What the linux community doesn't want you to know
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Off-Topic
The next time some Linux zealot corners you and starts ranting and raving about Bill Gates, remind him of the $24 billion dollar endowment he provided to his foundation, making him by far the most philanthropic American in history:
<a href="http://www.gatesfoundation.org/" target="_blank">Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation</a>
We'll see if RedHat's CEO does the same thing 10 years from now when RH is the Microsoft of Linux...
<!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
(And try to have some vague sense of humor about this, Thorvald-beeyotches).
<a href="http://www.gatesfoundation.org/" target="_blank">Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation</a>
We'll see if RedHat's CEO does the same thing 10 years from now when RH is the Microsoft of Linux...
<!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
(And try to have some vague sense of humor about this, Thorvald-beeyotches).
Comments
I try. Oh, how I try.
Well, I won't start complaining that the man is doing something good with his change, but this whole foundation has some interesting history:
<i>Before</i> MS got into discussion for the trial against them, this foundation consisted of two employees and a few hundred thousand dollars of funding.
Then, it 'exploded' into the giant organisation it is now. I won't blame them on this, but it was some pretty obvious PR trick, and, considering that they had been raking in money like mad for a long time already, a little philantropy was 'overdue'.
Also, I'd like to mention that there's a long list of magnats with dubious past who started becoming generous when they had reached their goals.
Carnegie, today known for the 'hall' he funded, for example, had no problems with ordering his security to shoot on striking workers.
Gates plays, of course, a completely different (and far less bloddy) game, but I think this shows that simply pointing to the budget of ones welfare foundation doesn't make the funder a saint.
However, it can be argued that the actions of Microsoft will help to increase the popularity of the Linux platform, so I suppose it's more of a double-edged sword, if you will.
As for Nem, that's a pretty poor attitude to have. This foundation is not heavily promoted by MS as a PR tool - I'll bet the majority of people here have never even heard of it. So this guy is damned forever, even after donating billions of dollars to charity, because he invented software you don't like? Trying to make good when you have the means is the most civilized thing there is - many many other rich people do not do this at all. So we should not encourage business magnates to give back to the world after the world has been so kind to them? If you don't encourage the behavior, you'll end up with Steve Jobs or Larry Elison, who brag in interviews about how they love being rich and never do anything except complain about MS and how it prevents them from being even richer.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, I won't start complaining that the man is doing something good with his change<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm of course thankful for what he does - although my usually not all that nice rethoric may make it seem different - but you just said (please keep in mind that I'm overdrawing again) 'Look, he's donating lots of money for good causes! Isn't that a nice man?'.
I didn't make the fact that the foundation grew exponentially when Gates got into the trial up - also, he specifically mentioned it during his second hearing in front of the court. It may not be a broad PR utility, but he won't hesistate to use it when his ethic attitude comes in doubt.
Of course I'd rather see more wealthy people donate, but, sorry for repeating myself, engaging in charity doesn't automatically make you a good person.
I've got no comments on the Unix vs Microsoft debate. I like both, and I've used both. I'm using XP now, and it suits my needs... Up until recently, I've had a Redhat partition to toy around with. They are both suited to meet the needs of the same consumer, but in different ways. <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
Please feel free to quote specifically where I said that engaging in charity makes you a good person.
When we have these little debates, and you ignore points of my argument that don't mesh with your theories, it doesn't help your cause. Respond to my points, already! If someone is bad (in your perception - being a big software company is not at all analogous to being Carnegie Steel), should you encourage them to be good and continue these good practices, or simply keep rehashing the past bad things (as if that makes any difference to anything) and do nothing else? Don't you get upset when people accuse Germans of being mass murders and warmongers, even though that was 60 years ago, the people who did it are all long dead, and the country has worked as hard as possible to atone for those sins ever since? Does there not come a point where you are not forgiven, but at least allowed and encouraged to move on?
Looking at it the other way round (Please do not flame me I study geography and this is true) One of the main problems with vaccination and aid to third world countries is the fact we do not give their ideals and economy the ablity to respond all of a sudden people are living longer yet familys are still the same size (Each couple having say 8-10 babies) even though the kids will live the parents still think 3/4 are going to die young, This is why there is a population explosion in third world countries!
/me looks at Fam
/me shakes his head slowly
/me turns
/me walks off muttering under his breath
What I should've said is "Engaging in charity is a praiseworthy action indeed, but it can't change my opinion about doings of the same man in areas completely unconnected to it."
If you go through our former small debates, you'll soon find out that I'm in no way believing Microsoft to be 'good' or 'bad' - MS is a <i>company</i> for chrissake, and Bill Gates is a businessman.
I'm using Win 2K, and really like it, I really appreciate his philantropism.
On the other hand, I can't really see why Mr. Gates and his company are (for example) trying to
- institute admin rights for themselves on every Windows PC (check the Media Player EULA).
- forced retailers into contracts that would ensure the future domination of their OSes by threatening to no longer allow them to sell said programs.
- tried their very best to keep open source small. I do however appreciate their change of mind on this topic.
See what I'm trying to tell?
Yes, the foundation is definetely a good idea and noble deed, but it can not and will not change my opinion about the sometimes highly problematic business descisions of its funder.
