backbone.
It irks me (but doesn't surprise me) that Katz of all people will assist in villifying Gates for doing nothing more than standing up for his beliefs. We all do the same for the opposing side, and most of us fall on our own swords, but we do so freely for our cause. It does not make Bill Gates a bad man to fight for his cause. What makes him a bad man is what his cause is. Unfortunately this book is little more than glorified name calling. "He shoulda done this or that" is NOT useful reading. I'm not going to pay any money to hear someone make fun of someone else.
Cursed (Score:3)
This is a book you literally will not be able to put down.
Darn storyteller.. it must be cursed then. Is there a priest with the 'remove curse' spell around?
-Helmet
Microsoft: the world's biggest utility (Score:5)
The problem Microsoft has is, sure, 90% of the world runs their stuff, but that 90% doesn't give a toss. Your average Microsoft user is an office worker who sits down in the morning, turns on their computer, fires up Word and Excel or whatever and gets on with their job. To them, the computer is just a tool; a tool that is handed down from above to them, and, while frequently balky and unreliable, works sufficiently well to get their job done. If there were no computers, their job would be exactly the same, except they would be using typewriters and paper spreadsheets or whatever.
In other words, Microsoft is successful, but it's not the sort of success that Bill Gates or his executives want. Microsoft occupies the same space in the minds of its customers as a traditional energy utility, rather than the bringers of hacktastic innovation to the masses that Bill and the boys would like to be seen as. Electricity? Plug your appliance into a wall socket; it's there. Water? Turn on the tap; it's there. Microsoft software? Switch on your machine; it's there. Ho hum.
No wonder poor Bill and Steve and the rest are so mad! They've very nearly realised their original goal of a computer on every desk running Microsoft software, but practically no-one cares they're running Microsoft software. The only time anyone cares is when it bluescreens for the nth time that day and come 5pm they clock off and go home. No, the only ones that do care are long-haired leftie weirdos who read Slashdot-- and they hate Microsoft and bitch about the technical inelegance of their products! The one segment of the computer-using population that still cares about OSes and APIs and gnarly hacks thinks Bill's software sucks! That's gotta hurt. Bill wants to be a Thomas Edison; not the faceless CEO of some electricity or gas utility. If not, then why all the endless carping about `innovation' during the trial?
Microsoft had better admit this truth pretty quickly-- that their perception of themselves is grossly out of kilter with how they are perceived in the Real World by their customers. C'mon, Bill, there are worse things than being merely adequate; not everyone can be a trailblazer. If they don't wise up, the whole Microsoft edifice will disintegrate, with Bill screaming to the end about `innovation' and the `right to compete', even as the orderlies from Happy Acres Home for the Incorrigibly Bewildered bust down the door of his office, restraints and tasers in hand. Because remember, kids, the paranoid do survive, but only because we lock them up so they can't hurt themselves.
Here endeth the lesson.
Whose pride? Who's Fall? (Score:2)
[insert bad lip-sync here] "Aha, you had no honor and I had to put you down." [gloating man turns away as "dead" guy rises slowly]
Not to give the guy too much credit, Bill Gates has more business accumen (translation: "evil") in the tip of his colon than all of us have together. Katz, I presume, never went to business school. But it seems they make a big deal there about making money, marketing products to actual customers. And I know this sounds weird, but they say that giving your stuff away to a restrictive, insular market might be considered "bad for business" and might force the company to "file for bankruptcy."
Go figure.
With the recent round of Linux company layoffs (correl for one) I begin to wonder ... who's pride? Who's fall?
Marc Rich Declared Clinton's "Customer of the Year" [ridiculopathy.com]
Bush won't have Microsoft broken up . . . (Score:2)
Let's start with the Jim Lehrer interview [pbs.org] with Bush. He (George) states clearly that he favors Microsoft and what they have done for the technology movmement.
George W. Bush: I hope, though, that whatever settlement is done it won't ruin this company because this company has been a very interesting innovator, and so I hope the judge would keep in mind that this company is an important part of the technological revolution taking place in America.
yawn . . the interview then turns to Bush advisor Ralph Reed - who was on the Microsoft payroll. Bush tries to wiggle out the issue, etc. . but the damage is done there. What do we learn from this encounter? Bush likes Microsoft, would prefer to not see the company broken up, and has a close advisor who is paid by Microsoft. Brilliant.
This quote from Salon.com [salon.com]:
Texas governor has gone on record strongly defending the software giant against the federal suit. "What I am worried about is if this company were to be broken up, this engine of change and this engine of growth," Bush said in February. "I am not sympathetic to lawsuits. Write that down."
Next,we have this article [usatoday.com] and this one [tnr.com] and this one [coxnews.com] (which states Bush owns sares of Microsoft . . . ugh.
