In an interview, Microsoft’s chief software architect says customers will be open to new uses of technology once security problems are under control.
Bill Gates Talks Seamless Computing, Security, And Linux
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
But every time I hear Billy Boy speak I know it’s not just crapm he’s telling. Microsoft has done a lot for the world as we know it.
Keep being a visionary Bill we need that!
InformationWeek asks- I’d like to switch the discussion to open source and Linux. InformationWeek recently ran a story that questioned whether Microsoft is doing enough to support compatibility between Linux and Windows. Do you feel Microsoft is doing more than people realize? Will there be more?
And Billy answers: Unix is Expensive, PPL switch from Unix [System V ?
] to Windows in india.
Also, read Holoween documents #1
LOL
…and the vision he’s had recently was that of Linux gnawing away at his userbase. That’s why they’re hyping Longhorn so much, and why his manservant Ballmer attacks Linux every chance he gets.
Regarding the article, not that Gates himself never refers to Linux by name, speaking instead of Unix (despite the fact that the interviewer specifically mentioned Linux)…He also dodges the issue of interoperability, despite the fact that an overwhelming number of polled IT managers blamed MS for not doing enough to make sure that its products interoperate with other sytems/OSes.
A visionary…as long as is vision means MS completely dominating computing! Right. Nice astroturfing, anonymous.
He said Unix is expensive. Linux is not expensive. If by logic alone, you can see that if unix is expensive and linux is not, then linux is not unix.
MS doesn’t want to work with anything but itself, so they will never play nice with anyone. Simple, right, so he doesn’t need to answer, because we know the answer no matter what he says.
All too true. The scariest thing is that a majority of CEO’s asked aspire to be just like Gates. But I think the fault lies less with MS than it does with all the spineless OEMs and software companies who either enabled them or just plain rolled over for them. Espcially IBM who thought they could control Microsoft and ended up looking foolish. Most of them thought they could ride the wave, but they just found themseles with MS’ boots on their necks.
The scariest thing is that a majority of CEO’s asked aspire to be just like Gates.
That is exactly right. Really, MS is not a problem in itself, but simply a spawn of something much bigger than MS – Corporate America.
So, while these idealogical fools try and fight MS on the desktop (with largely disadvantaged offerings), they do and will continue to be screwed by Corporate America in every other part of their lives. For example, ever buy a DVD with no extras at all, only to have the ultimate 2-disc ‘Special Edition’ come out a month later for $5 more than what you paid for the original? Think about it.
I have no intentions on going to any Microsoft products after their recent problems. It’s bad enough I have to patch and patch our MS Servers every week. Fortunately we’re going to linux before the end of next year and we have plans already in place to do so.
Longhorn to me is nothing more than a shell with no security. CHances are we will see a patch for Longhorn a month after it’s out. Microsoft will call it a “Service Pack”
“For example, ever buy a DVD with no extras at all, only to have the ultimate 2-disc ‘Special Edition’ come out a month later for $5 more than what you paid for the original? Think about it.”
DMi counts four of the world’s top automotive manufacturers as clients: Ford, General Motors, Toyota and Nissan.
Bite the hand that feeds you Darius.
Please explain to me why Linus is more visionary than Bill Gates? What long range strategies are mapped out for Linux?
Please enlighten everyone here.
Of course, does anybody really want MS deciding what the rules of interoperability are? They will only charge people for the privaledge of being compatable with MS products. No, let market pressure twist MS’s arm into being interoperable (to a degree, market pressure is starting to do that) as more and more people look to more interoperable platforms other than Windows.
What does Linus have to do with this? Why do you seek to change the subject?
More importantly, why do you spend so much energy to defend a ruthless monopoly? If Windows is so superior, and Bill Gates such a visionary, surely your advocacy isn’t needed and the Linux “hype” will evaporate by itself!
Your mere presence in these comments section is proof of the progress Linux has made, and continues making.
For the record, Linus was a visionary when he decided to make his hobby kernel GPL. He tapped into a vast reservoir of creativity, talent and generosity, the Linux community, who has made Linux a contender to a monopoly which had destroyed all opposition.
Now, that is vision. On the other hand, how has Bill Gates ever been a visionary? He didn’t even see the Internet coming, for Pete’s sake! If it hadn’t been for pressuring OEMs to bundle Windows (or for IBM to bungle the whole OS/2 episode), MS would probably have lost out to better alternatives, such as BeOS.
What long range strategies are mapped out for MS, apart from the obvious “total domination of the IT landscape”? TabletPCs? Not selling. DB-like filesystem? Others thought of it first, some will likely get it out before. Hardware-accelerated GUIs? Others have done it before, Linux will have it before Windows.
