Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates Meet for the First Time Ever
Technology
185
Beiträge
98
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
Making money/influence. It's such a scam his "Bill and Melinda Charity" (no taxes on charities).
Search the web for “polio”
-
Both Torvalds and Gates are nerds... Gates decided to monetize it and Torvalds decided to give it away.
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.
Arguably Torvalds' strategy had a greater impact than Gates because now many of us carry his kernel in our pocket. But I think both needed each other to get where we are today.
I've said this before here, but techy people vastly overestimate both the ability and the patience of the typical user, and it's the reason so few people use FOSS products.
Products from big tech aimed at private individuals are designed to be as simple to use as possible, which is why they're so popular.
-
Linus still approves the changes in the kernel. His main baby for the past 15 years or so has been GIT.
I think he maintained git at its inception for like 6 months and then passed it off to someone else, but I could be completely mistaken.
-
I've said this before here, but techy people vastly overestimate both the ability and the patience of the typical user, and it's the reason so few people use FOSS products.
Products from big tech aimed at private individuals are designed to be as simple to use as possible, which is why they're so popular.
Big tech designing their products to be overly simple is one of the driving forces behind the average user having poor patience and aptitude for tech.
-
Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds have apparently never met in person before, despite their pseudo-rivalry.
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.
-
I've said this before here, but techy people vastly overestimate both the ability and the patience of the typical user, and it's the reason so few people use FOSS products.
Products from big tech aimed at private individuals are designed to be as simple to use as possible, which is why they're so popular.
What about the boat loads of marketing - ads - aimed at making you believe those proprietary programs are the best? Clearly you fell for it.
-
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.
Mommy was one of the higher ups at IBM. Gates got most of it just handed to him. They are not the same.
-
Big tech designing their products to be overly simple is one of the driving forces behind the average user having poor patience and aptitude for tech.
Christ this is such a Lemmy take.
The other option is users just not using tech at all.
-
What about the boat loads of marketing - ads - aimed at making you believe those proprietary programs are the best? Clearly you fell for it.
I've used my share of free software. Some of it worked well, but it always felt clunky, and just never as straightforward to use as a paid product.
But sure, I couldn't possibly have reached that conclusion on my own, it's obviously the marketing.
-
Barf. Or maybe, just maybe, we have other shit to do rather than spend hours trying to figure out how to do one thing in Gimp. It's great that YOU'RE passionate about tech. Some of us have other hobbies. Imagine that holy shit
-
I said in another thread about this, he looks like an older Tom Scott.
Down to the red shirt.
-
Barf. Or maybe, just maybe, we have other shit to do rather than spend hours trying to figure out how to do one thing in Gimp. It's great that YOU'RE passionate about tech. Some of us have other hobbies. Imagine that holy shit
That really nails it, I think. Tech is a hobby for some, a means to an end for the vast majority.
-
I've used my share of free software. Some of it worked well, but it always felt clunky, and just never as straightforward to use as a paid product.
But sure, I couldn't possibly have reached that conclusion on my own, it's obviously the marketing.
Sounds like you're cherry picking both; I've seen plenty of garbage that costs money as well.
-
Down to the red shirt.
And hoodie!
-
Barf. Or maybe, just maybe, we have other shit to do rather than spend hours trying to figure out how to do one thing in Gimp. It's great that YOU'RE passionate about tech. Some of us have other hobbies. Imagine that holy shit
You should not expect to use a tool (edit: competently) without spending time learning how to use it. Photoshop has a learning curve too, even if it's an easier one.
-
Barf. Or maybe, just maybe, we have other shit to do rather than spend hours trying to figure out how to do one thing in Gimp. It's great that YOU'RE passionate about tech. Some of us have other hobbies. Imagine that holy shit
Buddy, if I open Photoshop it's gonna take me hours to learn how to do one thing too, what a horrible example lmao. There's like so many easy slam dunks you could've said too.
-
No, it's not. We have other shit to do and very limited quality time.
-
So, which one of them heard boss music?
There's Dave Cutler in the article. They both heard boss music and it wasn't theirs.
See, Dave Cutler's level of "boss" for Unix would be Kirk McCusick or Bill Joy.
-
That has to be one of the most out of touch takes I've seen in a while. You're basically saying that things should be intentionally more complicated, and you expect the result to be people just power through and getting used to things being that way, instead of just stopping.
-
It's more nuanced though. Here's how rich people use charities to gain wealth:
Rich person has tons of money that would be taxed if bill Y passes. Rich person creates a charity and donated 20% of what they would had to pay to the IRS to the charity, with that money the charity uses half for good causes and half is given to X lobby company, which then lobbies politicians to avoid passing that bill.
In the end, the rich person saved 80% of what they would had to pay.
Yeah, 10% went to good causes but imagine what the society could afford if 100% went through instead of 0.
This is a very rough outline of how they do it, but the summary is that they use charities to donate to lobbies while skipping taxes on the donation itself.
Yeah, 10% went to good causes but imagine what the society could afford if 100% went through instead of 0.
It's the US, so more weapons I presume.