I'm sorry if you get the impression that I'm avoiding your points - especially since I've sometimes got the same impression about your answers.
Let's simply try to stay as objective and to-the-point as humanly possible, OK? <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
[edit]Venmoch:
Although you used one of the less convincing examples, I know what you mean. The problem of wrong guided development help is however not a specifical problem of the gates foundation, it's a core issue of all big charity organizations.
Discussing it here would simply go beyond this topic.[/edit]
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|Oct. 10 2002,14:12-->
Although you used one of the less convincing examples, I know what you mean. The problem of wrong guided development help is however not a specifical problem of the gates foundation, it's a core issue of all big charity organizations.
Discussing it here would simply go beyond this topic.[/edit]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good Idea, I'll be quiet now........
Which, again, was my point. Your bullet points are interesting (although they ignore other company's similar behaviors, including Sun, HP, IBM, Red Hat, Oracle, Apple, etc. to do the same, which you have never brought up as having a problem with) but still pale in comparison to the good done by BG. He has, in my mind, already atoned for every single wicked act MS might have perpetrated ever, as no bad MS action ever ended someone's life. That does not erase the bad acts (or the future bad ones), but the credit must be given. Even if someone does philanthropy for the wrong reasons (Carnegie and Rockefeller were basically trying to atone for decades of labor oppression, murder, etc.), the results are still important. If you don't praise someone for handing half of everything they own over to charity, what has the world come to? Yes - half: he was worth approximately $53 billion when he handed over $24 billion to the endowment.
So, I guess my point is, I want equal time from you about ALL the companies that have bad business practices. Not just the one you find buzzworthy. At least this one is making some effort to do good in the world outside of computers.
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|Oct. 10 2002,14:24-->
I'll, however, now start every new MS discussion with the words "Bill Gates, while not being the bloodthirsty, violent monster some people claim him to be, ..." <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
[edit] For the equal time: I guess it comes with being the biggest player in the game - people tend to look at you more than at everyone else, and I doubt that can be changed.
Grin and bear it.
Also, the Linux community, except for of course RH & co., can't really be called 'competitor'.
At least I am tempted to rather listen to a bunch of people doing something out of altruistic - or at least not directely commercialist - motives than a corp, which is by definition supposed to be 'greedy'.[/edit]
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|Oct. 10 2002,14:40-->
<b>Lesson 1:</b>
<i>Finland</i>: a country in europe.
<i>a finn</i>: a person that has a finnish nationality.
<b>Lesson 2:</b>
- The father of Linux is a finn
- MaxPayne was made by finns
- Finns invented sauna
- Finland is the land of booze
- <b>Skrift is a finn and lives in Finland</b>
Thank you. I feel a lot better. <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
Although if you go look at Sun, IBM, UnitedLinux, RH, and other linux providers, you will see that your small community of altruisitic developers is, if not dead, dying rapidly. Linux is dead... long live Linux.
<!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
BTW, I'm <i>not</i> a commie. A more correct political description of myself would be 'bitter'.
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|Oct. 10 2002,15:03-->
Biggest Tax Deduction EVER.
Oh, lighten up on Linux. I mean, it's not like it's Apple or something. <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
Apple Marketing 101: How to market to the absolute lowest denominator.
I doubt MonsE loves OR hates Linux. It's not about that. He's just being realistic. Like communism (not to harp on that subject, nor am I labeling anyone), an open-source OS is a well-intentioned idea. In theory, it's a great idea. Unfortunately, it simply doesn't work in the world as we know it. Think of it as chaos versus absolute law, and the all-important balance in-betwwen. With MS you have absolute law. There is one path forward, and everything must follow that path to progress, but because everything is founded (and left in the hands) of a single, VERY slow moving machine, things stall a lot and don't progress nearly as fast as we (the users) would like them to. On the other hand, open-source linux is chaos. Because there is so little unification, things move in all sorts of directions, very quickly, and without a common impetus or control. Therefore, there is little overall forward progression. Like it or not, it would take a unifying force, like a company such as Redhat to stabilize things enough. Then you're essentially in the same boat as MS. So what can we do as users? Not much, unfortunately. Just use what you're comfortable with, and if the opportunity arises, support the parts the you like about whatever you use. With time, the OS developers will eventually catch on.
<!--EDIT|Relic25|Oct. 10 2002,16:34-->
Ven, people often confuse my linux conversations for hatred of the OS; for their information, we run Linux on these here NS servers (RedHat 7.3 and 7.2). I think Linux is pretty cool, and does some interesting things. I just hate smug, snotty, 'I liked something back when it was cool' zealots, who seem to be the most vocal members of the Linux community. Most seem less concerned about improving Linux then simply tearing down all its competition and leaving Linux standing. Much like they accuse MS of doing over the years, mind you.
Rel, awesome responses as usual. Kevin Roberts, our voice of calm reason in a turbulent world!
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|Oct. 10 2002,16:39-->
<a href="http://www.natural-selection.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=6181;st=80" target="_blank">http://www.natural-selection.org/cgi-bin....1;st=80</a>
<!--EDIT|Relic25|Oct. 10 2002,16:41-->