Bill Gates is not an innovator or a visionary, he’s a successful businessman (and, to his credit, a philantropist). Don’t confuse one with the other.
Oh, and regarding the cheap shot aimed at Darius: it’s not because one is forced to work within the system that one cannot denounce its shortcomings. The important thing is to say what one believes is right, even if that means “biting the hand that feeds you.” To act otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest.
Honestly, what do you expect MS to do about it? I can’t even get non half-assed Linux support from Linux vendors; I am hardly expecting Microsoft to support my Linux stuff. UNIX is one thing, but Linux has so many compatibility problems I don’t expect anyone to spend money trying to fix them. In terms of commercial support and compatibility Linux is still way behind UNIX.
“”For the record, Linus was a visionary when he decided to make his hobby kernel GPL.””
Nope, he started out on a quest to better understand x86 hardware, not create a popular OS. Many CS students have tried to do the same thing, Linus just got a little further than the rest in creating something useful.
“” He tapped into a vast reservoir of creativity, talent and generosity, the Linux community, who has made Linux a contender to a monopoly which had destroyed all opposition. “”
Wrong again. He tapped (Deliberately, by releasing under a modified GPL) into a reservoir of GNU code and talent that was sitting waiting for a kernel (HURD was/is not up to scratch), picking up coders frustrated by the Minix license along the way.
More than anything else Linus got the timing right. With the slow progress of HURD the GNU/FSF community was very much in need of an OSS kernel to run the vast array of userland code they had already written. Linus popped along with a half-finished, buggy kernel which (*gasp*) actually ran most of this stuff. A lot of developers jumped onboard and the kernel has rapidly advanced to the point we’re at today. The need for a decent kernel was there, someone would have addressed that need, Linus just happened to be the one.
Linus and Bill have at least one thing in common, excellent timing.
1) Why would I want to run Windows when I could easily purchase Solaris 9 x86 which is considerably cheaper and can run, without poor emulation, opensource software compiled out of the “cvs” without any problems? I could either pay thousands for the software then pay hundred for each machine OR I could pay a one off and throw as many users on to the server as it can handle.
Sure, run Windows on the desktop, it fits in if you require software which isn’t available on the alternative operating systems but why on gods green earth would some one be as stupid to was time trying to tweak and maintain a Windows server which is more expensive both upfront and long term.
Btw, the TCO costs given by Microsoft ASSUME you can get a professional and CHEAP Windows administrator when in reality, you will be paying close to the same amount as one would for a good UNIX one.
Btw, the *ONLY* reason Microsoft *HATES* Linux is because the number of skilled administrators for Linux has increased, it will soon out number Windows admins and worse still, these people can perform basic administration on commercial UNIX’s as well. The skills and knowledge are transferrable.
2) Services for UNIX ( http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/ ) still contains a list of limitations that one would NEVER see had they run a UNIX server which is CHEAPER to purchase and maintain:
“The following types of programs do not port well:
* Programs that use syscall() (Note: this also creates a problem for programs ported to Linux).
* Programs that manipulate the kernel memory (/dev/kmem)
* Programs that perform operations like ioctl or ioperm on anything that isn’t a terminal or modem on a port
* Programs that expect to perform raw i/o on a device (e.g. floppy, cdrom, hard drive)
* Programs that “Chat” on the parallel port
* Programs that rely on threads (e.g. apache 2.0)”
And IIRC, the whole thing has a memory allocation limitation and it doesn’t reside in the main memory but instead in the Swap. So, lets recap, we have a slow, bastardised UNIX imitator or on the other hand one could easily purchase a proper UNIX and maintain it at a lower cost than Windows.
lol, a delete button would be handy.
“”For the record, Linus was a visionary when he decided to make his hobby kernel GPL.””
The GPL at the end of that sentence just never registered in my head, need more caffeine.
Yes, releasing under the GPL was an inspired move. Ignore my previous comment.
If Windows is so superior, and Bill Gates such a visionary, surely your advocacy isn’t needed and the Linux “hype” will evaporate by itself!
The counterpoint being, of course, that if Linux really is as good as everyone says then why hype it – the market will choose on its own
.
For the record, Linus was a visionary when he decided to make his hobby kernel GPL. He tapped into a vast reservoir of creativity, talent and generosity, the Linux community, who has made Linux a contender to a monopoly which had destroyed all opposition.
