Bill Gates Last Day

[Ookii]

...is today.

I for one appreciate what he's done and wish him luck on is new philanthropic endeavors.

[WayAbvPar]

Does that mean there is an opening for his position? I will do it for 1/2 what he did.

[Trippy]

No he already has two people there to replace him. One is Ray Ozzie of Lotus Notes fame. I can't remember the name of the other guy.

Edit: already already?

[Nebu]

No he already has two people already there to replace him. One is Ray Ozzie of Lotus Notes fame. I can't remember the name of the other guy.

You know that you're good when it takes two people to do your old job.

[schild]

So, I suppose $50B is "enough." It's good to have goals.

[Signe]

Yeah, yeah.  Rich guy goes, replaced by some rich guys who get richer, gives away some money, stays rich.  I care.

[Nija]

Self-made rich guy. Starting his own company and staying there til the end without selling out is a pretty uncommon thing.

WTG BillG.

[Signe]

Self made rich guy whose company squashed technology that was in competition with his profit even though it was better technology.  I admire that. 

[schild]

Self made rich guy whose company squashed technology that was in competition with his profit even though it was better technology.  I admire that. 

Don't be a hippy.

[Samwise]

Without Microsoft, Linux would never have been written.  We'd all still be running proprietary OSes on matching proprietary hardware and paying through the nose for each piece.

[Signe]

I can be a hippy if I want!  Also, you don't know that, Samwise.  We might be using something WAAAAAY more advanced than Linux or anything we use today.  We could be SMELLING each other over the internet right now, maybe. 

Note that I said more advanced, not better.  Smelling each other would probably not be better.

[photek]

Yeah we could all be using Macs 

[Signe]

Yeah we could all be using Macs 

That would be excellent!

[photek]

Yeah we could all be using Macs 

That would be excellent!

Fixed!

[stray]

Linux is only here because UNIX was fragmented, companies couldn't get their shit together, didn't fully appreciate what they had on their hands, and snubbed their noses at the masses. Much like Linux is today.

[Yegolev]

We could be SMELLING each other over the internet right now, maybe.

So.  Do you smell like a woman slowly eating a cherry?  Or do you smell like someone with two cats?

[Yegolev]

Yeah we could all be using Macs 

That would be excellent!

Fixed!

I'd like Macs more if I could run my games on them.  Same with linux.  I really, really would prefer linux over Windows, but it's all about the applications.  De facto monopoly.

[Salamok]

Self made rich guy whose company squashed technology that was in competition with his profit even though it was better technology.  I admire that. 

the enemy of good is better.  Some times you just need to pick your path, stick to your guns and get the shit to market and that is exactly what M$ did.

Also, i'd say that the Gates family was pretty well off prior to M$.  but he definitely parlayed those advantages into billions.

[naum]

[Jain Zar]

Yeah we could all be using Macs 

Even better?  WE COULD BE USING AMIGAS.

[Teleku]

One thing I always wonder, how different would things be if we didn't have one "universal" OS that everybody operated on?  I mean, love it or hate it, windows unifying everything probably lead to exponential advancement in computer use and adoption across the world.  Somebody could write a program and you knew it would work (baring fucked up hardware compatability issues) with 90% of the computer users in the world.

If we were fragmented into many different OS using groups, I don't think we would be anywhere near what we are today.  A think a unified OS standard is almost a must for a global world, until we can come up with an effective way to make any software run on every platform anybody can think of.....


Oh, and GJ Bill Gates.  I always like you better than that fucking prick Steve Jobs, even if MS is evil more often than not  .

[Samwise]

Linux is only here because UNIX was fragmented, companies couldn't get their shit together, didn't fully appreciate what they had on their hands, and snubbed their noses at the masses. Much like Linux is today.

It helped that there was a proliferation of cheap IBM clones (that being what Windows ran on) that anyone could write software for.

At least, that's what Neal Stephenson claims.  I think the irony is too delicious for it not to be true.

[naum]

Windows widescale adoption set back the state of computing 10-15 years.

While hardware advances exponentially (Moore's Law), the state of software virtually remained unchanged.

Recently, was listening to an podcast interview with Dan Ingalls, who worked at PARC Xerox w/Alan Kay and co-creator of both Smalltalk and Squeak (present Smalltalk VM). His demo to Jobs way back in early 80s was the genesis of the Mac — he left the industry for nearly 10 years to take over family hotel management business before returning — and he said it was remarkable, coming back, that the hardware was so much more powerful, but like in the software realm, basically nothing had changed, and the state was equal or less.

I've felt that way too, and it seems we've taken backward steps, and Windows IMV is a big part (though by far, not the sole factor) of it.

