Should Bill Kill Windows?

It’s one thing to bash an operating system, it’s quite another to bash a human being.

Bill Gates’ resignation from Microsoft proves that he is not really essential to its operation. There are thousands of developers working on Windows and millions of lines of code (which in itself is part of the problem); Bill Gates has never been in charge of the effort. Microsoft is such a huge company and Windows is such a huge project that no single person can possibly micromanage it. I work with people at Microsoft every day. I don’t like their products, but they are all nice, well-meaning people. Microsoft is a Great Dane that still thinks it’s a puppy. Many things, such as saving files in PDF and bundling applications, are ethical for Apple but unethical for Microsoft only because Apple has a small marketshare and Microsoft has a huge one.

Bill Gates is a philanthropist; no one should take that away from him. He has not been responsible for the day-to-day operations of Microsoft for a long time and he has never been in charge of or a developer of Windows.

Meanwhile, Steve Jobs actually manages Apple and is responsible for its superior products. He can afford to be a philanthropist, but so far as we know he is not. Unlike Microsoft, Apple has no computer learning labs to prepare inner-city kids for IT careers. I’d feel even better about my Macintoshes if Jobs were a philanthropist and Apple had programs for the economically disadvantaged.

My point is that we aren’t dealing with angels and devils, but with human beings who possess a mixture of virtues and vice—not to mention computers, which are inanimate objects. As computer purchasers, Jobs’ virtues are more evident to us. But that is no call to trash the world’s greatest philanthropist as a devil or to worship the world’s best IT manager as a god.

It wasn’t my intent to belittle Jobs, I did say, “so far as we know.” It was my intent to point out that both men are human.

I’m heartened to find out that Jobs is involved in philanthropy, and I agree, it is better to do it more quietly.

I might add I think it is a scandal that the world’s richest nation even needs philanthropists.

The mess that is Windows, and the enormous difficulties Microsoft has and STILL has in getting Vista out the door, show that Microsoft have actually shot themselves in the foot over fighting so hard to avoid being split up (as punishment for their monopolistic abuses).

If Bill had voluntarily split Microsoft in to an Applications company and an Operating System company then they would be both be far better off.

Teach him how to fish, and he can get a job working for pittance for a multi-national fish harvesting company. C.H.

Hah, hah! ‘Love that new twist of the old adage!

If Bill really wants to “increase the well being of humankind” he should kill Windows -C.H.

Now, that is an aggressive call even for a M$ basher (like myself). How in the world one can just wittle an >90% share of the world’s PC shipment without a fight? You are implying then for M$ to just go ahead commit suicide and bleed her market share until dead. Now that wouldn’t be fun even if Bill will rekindle his lost crush - the Mac OS. What would Mac faithfuls think of the new profound state of euphoria? Will we think it is deserved? Or we’ll just noddingly give all the credits to the philanthropist Bill, instead of the Steve?

To keep the Steve and Apple on their little toes, Windows or her future progenies, have to be alive and well. I am not at all opposed to the idea that their market share must come down to near 50% for a good fight with OSX and Linux. If by then OSX has near 20% of share then, all of a sudden, we are back to the heydays of PC in the 1980s.

If splitting M$ is Bill’s final orders before hitting the open road of Philanthropia (and why not, $35B is at stake!) then I can agree with mcloki‘s take. M$ investors and loyal employees will be better off if Bill decides to split the monolithic M$ into an OS, Applications (Office, Servers, Tools), and hardware (Xbox, keyboards, mice, gadgets, games software) divisions. They can keep the M$ emblem but they must be all independent from each other’s executive control.

By all accounts, Jobs, too is quite the philanthropist;

By what accounts would those be?  I’ve only heard this from Jobs’s defenders who assume that he’s philanthropic but anonymous; but that anonymity itself would belie any direct knowledge of his generosity.

His philanthropic activities are, by design, quieter in nature - he likes it better on the QT, without his name in lights.

All in all, I think that’s a better way to do it, don’t you?

Assuming he has philanthropic activities (and I’m reasonably certain he does but no one seems to know how much), I don’t see what’s “better” about keeping it a secret.

Gate’s high profile, and that of celebrities who attach their names to charities, bring attention and awareness to those issues and encourage others to donate.  It’s all well and good to be anonymous, but there’s nothing “better” about it if those charities don’t get the publicity they need for their fundraising efforts.

Replacing one giant greedy monolithic corporation with another giant greedy monolithic corporation is not my idea of a solution

Thanks, Beeb. I knew I could count on you. I knew as I wrote this I sounded a little hypocritical, and I agree with you there are concerns with this happening, which is why I did include the aside, “From a philosophical point of view, I might have to say Linux.” [MS supporting Linux as the desktop OS of choice]

Hugmup, I think you missed all my points! I didn’t want to spend too much of the article discussing the philosophies of modern capitalism and how it stomps all over people and their livelihoods. So I guess that’s why you felt I was Bill bashing. I certainly had a dig at him, but I think bashing is too strong a word. I did afterall point out that philanthropy is not out of character for him. On the other, I certainly am bashing Windows and Microsoft. And as Beeb points out, Apple should come in for the same.

As I said, I’m not against Bill’s philanthropic works, but I would like to hear that he is doing something to save us from Windows. Because that would make a lot of people in the world’s enjoyment of their day to day life a lot better. People who don’t need his money, but just want to take some of the slog out of their lives.

I agree with both Robo and Beeb about whether philanthropic work should be done on the quiet, or publicly.

I respect either, but someone who does it publicly, such as Bill, shouldn’t therefore be absolved of their sins of the past.

Bill Gates does bear a significant amount of responsibilty for both Windows, and the nature, culture and behaviour of Microsoft.

He also has the power and influence to change things.

Finally, I do get riled when people say “Isn’t so-and-so so wonderful for gving so many millions of their dallars to charity!” (not that you said that Hugmup)

Excuse me? But they can afford it. I remember a few years ago an Australian billionaire receiving that sort of praise for his one million dollar donation. And then just a few months later I read that he regularly gambled several million dollars at casinos - just for fun. It was all lose change to him.

Warren Buffet it’s said plans to give away half his billions.

If he does, how will it affect his lifestyle? Zip.

Whereas, if a person with only $100,000 gives away half, they won’t be able to take the holiday, or buy the car they wanted, they’ll have to live a little more frugally.

If a person with a only $100 dollars gives away half, they won’t be able to buy a new coat to keep them warm on the streets in winter.

If a person with only $10 gives away half, they’ll go hungry a couple a couple of meals sooner.

And people in those last two examples live on our streets. Bill doesn’t have to go overseas to make a difference. The refuse of mega-corporations wander our streets.

I’d be more excited if Bill and Warren and Steve etc spent their money changing the corporate (and government) mentality to improve people’s livelihoods instead of the current “dollar at any cost” that pervades and poisons our Western society.

We’ve gone beyond Capitalism, we are now in a state of Corporatism.

See! Now you know why I didn’t say much in my piece.

Warren Buffet it’s said plans to give away half his billions.

Actually, Buffet is giving away $44 billion, or 85%, of his wealth.  That still leaves him a billionaire; but $44 billion is still pretty huge.

I agree, however, that it does not absolve them of their transgressions.  However, I do believe that Windows at this point is largely out of Gates’s hands, just as Apple was out of Jobs’s hands when he left, or any number of giant corporations that outgrow the vision and guidance of its founder.

...we are now in a state of Corporatism -C.H.

Hah, hah…another Chris-inspired mumbo-jumbo, but I like it. Do I sense another Chris H. article of the same? That would be a Beebx playground. I’m staying clear of that one…