I think it’s safe to say Linus’ decision to use the GPL was largely practical and done with some trepidation. I sincerely doubt he had the vision Linux has become today in his head when he did it. Most of the interviews where they ask the inevitable “why did you GPL Linux” and “did you ever think Linux would be this popular” have made that pretty clear.
Personally I don’t think Linus is idealistic enough to be “visionary”. He’s a typical engineer.
Now, that is vision. On the other hand, how has Bill Gates ever been a visionary?
Bill’s always had a pretty consistent vision of “a computer on every desk”.
The idea behind DOS and Windows (generic OSes/environments running on low-cost, commodity, off-the-shelf hardware and not tied to a specific platform) was part of this. It was a reasonably radical position to take at that point in time.
He didn’t even see the Internet coming, for Pete’s sake!
Ah, hindsight, always 20/20.
Given the costs involved in ‘net access, the popularity of closed systems like BBSes, Compuserve and AOL and the relative user-unfriendliness of the net ca. 1992ish, I’d say not foreseeing the explosion in popularity of the Internet (really, just the WWW and email) was reasonably understandable.
The ‘net has come a long way in a short time – a lot of people forget just how primitive and expensive it was ten or fifteen years ago. Although a lot of us pine for those times…
If it hadn’t been for pressuring OEMs to bundle Windows (or for IBM to bungle the whole OS/2 episode), MS would probably have lost out to better alternatives, such as BeOS.
BeOS was hardly even conceived in the time frame Windows was taking over the desktop and barely a viable competitor when it tanked ~8 years later, so saying it could have beat Windows on the desktop “if only it weren’t for those damn OEM contracts” is just a touch silly.
BeOS *might* have been able to carve out a niche like Apple has, if it ever got a decent software base and some good OEM hardware, but even that’s stretching.
What long range strategies are mapped out for MS, apart from the obvious “total domination of the IT landscape”?
Does it matter ? You’re only going to write them off as “world domination” anyway.
Bill Gates is not an innovator or a visionary, he’s a successful businessman (and, to his credit, a philantropist). Don’t confuse one with the other.
As I said, Bill’s had a vision of “computing for the masses” in his head since the beginning. This is pretty obvious just from reading about him.
what is so bad about windows, microsoft?
what is so good about linux?
sometimes i really dont get it.
afterall, its all about MONEY.
in the end, i choose windows.
I see you live in Malaysia. Well, with Linux, you can run an operating system legally where as the Windows you are running is most likely pirated from some dodgy market vendor. The day the Malaysian government cracks down on piracy like the do with political dissidents will be the day Malaysia will be piracy free.
BillG’s estimate of Linux (Unix) being “nothing new” is partly a brilliant strategy instead of acting like it’s actually gaining on them rapidly. I’ve said it before though, what makes linux a threat to M$’s future on the desktop is not linux, it’s freedesktop and Gnome/KDE. Gnome2.4 is already more attractive than XP, and if freedesktop keeps up their pace, linux will have a sexier desktop than Longhorn…before longhorn is released!!!
It’s kind of like Gate’s posh additude toward the internet before it became the life-changing technology we know it as today.
The counterpoint being, of course, that if Linux really is as good as everyone says then why hype it – the market will choose on its own
.
What, we should leave all the hype to Microsoft? The day MS closes its marketing department, I’ll stop advocating Linux – how’s that for ya?
I think it’s safe to say Linus’ decision to use the GPL was largely practical and done with some trepidation. I sincerely doubt he had the vision Linux has become today in his head when he did it.
This is true. He surely didn’t expect Linux to take off like he did. However accidental the success of that decision may have been, it was still his decision. He might not have known it, but he was acting in a visionary fashion, which is good enough for me.
Bill’s always had a pretty consistent vision of “a computer on every desk”.
Gee, that’s not especially visionary! I mean, I’ve had that vision since high school. Well I guess I’m a visionary then. Especially since I “got” the Internet way back in the early 90s. I guess I’m more of a visionary that Bill Gates…wow, who would have known.
I’ll also pay tribute to the urban legend and say that I thought the 640K limit was pretty dumb pretty early on.
The ‘net has come a long way in a short time – a lot of people forget just how primitive and expensive it was ten or fifteen years ago. Although a lot of us pine for those times…
I don’t necessarily pine for those days myself. It was different – Usenet was pretty big and Gopher was a neat idea. FTP was also pretty useful. E-mail of course is the killer app. Of course now people mostly see the Web, but we also have had P2P, online gaming, and a host of cool protocols for a variety of purposes.
