So I just read Bill Gates’ 1976 Open Letter To Hobbyists, in which he whines about not making more money from his software. You know, instead of being proud of making software that people wanted to use. And then the bastard went on and made proprietary licences for software the industry standard, holding back innovation and freedom for decades. What a douche canoe.

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Bill Gates spent a lot of his pro years running a bad company quite well, and exploiting a dominant position in the market that any soulless biz guy would love to have.

    He seemed to get a conscience around the time he stopped running the show, and seems to be different while not regretting his behavior in that phase.

    I think we can decide he was a bit of a cock back then, while still noting he’s done some good work since. We are nuanced enough, right?

    • kungen@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      37 minutes ago

      He’s still the same self-serving prick, just that he’s trying to buy himself some karma whilst channeling his riches through his own foundations.

    • Twig@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      51 minutes ago

      The Behind The Bastards postcast episode would suggest otherwise

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      40 minutes ago

      God you hit the nail on the head, and why I’m getting very annoyed here on Lemmy. People refuse to have nuanced takes and just comment incessantly about how people are evil and doing anything makes you a bad person. Turns out people are nuance, and we can judge them as such. You can say he did some terrible things to make Microsoft successful while also saying he has done some very good things with his fortune. It is not black and white.

      • Wubwub@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 minutes ago

        Its not black and white to you but people have different values so him throwing billions of dollars at charity does not effect his choice to buy up farm land and potentially ruin innovation in the computing space.

        These are not my opinions just saying why someone would act like it is black and white

  • Ardens@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    We all know that every billionaire is a horrible person. They can’t be anything else.

  • petersr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 hour ago

    I read his memoir “Source Code”. He has had a fascinating life and I still don’t understand how such a geeky person turns into cold blooded business as he does. There are still a lot of other billionaire I would shit on before Gates and I really respect his pledge to give away his wealth and his work with charity, but yeah well, I guess he has pretty awful sides still.

    • Bloomcole@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      fake charity that benefits him in other ways.
      there is zero altruistic motive in anything he does.

      • petersr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 minutes ago

        That is simply not true. I might be that some of it benefits him partly or fully, but saying that nothing of all his projects does anything other than benefit him is something easily falsifiable.

      • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        31 minutes ago

        Pretty sure the charity actually does decent work

        But yeah, it’s basically a way to clear his name in the history records

      • petersr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 minutes ago

        I mean - if he at least shows some motivation to do it, then it is still better than the many billionaire that simple don’t try to give a shit.

  • GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    4 hours ago

    And in retrospect it’s too bad more people didn’t steal from Microsoft so that it failed as a business.

  • phase@lemmy.8th.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    6 hours ago

    He sold his first software before it was even finished to his own unuversity.

    He saved Apple to avoid an antitrust trial.

    It’s just business right?

    • bagsy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 hours ago

      He didn’t even write that software, he had to buy it from someone else because his own version sucked.

    • bitcrafter@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      5 hours ago

      He sold his first software before it was even finished to his own unuversity.

      What drives me crazy is when I hear this fact being cited as a positive thing that makes him a role model.

      • phase@lemmy.8th.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        25 minutes ago

        It is a very good sales person. But he didn’t understood how could the network (or Internet) change the world, even with his Windows monopole. He had Encarta and lost it, without reusing it, to Wikipedia.

  • rozodru@pie.andmc.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Watch the TV movie from the late 90s “Pirates of Silicon Valley” which pretty much paints both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as really shitty people. I mean just look at what Gates did with the Altair. Said he had an operating system, didn’t have an operating system, and what have you.

    Then there’s the whole Xerox Park thing where neither Apple nor Microsoft would be where they’re at today without the engineers at Xerox who were pretty much forced to hand over their stuff because Xerox execs didn’t see value in a GUI and Mouse. Gates and Jobs both were more than happy to go in there and pillage what was developed in order to create Windows and The Macintosh/MacOS

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Yep I remember that movie, but read Steve Levys Hackers. Gates was always a douch. I also read the letter he wrote. I think it was an opinion piece in a newsletter.

    • melfie@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Yeah, that’s a good one, and I also enjoyed Walter Isaacson’s Steve Jobs biography. Stories like Jobs getting a bonus when Wozniak was able to design a board with fewer chips and then not mentioning the extra money to Woz are perfect examples of how sociopaths like Jobs and Gates operate. It’s sad that ruthless charlatans like them who exploit the true geniuses and innovators are allowed to accrue so much money and power in our society.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It should be classified as a sign of mental illness. If I had half of a billion dollars I wouldn’t work another day in my life and the general public would never hear from me. These fuckers have more money than they could ever spend and still desperately want more.

    • shiftymccool@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I kinda compare it to semi truck weigh stations. I found out some time ago that if the math works out that a truck got from one weigh station to another too fast the driver can get a speeding ticket since its assumed they broke the law getting there. Apply that to money. If a person accumulates too much money, it should just be assumed that person broke laws getting it and they should be severly fined (like, most of it).

    • titanicx@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Now the only thing I will say is that Bill Gates is giving away much of his fortune and yes it may be to his benefit to a point however other people are actually benefiting from him giving it away. Bill Gates even admits that most of what he did when he was younger was driven out agreed. However he is doing quite a bit to try to change that and make up for that.

      • zbyte64@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        44 minutes ago

        His donation pledge was more of a flex because he’s increased his net worth more than he has donated. Also, people who were friends with Epstein should not get to decide where that money goes.

