Skip to content

Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates Meet for the First Time Ever

Technology
202 102 0
  • Genuinely kind of surprised they only met now, one would have thought that in over 30 years they would have run into each other at some point at some conference or other.

    One of them is a contributor. In general the contributors and the C-suits don't travel in the same circles. What it really means is that in 30 years Bill Gates has never wanted to meet Linus Torvalds enough to make it happen.

  • You receive: Windows 95 theme on Xubuntu.

    M$ recieves: Root on all your boxxen, all your data, and access to your eyes for ad space.

  • Do you have like a blog or something? Good bit of writing, this.

    I am flattered, however no, I just shitpost here on lemmy and have no other social media presence.
    Also I use AI tools to help me write like this. I like to twist context into funny things like this but it's more of an experiment than anything serious.

  • Richard 'I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it' Stallman?

    That Richard Stallman?

    (I know he has since changed his views, the 'allergic to PR' part just seemed to be a bit of an understatement. Not trying to start an argument, just thought that was funny)

    Stallman is certainly crazy I think.. and creepy.

  • I don't think you remember how insanely terrible Windows was in the 90s.

    I'm not sure that the alternatives were any better, everything was terrible back then.

  • The Typo Monster, he comes out at night, mostly

    Now you just need to slay the Apostrophe Monster.

  • I remember that IBM was famously missing the trend in the late 80s/90s and couldn't understand why regular consumers would ever want to buy a PC. It's why they gave the PC clone market away, never seriously approached their OS/2 thing, and never really marketed directly to anybody except businesses.

    Microsoft really pushed the idea that regular people needed a home PC which laid the foundation for so many people already having the hardware in place to jump on the internet as soon as it became accessible.

    For a brief moment it looked like a toss up between Microsoft IIS webservers serving up .asp files (or coldfusion .cf - RIP) vs Apache pushing CGI but in the end the Linux solution was more baked and flexible when it was time to launch and scale an internet startup in that era.

    Somebody else would have done what Microsoft did for sure, had they not been there, and I suppose we could be paying AT&T for Unix licenses these days too. But yeah, ultimately both Gates and Torvalds were right in terms of operating systems and well timed.

    ColdFusion

    I was there, 3,000 years ago

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

    Someone might remember Bill 300 years from now as a bump on the road for Linux.

  • Is that why Outlook is so intuitive and easy to use?

    I did say private individuals, Outlook is more of a corporate product.

  • Luckily they learned from it and redesigned the kernel from scratch -- hold on, my producer's telling me that no, it's still the NT kernel under there. Outstanding.

    Most users neither know nor care what that is.

  • I'm not sure that the alternatives were any better, everything was terrible back then.

    Yeah, probably not. But the idea that Windows won because of how great it was just doesn't hold up

  • Most users neither know nor care what that is.

    They might care when their os showing the same problems it did 30 years ago

  • ColdFusion

    I was there, 3,000 years ago

    There are at least 2 of us! I think it was widely reported that the downfall of MySpace was at least partially linked to their use Coldfusion. When they needed to scale and adapt it just wasn't ready.

  • Most users neither know nor care what that is.

    good talk

  • 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.

    Dunno, I actually like how this reads. It doesn't explain on which specific points and to which ends he argued, and MS monopoly is a bad thing. But if I were defending a position, I'd do the same. If not to stall and disorganize, then to avoid being caught on unfortunate words.

    He's very legally literate, I'd expect, so such things are where it'd do us good to learn from him.

    Like for Troy you'd do well to learn from Greeks who actually won, not from Troyans who lost. No matter where your sympathies lie.

  • 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.

    This was a symbolic convergence, a ritual unification of cathedral and bazaar into a suburban steakhouse of existential despair.

    Linux people have forgotten, but "the bazaar" is not Windows. It's old Unices and BSDs. Say, Solaris and FreeBSD.

    Somewhere in the void, the ghost of Richard Stallman is chain-smoking over a broken Emacs install, muttering, “I warned you bastards.”

    That forgives your sins.

    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.”

    I felt that line.

    Weep for the dream. Or laugh maniacally, if you still know how.

    I (proverbially) weep because there were 4 people at that dinner, and you didn't even mention the guy who made VMS.

  • Randomly reminds me of some of the freakier social scifi to come out of Asimov's typewriter. I remember one Robot story where the audience insert protagonist goes to an outer world colony where the incest taboo is not only missing, but it's considered a faux pas to avoid sex with your family. One of the characters is in deep consternation because he doesn't want to have sex with his daughter. Anyway, the protagonist and audience are naturally disgusted, but clearly it stuck in my head.

    Academically... I don't know. Because of my upbringing, I just can't see it is as anything other than a severe moral crime. But I guess I could imagine a very very different world from our own where it wouldn't be the weirdest fucking thing imaginable to even talk about it.