A visionary is supposed to see how things are supposed to evolve. When I first heard about the Internet (I guess it was around 1989) I instantly thought: “this is amazing, it’s going to change everything one day.” Did I expect it to go this fast? Well, probably not that fast – after all, we’ve already gone past the Internet bust! But, yeah, I definitely saw the potential, and a lot of us did. Gates somehow didn’t, perhaps because he knew he couldn’t easily control it like he was starting to do for the desktop. Perhaps it was narcissism, or cynicism, or just plain obliviousness. But he didn’t see it – and that’s proof enough that he is definitely not a visionary, just a shrewd businessman.
Does it matter ? You’re only going to write them off as “world domination” anyway.
In other words, you don’t have an answer to my question.
As I said, Bill’s had a vision of “computing for the masses” in his head since the beginning. This is pretty obvious just from reading about him.
In that he was hardly unique, nor the first, and as such isn’t what I’d call a “visionary.” An opportunist, more likely.
This is true. He surely didn’t expect Linux to take off like he did. However accidental the success of that decision may have been, it was still his decision. He might not have known it, but he was acting in a visionary fashion, which is good enough for me.
You’ve obviously got a vastly different definition of “visionary” to me.
Gee, that’s not especially visionary!
It wasn’t exactly common thought in the late seventies.
I mean, I’ve had that vision since high school. Well I guess I’m a visionary then. Especially since I “got” the Internet way back in the early 90s. I guess I’m more of a visionary that Bill Gates…wow, who would have known.
It boggles the mind that you can call Linus’ pragmatic and practical act of eventually releasing Linux under the GPL – and the effectively accidental results – “visionary” and not extend the same courtesy to Bill Gates, who has been working with a definite goal in mind.
Like I said, your definition of “visionary” is very different to mind. Accidental popularity is “visionary” but goal-directed action isn’t ? Weird.
I’ll also pay tribute to the urban legend and say that I thought the 640K limit was pretty dumb pretty early on.
Good thing he never said it then, right ?
A visionary is supposed to see how things are supposed to evolve.
And here you move the goalposts again. How can you call Linus a “visionary” when by his own comments he has indicated at the time of GPLing Linux he had no overarching plan for its future ? No idea how it would evolve ? No plan for its evolution ? No *vision* for its future ?
Perhaps it was narcissism, or cynicism, or just plain obliviousness. But he didn’t see it – and that’s proof enough that he is definitely not a visionary, just a shrewd businessman.
Crikey, with a harsh policy of one strike and you’re out, who the heck can you honestly call a visionary ? I doubt you’ll find ayone who hasn’t got it wrong at least once.
Added to that, “shrewd” could *easily* be equated with “visionary”.
Forgot to add
Does it matter ? You’re only going to write them off as “world domination” anyway.
In other words, you don’t have an answer to my question.
No, in other words it won’t matter what I say, you’ll twist it into another world domination plot. The chip on your shoulder is a mile high.
I just started reading the article, and this leapt out at me and grabbed me by the throat:
“just like the idea of the automatic data center [where] the software is moving things around between the different servers and automatically finding capacity if it’s necessary. That vision will take most of this decade to realize, …”
If Bill Gates is willing to bend a little, he can go talk to OpenMOSIX maintainer Moshe Bar about getting a license for OpenMOSIX that will allow him to incorporate OpenMOSIX into Windows XXX; or he can go to Prof Barak at the HUJ and pay heaps for the same software under a proprietary license.
What Bill Gates is talking about is old tech. Where’s he been for the last seven years?
“What Bill Gates is talking about is old tech. Where’s he been for the last seven years?”
Seems about par for the course with the evolution of Windows, about 7 years behind Apple, so maybe he’s waiting for Apple to show him how its done again. :o)
Seems about par for the course with the evolution of Windows, about 7 years behind Apple, so maybe he’s waiting for Apple to show him how its done again.
Which is why Apple didn’t manage to get a (pre-emptive) multitasking, multithreaded, multiuser, portable OS out until about seven years after Microsoft, right ?
It boggles the mind that you can call Linus’ pragmatic and practical act of eventually releasing Linux under the GPL – and the effectively accidental results – “visionary” and not extend the same courtesy to Bill Gates, who has been working with a definite goal in mind.
Okay, neither of them are visionary. Happy now? Linus is a great engineer who had a brillant intuition, and Gates is a good businessman.
Good thing he never said it then, right ?
Which is why I made a reference to the “urban legend.” This was only to illustrate that I’m as much a visionary as Bill Gates, if not more!
Crikey, with a harsh policy of one strike and you’re out, who the heck can you honestly call a visionary ? I doubt you’ll find ayone who hasn’t got it wrong at least once.
