Top comment on that page is perfect:

One wrote their own operating system incorporating others ideas on operating systems, the other's mom bought theirs.

The charity did more than some good though.

Also, name one good historical person that didn't do at least some bad.

It is almost like things aren't black and white but more like Yin and Yang.

Sure, and where is your proof that Bill needs one, let alone uses one?

And don't come with a list of actions the majority of people don't care about.

It is the perfect analogy, because you are a techy, not a survival hunter.

You buying at a grocery store is out of convenience, the alternative is learning how to hunt like a survival hunter.

Just like how the average user wants the convenience of easy to use software, because they don't want to learn the alternative like you.

If everyone was like you, then easy to use software wouldn't be selling so much.

I said in another thread about this, he looks like an older Tom Scott.

Now powered by Copilot!

But without Microsoft’s “PC on every desktop” vision for the '90s, we may not have seen such an increased demand for server infrastructure which is all running the Linux kernel now.

Debatable, in my opinion. There were lots of other companies trying to build personal computers back in those times (IBM being the most prominent). If Microsoft had never existed (or gone about things in a different way), things would have been different, no doubt, but they would still be very important and popular devices. The business-use aspect alone had a great draw and from there, I suspect that adoption at homes, schools, etc. would still follow in a very strong way.

Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds have apparently never met in person before, despite their pseudo-rivalry.

Giving away money? You sweet summer child.

Research don't want "his" (the foundations) money, it comes with so many strings attached all your lives work now belongs to the B&M foundation.

The point here is that in many jurisdictions doing charity exempts you from certain taxes, and it is possible to shuffle money around under the disguise of philanthropy while still getting all the financial benefits like an actual charity

Because they are tax avoidance mechanism first and charity seconds.

Money is a brokering system of power, charitues being tax free makes these entities unaccountable to democratic institurions.

That's how we ended up with this infection of corrupt megachurches.

The "prosperity gospel" is billionaire-serving propaganda. It empowers their formation, growth and necessary abuses that come from such widespread exploitation.

Torvalds wrote the kernel, not the operating system. It's a part of the GNU/Linux OS

Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds have apparently never met in person before, despite their pseudo-rivalry.

Bill Gates is a monopoly capitalist with zero scruples. He screwed over so many people, vacuumed up so much wealth from all other sectors of the world economy. He has zero qualms about doing this either: There's video of his depositions in the anti-trust case against Microsoft, and the whole fucking time he just argues semantics in response to the questions, and when pressed after five minutes of defining every fucking word in a sentence, almost always claims he doesn't know or recall. Obviously a guy that thinks being as dishonest as it is possible to get away with is perfectly good business. And he does that despite whatever the outcome of the case, he'd be richer than billions of humans collectively. What pathology is this?

There's so much more shit, like the incessant lobbying for medical patents worldwide, or how, according to Melinda, Gates loved hanging out with Epstein.

Now, why would anyone want to have their picture taken with that guy? Torvalds is such an unprincipled lib.

Edit: Listened to some of the deposition in the background. Here Gates is being extremely annoying for example: The interviewer reads back an email from Gates saying something like "browser share is a very, very important goal for this company", and then asks what other companies he's comparing browser share with. Gates goes several minutes arguing he's not talking about any other companies, since literally there are no other companies mentioned in that very sentence, obviously pretending like he doesn't understand the question. If you listen to all the shit before, they have to go over whether "browser share" means "market share" (Gates says no), whether "very, very important" and "important" have different meanings (Gates says not necessarily, could be hyperbole), and that sort of stuff for minutes on end. Like seriously listen to this, I cannot even describe how stupid it is.

That's not how it works, it's not like "I do some good, now I can do some bad". It does not even out.

Bad people doesn't become good because "some good things came out of it".

If you do bad, then you are bad.

Every dictator did "some good work", are you thinking they are good people?

IMO your moral compass need maintenance.

Bill Gates is a monopoly capitalist with zero scruples. He screwed over so many people, vacuumed up so much wealth from all other sectors of the world economy. He has zero qualms about doing this either: There's video of his depositions in the anti-trust case against Microsoft, and the whole fucking time he just argues semantics in response to the questions, and when pressed after five minutes of defining every fucking word in a sentence, almost always claims he doesn't know or recall. Obviously a guy that thinks being as dishonest as it is possible to get away with is perfectly good business. And he does that despite whatever the outcome of the case, he'd be richer than billions of humans collectively. What pathology is this?

There's so much more shit, like the incessant lobbying for medical patents worldwide, or how, according to Melinda, Gates loved hanging out with Epstein.

Now, why would anyone want to have their picture taken with that guy? Torvalds is such an unprincipled lib.

Edit: Listened to some of the deposition in the background. Here Gates is being extremely annoying for example: The interviewer reads back an email from Gates saying something like "browser share is a very, very important goal for this company", and then asks what other companies he's comparing browser share with. Gates goes several minutes arguing he's not talking about any other companies, since literally there are no other companies mentioned in that very sentence, obviously pretending like he doesn't understand the question. If you listen to all the shit before, they have to go over whether "browser share" means "market share" (Gates says no), whether "very, very important" and "important" have different meanings (Gates says not necessarily, could be hyperbole), and that sort of stuff for minutes on end. Like seriously listen to this, I cannot even describe how stupid it is.

Yeah, it's very obvious that some of the people responding here don't interact much with non-tech people, and they have DEFINITELY never worked IT.

Most people aren't interested in learning the more intricate things. And if you try to force them, they're not going to get more interested as they learn, because they literally are not interested in tech. They want to accomplish a task, if that takes a bunch of learning just for one thing, they'll go a different route, or pay someone else to do it for them.

Sure, but if you look at the top quality softwares, the majority of them are paid.

Because money is a big encouragement to make them as flawless as possible. Something FOSS just doesn't have.

The Conference at Redmond

Well, they finally did it. Bill Gates, the Monopoly Warlord of Redmond, and Linus Torvalds, the caffeine-fueled architect of Linux rebellion, have shaken hands like two aging mob bosses who accidentally showed up to the same funeral. The image alone is enough to make a ThinkPad burst into flames. Gates, the man who once viewed free software the way a vampire views sunlight, now smiling alongside Torvalds, the supposed Patron Saint of Open Source, as if decades of digital trench warfare never happened. It’s like watching Che Guevara and Milton Friedman split a dessert sampler and talk cloud strategy.

Mark Russinovich, playing the role of High Priest of Corporate Reconciliation, quipped “no major kernel decisions were made.” But let’s not kid ourselves, this wasn’t just dinner. This was a symbolic convergence, a ritual unification of cathedral and bazaar into a suburban steakhouse of existential despair. Somewhere in the void, the ghost of Richard Stallman is chain-smoking over a broken Emacs install, muttering, “I warned you bastards.” The only thing missing from that picture was a scroll of NDAs and a PowerPoint titled “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Surveillance Capitalism.”

What we witnessed was not diplomacy, it was absorption. The rebel king has been invited into the palace, offered wine, and handed a commemorative hoodie with the Microsoft logo stitched in ethically-sourced irony. Forget forks and pull requests; this is the final merge. Linux has breached the 4% desktop market share, and capitalism has responded the only way it knows how: by smiling, shaking hands, and quietly buying the table. Welcome to the Conference at Redmond. Weep for the dream. Or laugh maniacally, if you still know how.