    But that's me bending over backwards to get inside the head of someone I think I like, like our buddy Stallman here.

    Thinking freely and imagining freely in our world is considered harmful.

    The guy you're answering is literally blaming Stallman for opinions in the domain of philosophy expressed in words.

    There are so many fucking worse things happening very close to them every day by people far less intelligent than Stallman, yet that's fine. But if the guy who created the FOSS movement says something gross, then they and everything they stand for should apparently be shunned.

    It's an excuse.

  • If it wasn't them, it would have been other people.
    Computer science doesn't rest on shoulder of a "Great Man"

    What Torvalds did was inspire a like-minded community to come together and work toward a collective good.
    On a shoe-string budget they constantly threaten Gates' empire.

    Gates on the other hand chose to enclose the intellectual commons of computer science and sell them at a profit.
    He extracted a heavy toll on all sectors of human activity. And what did this heavy burden buy us ?
    Really NOT MUCH ! It squelched out collaboration and turned programming greedy, it delivered poor bloated software that barely worked and then stagnated for 20 years. It created a farm stall for us to live in, their innovation today is only explained as a series of indignities we will have to live with, because of platform dynamics we really, literally cannot escape the black hole that is windows for they have captured the commons and have made themselves unavoidable, like the Troll asking his toll.

    Frankly I have to mention one thing - while BG was in MS, the Windows world was kinda fine. He left before even Windows 7. He left after Vista, and Vista wasn't very good, but what's important - MS didn't only do evil.

    I mean, yeah, not "fine" fine, but when you are saying "and then stagnated for 20 years", Bill wasn't in MS for most of those 20 years.

    I agree that platform dynamics suck, but I also very well remember from my childhood that I wanted platforms. Everyone wanted platforms. Everyone wanted platforms like ICQ, not too opinionated and de-facto interoperable, or like Geocities, but people wanted platforms.

    It was just plainly unavoidable. Everyone wanted webpages to be dynamic applications and everyone wanted platforms.

    Yes, both are traps of evolution.

    Say, dynamic pages I wanted would be more like embedded content in its own square, as it was with Flash. Just instead of Netscape plugin API and one proprietary environment it could involve a virtual machine for running cross-platform bytecode, or even just PostScript. Java applets were that idea, sort of (no sandboxing), as always Sun solved the hard problem perfectly, but forgot to invent a way for adoption. Maybe it could be allowed access to cut buffers and even the rest of the page. But that would be requested. This would prevent the web turning into something only Chrome can support.

    Say, platforms I wanted would be more like standardized unified resources pooled. Storage resources and computing resources and notification servers and indexation servers for search, possibly partitioned to accommodate the sheer amount of data. Maybe similar to Usenet and NOSTR. With user application being the endpoint to mix those into a "social network" or some other platform. Universal application-agnostic servers, specific user applications.

    But this is all in hindsight.

  • 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.

    There were plenty of alternative graphic shells for DOS, too.

    For me it's interesting to imagine what if a multi-user memory protected yadda-yadda serious system replaced DOS, but preserved the modularity and interoperability of components, so that people would still use different graphic shells, different memory compressors\swappers and so on, and then the PC world would be much more interesting today.

    That's what, only in the sense of desktop shells, Unix-likes have raising them above Windows, or at least have until X11 dies. I think that XLibre person, despite their mental instability and wish to seek conflicts, was right to fork it and it's a good call and that XLibre project will live on. Because yes, RedHat had a policy for X11 stagnating and being deprecated, and they imposed it on the Xorg project itself. I think we'll see that, oh wonder, X11's modular architecture (in the sense of extensions too) will prove better project-wise than Wayland's. Even with legacy, technical debt, obsolete paradigm, all those things people like to mention. This happened too late to kill Wayland, but not too late to save X.

    Which is BTW why this meeting involving Dave Cutler is cool again. See, NT is in its architecture more modular than Linux.

    I doubt they are going to do any project, but in case they are - would be cool if it were a third OS in the VMS and NT row. Supporting Linux ABI and drivers, but maybe even allowing to use Windows NT device drivers. How cool would that be.

    OK, that's what's called "пикейный жилет" in Russian, utterly useless talk of the kitchen\taxi kind.

  • I don't think you remember how insanely terrible Windows was in the 90s.

    When I actually started doing hobby projects, I remembered that feeling with Windows 9x where you learn to avoid "wrong" actions which have a potential of hanging your PC. You don't even think about it. Just get used that you don't move the cursor after clicking there, you don't click here again after a first double click, and other such.

    While things like editing config files were ... more normal for the average person even, you'd have a paper manual generally. For everything, kitchen appliances and anything technical you could buy too. You wouldn't expect everything to just work without reading it. Freezes and crashes were worse.

    Windows won because most people didn't know of anything else.