Linked by David Adams on Mon 22nd Aug 2011 22:54 UTC, submitted by Unios
Permalink for comment 486649
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-03-26
I don't think that's right. It is just what Linus and GNU folks claim. It's not like you can't be both and I never found any evidence for this.
Bill Gates wouldn't be the only one who changes from being a compsci geek to a business geek. It is what happens if you have a lot of financial success.
I am not a big Bill Gates fan though, so I don't know too much about it. Maybe someone could write something to substantiate this allegation.
My comment was more in reference to the comment about how OS developers are compared to Gates despite the fact that, aside Microsoft Basic (which technically is an interpreter and not an OS), he hasn't really had had a major development roll. DOS and Xenix were bought and all of their later developments Gates was too immersed in the business side of things to do line-by-line revision (let alone development) like he had done in the early days.
I'm not trying to take anything away from Gates - he knew his stuff (and still does). But he's just not the best example of an OS developer in my opinion.
Edited 2011-08-24 18:32 UTC