Yeah, the graphics are glitzier, but the applications are for the most part, bloated and nowhere near as elegant or deep as software from 20-25 years ago.

WoW and AoC may have millions of paying customers, but the gameplay still isn't as rich as NetHack.

One thing I always wonder, how different would things be if we didn't have one "universal" OS that everybody operated on?  I mean, love it or hate it, windows unifying everything probably lead to exponential advancement in computer use and adoption across the world.  Somebody could write a program and you knew it would work (baring fucked up hardware compatability issues) with 90% of the computer users in the world.

If we were fragmented into many different OS using groups, I don't think we would be anywhere near what we are today.  A think a unified OS standard is almost a must for a global world, until we can come up with an effective way to make any software run on every platform anybody can think of.....

[Trippy]

Without Microsoft, Linux would never have been written.  We'd all still be running proprietary OSes on matching proprietary hardware and paying through the nose for each piece.

Linux came about cause Linus Torvalds wanted to update Minix to more modern standards, i.e. "a better Minix than Minix". It had nothing to do with Microsoft.

Linux is only here because UNIX was fragmented, companies couldn't get their shit together, didn't fully appreciate what they had on their hands, and snubbed their noses at the masses. Much like Linux is today.

See above. And Unix people do appreciate what they have on their hands -- that's why they snub their noses at the masses (i.e. we're elitists). In addition on the Linux side Linus just cares about the kernel and there's nobody else with that sort of strong leadership on the desktop side of things. Ubuntu is trying to change some of that but that's more of a packaging thing where the focus needs to be more on a unified UI and replacement apps.

On the other hand Steve Jobs solved that problem (integrating the power of Unix with a real UI) at NeXT and brought those people over to Apple when he bought NeXT which became the foundation for Mac OS X. I think most people using Mac OS X probably have no idea of the power that's lying underneath the shiny Aqua UI.

[schild]

I think most people using Mac OS X probably have no idea of the power that's lying underneath the shiny Aqua UI.

99% of the world doesn't give a fuck. Ignorance doesn't matter when it's a situation of where - if - they were told, they'd put their fingers in their ears and say 'lalalalallalalalallalalala.'

[Trippy]

Which is fine. Those people shouldn't have to worry about what's under the hood. My point was not all Unix vendors (of which Apple is one of the largest) snub their noses at the masses.

[stray]

Without Microsoft, Linux would never have been written.  We'd all still be running proprietary OSes on matching proprietary hardware and paying through the nose for each piece.

Linux came about cause Linus Torvalds wanted to update Minix to more modern standards, i.e. "a better Minix than Minix". It had nothing to do with Microsoft.

Linux is only here because UNIX was fragmented, companies couldn't get their shit together, didn't fully appreciate what they had on their hands, and snubbed their noses at the masses. Much like Linux is today.

See above. And Unix people do appreciate what they have on their hands -- that's why they snub their noses at the masses (i.e. we're elitists). In addition on the Linux side Linus just cares about the kernel and there's nobody else with that sort of strong leadership on the desktop side of things. Ubuntu is trying to change some of that but that's more of a packaging thing where the focus needs to be more on a unified UI and replacement apps.

On the other hand Steve Jobs solved that problem (integrating the power of Unix with a real UI) at NeXT and brought those people over to Apple when he bought NeXT which became the foundation for Mac OS X. I think most people using Mac OS X probably have no idea of the power that's lying underneath the shiny Aqua UI.

No, it's precisely because they don't give a fuck about the masses that tells me that they don't know what they have. I mean, they all want to unseat Microsoft, yet, they scoff at the measures they'd have to take to go about that.

Not all, of course -- some people really try to polish it. But others are stuck in, more or less, writing for themselves -- and being all ironic and shit, in that peculiar GNU type of way.

They could have done what Apple did with a UNIX like OS years ago, but didn't. The whole open policy thing is a bit of double edged sword, I guess. Free is good -- but on the flipside, people can't even agree on standardized directory structures or file systems, let alone GUI's and all that shit. You can't attract very many high profile app developers that way.

[Samwise]

Without Microsoft, Linux would never have been written.  We'd all still be running proprietary OSes on matching proprietary hardware and paying through the nose for each piece.

Linux came about cause Linus Torvalds wanted to update Minix to more modern standards, i.e. "a better Minix than Minix". It had nothing to do with Microsoft.

...and also largely because he wanted something that would run well on 386-compatible machines.  Or so the legend goes.

[Trippy]

Without Microsoft, Linux would never have been written.  We'd all still be running proprietary OSes on matching proprietary hardware and paying through the nose for each piece.