  • tetris11@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    8 hours ago

    His mother was an influential person on the board of directors of several firms. She met with John Opel, who was the IBM chairman, and secured her son’s Microsoft contract with IBM in the 1980s, where it then became dominant and made her a ton of money.

    It’s vested interests, and who you know.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      39 minutes ago

      His mother came from money, being the daughter of a banker, and the granddaughter of a banker. His father was a lawyer who founded a law firm focused on corporate law and technology law. Given that his mom knew Opel personally, and his dad was a technology lawyer, is it any surprise that Gates’ first contract with IBM was so incredibly friendly to Microsoft’s interests?

      In addition, IBM was under pressure at that point because it was being sued for antitrust violations by the US government. That limited how aggressive it could be in new contracts without drawing extra attention. In other words, the antitrust effort from the US government took power away from IBM and allowed for new companies to flourish. Then about 20 years later, Microsoft was sued for its own illegal use of its monopoly (a trial at which Bill Gates lied on the stand, and where Microsoft falsified evidence), and this work to limit the reach of Microsoft allowed for the Internet to flourish and led directly to the rise of companies like Google and Amazon. It’s now time for another round of antitrust to allow more companies to flourish – only hopefully this time the antitrust efforts don’t fade out and are aggressively pursued year after year so we don’t get more shitty monopolies making things awful.

      • tetris11@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        26 minutes ago

        Hear hear. I had real hopes for Lina Khan during Biden’s term, but that seemed to have petered out to nothing. Let’s see if something happens once the monster is out of power

    • Maerman@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Yeah, I read that he was a nepo baby. Also, people say “But he dropped out of university to start Microsoft.”

      He dropped out of fucking Harvard. His life was easy as piss from the get-go.

      • HarneyToker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Is everyone at Harvard a nepo baby or has definitely had an easy life? I don’t understand your argument.

        • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Yes, aside from a few scholarship kids, the Ivy League schools, and especially Harvard and Yale, were specifically built and continue to this day to be schools for the children of the elite.

        • crunchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          5 hours ago

          It’s a reasonable assumption that a family that could send their child to Harvard in the 70s was very well off already.

  • bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Also, the only reason they were successful at all was his mom was on the IBM board and got IBM to support their shit.

    • gramie@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      You may want to check your sources on that. If I remember correctly, his mother knew someone on the board, through her work with the United Way.

  • wolfinthewoods@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    9 hours ago

    “Well, Steve [Jobs]… I think it’s more like we both had this rich neighbour named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it.”

  • kindred@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    10 hours ago

    There is a viable alternative to the problems raised by Bill Gates in his irate letter to computer hobbyists concerning “ripping off” software. When software is free, or so inexpensive that it’s easier to pay for it than to duplicate it, then it won’t be “stolen”.

    —Jim Warren, July 1976

  • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    174
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    AstraZenica COVID vaccine was going to be opensource but he used with weight as a donor to pressure the university to sell it to a firm he had ownership instead

      • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        who cares if he didnt profit? “I convinced this man to make money off of the sick and he did it and profited off of a global contamination, but at least I also didnt get a kickback right? He was just gonna give it away the fuckin idiot!”

        such a swell dude. totally not a shitbag human

    • Maerman@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I read about that, yeah. All hail Mammon; money above all. Sometimes I think wealth changes something in a person’s brain, like psychologically or neurologically. It’s as if they get so detached from reality that they lose all empathy and sense of community. I’ve heard the term ‘affluenza’ used as a joke, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense as a legitimate thing.

      • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        62
        ·
        11 hours ago

        It takes a certain kind of personality to even become a billionaire. You don’t become a billionaire by being kind and ethical

        • Maerman@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Well, it would make sense. Rich people have always creeped me out, just instinctively.

          • Townlately@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 hours ago

            I’m sure the threshold varies, but I would back research that attempts to pinpoint or at least narrow down what amount of wealth starts to change your brain chemistry for the worse.

      • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Its any position of power in my experience. People get power, justifying in their mind that they and people like them should be in power. Even games about being in charge run into that problem. Maintaining power becomes a major part of the game at some part.

        • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          There’s plenty of wealthy people who aren’t psychopaths, but they are all broken in some way. Usually it’s because capitalism has completely alienated them from our natural communal instincts and taught them that the individual is god. Many are capable of empathy, they just choose to do the selfish thing because they’ve been told their entire lives that “taking care of number one” is a virtue.

          Of course, the impacts of their behavior are the same as if they were psychopaths, so this isn’t me excusing them. But it’s important to know what capitalism does to people and how it requires us to ignore our natural instincts, because the wealthy (the ones capable of empathy, anyways) are the same as the rest of us, only luckier.

          • IronBird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 hours ago

            as someone who recently escaped the labor trap (that is what capitalists call it…wages are suppressed for a reason…), the shift from needing to work and not is…profound.

            no wonder so many rich cunts are batshit psychopaths, nobody born into $ can ever truly know this feeling of relief (and the resulting stress, just from your brain leaving “survival mode”…hierarchy of needs stuff, then realizing just how fucked everything is, how powerless you still are even as new-rich to change anything…)

    • Maerman@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Yup. He stole a bunch of ideas and code, then got upset that people were stealing his ideas and code. Do as I say, not as I do.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Wait… You’re telling me that people born into extreme privilege and wealth turn out to be self-aggrandizing, egotistical, sociopaths who drastically over-estimate their own importance and contribution to society?

        My world view is shook!