Of course the deal closer is the fact the www.georgewbush.com is running Windows 2000 [netcraft.com] (According to NetCraft [netcraft.com]). Heh,heh.
ok so what is my point (i have the flu . . just hold on for a second) . . Bush clearly has postive feelings towards Microsoft. I think Aschroft does too . . in the end these two hold enough strings to probably pull the case in their favor.
Anyone one else... (Score:2)
As for Bill Gates himself, I somewhat respect the guy. I saw an interview with him and he said the when he died his family wouldn't get copious amounts of money. They would have to earn it themselves if they wanted it. The bulk of his money was going to charity. Does that sound evil? He's already donated millions to charities.
But before people think me pro-microsoft and start bashing the hell out of me. I am a Linux lover. But I grew up using DOS and Windows. I use them, at home I use them a lot right now (at least until I get Linux up and running, I just need to find the time), at work I use Solaris. I'm not a hacker, I can solve problems when they crop up, but I don't go around recoding my kernel on a whim. I don't like Windows, I have issues with it, but you'll find that you have issues with any operating system that you didn't make yourself. And when you did make it yourself, you'll probably have even more issues, but at least you can try to fix them.
In short, Microsoft != Bad, Microsoft == Money Making Corporate machine, well hey, that's what every corporation does!! They're just not all on top of the world. Bill Gates (although I don't know him personally), seems like a decent guy, a decent guy who loves the company he built (wow, no one ever does that do they?).
If you're going to bash Microsoft for their practices, bash every corporation and every small company that wants to become the #1 corporation. They're all the same.
My 4 cents work (CDN funds, so 2 cents US)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
This was modded (Score:5, Insightful) ??? Someone must have found a new supply of three-dollar crack. It sounds more like a troll to me.
Cisco has gone from a high of 82 in March 2000 to a low of under 30 last week. That's a much faster and deeper plunge, and they're hardly "on the ropes".
is this book...... (Score:2)
I believe that if Gates is forced to break up Microsoft, it will become stronger. He will have no choice but to move in a drastically different directions and because he has the money and the resources, he will succeed, period.
This book is based on opinion, arrogance, and fantasy, but no doubt good casual reading.
Another take (Score:2)
Same story, different take. Parts of it are hillarious, others are downright scary.
On the subject of hubris, Jon... (Score:5)
First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Arrogance? (Score:2)
It Depends How You Define "Fall" :) (Score:3)
I don't think Micro$oft will be broken up. I think our "President" will work to ensure the anti-trust suit is given 0 attention. But Microsoft is hurting. Windows 2000 is NOT taking the world by storm like folks expected. Linux IS making inroads into Microsoft's high profit server market. The desktop scene remains a cash cow for them, but I believe Linux WILL become a strong competitor to Microsoft in the coming years.
We geeks all talk about how 'the average user doesn't have a clue and uses Micro$oft/Intel because - they rule" While true to a point, at some point IF Linux desktop installs become more mainstream and easy to use, the box makers can't ignore it for long. It can wipe off a significant cost for each box (not just hte OS which Micro$oft sometimes gives away practically, but the other things like Office suites, anit virus (on Linux - NOT! :) 0, etc. If htis starts to happen - look out. The only catch here is games - but I see that changing soon too.
Will this result in Microsoft imploding - no way. But the might this giant once held is slipping away and they will soon become just another large software company hawking its wares. Sure they'll use every trick in teh book to stay on top, but instead of the straight up trajectory they are used to, I expect Microsoft will now have to 'work' for good earnings and market share - Just like Intel has since AMD started whipping their butts.
--
So this is the Hellmouth (Score:2)
If it wasn't for Gates...... (Score:2)
Gates and Nicholson (Score:2)
You want my OS on your box;
You need my OS on your box;
And somewhere, deep down in places you don't talk about at dinner parties, my OS on your box makes you feel better.
Mr. Gates, I want the truth.
Tom, you little pussy, you can't handle the truth
Mr. Gates, did you order Linux put on your Webservers?
You're goddamn right I did, and I'd do it again.
Well, I suppose that the defense rests. I shouldn't be at work this morning. Blea.
Brant
John Heilemann on the radio (Score:2)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
WTF? (Score:3)
Now I know JonKatz is a troll. Regardless of hom much you people like Linux and hate Microsoft, that does not change the fact that Microsoft is the most powerful, influential company in the United States. This article is pure FUD. I would challenge any one of you to prove that Microsoft is dead or dying, because the way I see it, they're at least as strong as ever.
Ancient History (Score:4)
The new administration will quickly return to a policy of ignoring Microsoft's little shortcomings, and may try to correct the anti-business judgement pushed through by the prior administration.
Gates Is One Of Us (Score:2)