Linux came about cause Linus Torvalds wanted to update Minix to more modern standards, i.e. "a better Minix than Minix". It had nothing to do with Microsoft.

...and also largely because he wanted something that would run well on 386-compatible machines.  Or so the legend goes.

Yes that's correct. Minix didn't work well on 32-bit machines and couldn't take advantage of things like the 386's protected mode, etc. and it was hard to write extensions for it so he basically started over from scratch and wrote his own.

[stray]

That and the creator of Minix was a cockblocker. He didn't want it to serve any other purpose than education (i.e. learning UNIX basics on affordable comps).

[Trippy]

No, it's precisely because they don't give a fuck about the masses that tells me that they don't know what they have. I mean, they all want to unseat Microsoft, yet, they scoff at the measures they'd have to take to go about that.

Why should we care about the masses? And Linus has never said he wanted to unseat Microsoft nor are companies like Sun trying to do the same. I think you are confusing Unix as a whole with things like the FSF and Richard Stallman.

They could have done what Apple did with a UNIX like OS years ago, but didn't. The whole open policy thing is a bit of double edged sword, I guess. Free is good -- but on the flipside, people can't even agree on standardized directory structures or file systems, let alone GUI's and all that shit. You can't attract very many high profile app developers that way.

App developers could care less about the underlying file system since the POSIX IO functions don't change (unless you are writing utilities to directly manipulate the underlying FS bits). The multiple UIs is, however, a big problem which is why I mentioned it in my post.

[stray]

Linus is one thing, but "Linux" or GNU or whatever you want to call it is another. I know Linus himself is pretty lackadaisical about that particular subject.

[Trippy]

Well see you are still mixing things up. Linux happens to be a "Unix-like" Open Source OS. There are other Unix OSes that are closed source or only partially open. Richard Stallman insists on calling Linux "GNU/Linux" because the Linux OS is built using and dependent on GNU tools. But that's a separate issue from why Unix became so fragmented, which happened long before Linux came about.

[Trippy]

Windows widescale adoption set back the state of computing 10-15 years.

While hardware advances exponentially (Moore's Law), the state of software virtually remained unchanged.

Windows is not to blame for that. If anything is to blame it's C++ and now Java.

To put it another way the same software problems that are on Windows are on Unix as well so the sorry state of software engineering is OS-agnostic.

Recently, was listening to an podcast interview with Dan Ingalls, who worked at PARC Xerox w/Alan Kay and co-creator of both Smalltalk and Squeak (present Smalltalk VM). His demo to Jobs way back in early 80s was the genesis of the Mac — he left the industry for nearly 10 years to take over family hotel management business before returning — and he said it was remarkable, coming back, that the hardware was so much more powerful, but like in the software realm, basically nothing had changed, and the state was equal or less.

I've felt that way too, and it seems we've taken backward steps, and Windows IMV is a big part (though by far, not the sole factor) of it.

Yeah, the graphics are glitzier, but the applications are for the most part, bloated and nowhere near as elegant or deep as software from 20-25 years ago.

Smalltalk was such a pioneering language and environement that we're still just coming to grips with how good it really was. Newer languages like Ruby and frameworks like Ruby on Rails are heavily influenced by Smalltalk. Interestingly enough Smalltalk was so advanced for its time that it's taken a while for the hardware and more modern compilers and VMs to catch up to it.

WoW and AoC may have millions of paying customers, but the gameplay still isn't as rich as NetHack.

What's "rich" to some is "complicated" to others. To put it another way "richer" gameplay doesn't necessary translate into something that's "more fun". There's a reason why hardcore wargame grognards are such a small fraction of the general game playing population.

[stray]

Well see you are still mixing things up. Linux happens to be a "Unix-like" Open Source OS. There are other Unix OSes that are closed source or only partially open. Richard Stallman insists on calling Linux "GNU/Linux" because the Linux OS is built using and dependent on GNU tools. But that's a separate issue from why Unix became so fragmented, which happened long before Linux came about.

Yeah, I do understand that, believe me. Chalk up my lack of being clear to brevity.  

Anyways yeah, my issue is with the way GNU is sort of a doubled edged sword. I associate Linux with it simply because it's been the main vehicle for anything GNU.

As for Unix's fragmentation, I know the history behind that as well. ATT/Berkeley, etc..

I guess my point though is that the original Unix became a victim of different "visions", and so has Linux. Both could very well be great, coherent, desktop OS's (as Apple has proved), but they let a lot of shit get in the way to ever accomplish that. Both camps love to denigrate Microsoft, but they've done fuck about it really -- except concentrate in the server sector -- which isn't quite good enough, nor is it MS's primary domain.