This isn’t just a simple mistake, it’s miscalculating the importance of the Internet. It’s not as if it was a split-second decision, or if he couldn’t change his mind (well, he did, eventually…)
To not have seen the Internet’s popularity coming shows a definite lack of vision. Period.
Added to that, “shrewd” could *easily* be equated with “visionary”.
That’s not what the Merriam-Webster Thesaurus says. It does say “far-sighted”, but that’s different from visionary. Then again, if you want to change a word’s meaning…
No, in other words it won’t matter what I say, you’ll twist it into another world domination plot. The chip on your shoulder is a mile high.
How convenient. Well, tell you what: if it’s about locking customers in with proprietary file formats, or forced upgrades, or another one of the dirty tricks MS has done in the past, then, yes, I’ll call it a world domination plot.
So, now perhaps you can answer my question instead of dodging it using a weak excuse? What is the non-dirty-tricks-used-to-lock-in-customers long-term vision for Windows, that hasn’t already been thought of or made by someone else?
I’m quite sure that when installing Windows Services for Unix,
you must choose to be either a client or a server. You can’t be both at the same time and, if you want to switch, you must reinstall SFU.
Sounds pretty lame to me.
I do not think of Bill Gate or Linus as visionaries.
IBM basically created the vision of PCs for the masses when they solidified the personal computer concept. Microsoft just provided the software. Most of the software Microsoft has created has been either bought or borrowed. Before there was Microsoft DOS there was CP/M. Apple DOS was out before MS-DOS since it ran on the Apple IIs. So Microsoft borrowed off of CP/M then bought Basic off some other company to create DOS. Doesn’t sound like a company with a vision of computers for the masses to me. If IBM didn’t provide the hardware do you think B. Gates would have had the vision to create the hardware for software they didn’t have at the time? IBM needed an operating system and Microsoft was IBM’s second choice to create that software. Digital Research was first choice.
Linus just wanted a Unix for his home computer so he could do work at home. No vision there.
The OSS movement is basically based on the vision of the founder of FSF. That vision was to be able to freely create software and have others build on top of it. Kind of like the way science works sometimes. This vision is what drives many OSS today.
Steve Jobs is more of a designer than a visionary. Since Apple has had several CEOs, you will have to blame each different CEO for not having a vision.
There hasn’t been too many visions in the computer world. Most of what you see is evolving technology.
How convenient. Well, tell you what: if it’s about locking customers in with proprietary file formats, or forced upgrades, or another one of the dirty tricks MS has done in the past, then, yes, I’ll call it a world domination plot.
And this is a perfect example of why I’d be wasting my time.
So, now perhaps you can answer my question instead of dodging it using a weak excuse?
You’re just as capable of reading press releases and interviews as I am.
What is the non-dirty-tricks-used-to-lock-in-customers long-term vision for Windows, that hasn’t already been thought of or made by someone else?
Who else has had vision that “hasn’t already been thought of by someone else” ? Why should that be a criteria that applies only to Bill Gates ?
I do not think of Bill Gate or Linus as visionaries.
Thankfully, we can agree on this.
IBM basically created the vision of PCs for the masses when they solidified the personal computer concept.
Except that’s not what they meant to do at all. Their vision wasn’t what the PC has become.
Microsoft just provided the software.
That’s a pretty big “just”. It’s like some manufacturer “just” providing the engine in a car.
Most of the software Microsoft has created has been either bought or borrowed.
They are hardly unique in this. Also, “most” is a bit of an exaggeration.
Developing software from scratch is a long, expensive process fraught with danger. If you can buy someone else’s product and rework it, it’s a much smarter way to operate.
This is one of the underlying principles of OSS. Amazing how when OSS developers or Apple do it they’re being smart but when Microsoft does it they’re doing something wrong, no ?
So Microsoft borrowed off of CP/M then bought Basic off some other company to create DOS.
Microsoft bought QDOS and massaged it into MSDOS. IIRC their Basic interpreter was their own – they’d been writing them for some time on several paltforms before they did MSDOS.
Doesn’t sound like a company with a vision of computers for the masses to me.
Why not ? Why should the methodology be the defining factor ?
If IBM didn’t provide the hardware do you think B. Gates would have had the vision to create the hardware for software they didn’t have at the time?
Bill’s “vision” wasn’t about the same old expensive, proprietry hardware+OS packages that everyone else was selling, it was about putting a low cost OS onto commodity off-the-shelf hardware.
There hasn’t been too many visions in the computer world. Most of what you see is evolving technology.
We can agree on this, too.