Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds have apparently never met in person before, despite their pseudo-rivalry.
This is like seeing a picture of Gandalf and Saruman together lmao
Obviously a guy that thinks being as dishonest as it is possible to get away with is perfectly good business.
That’s the secret to “earning” billions of dollars.
Someone, a big turd, a turd, and someone
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.
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.
I may frame this. Poetry.
Here is the historical picture to go along with it
Where does Richard Stallman fit into this?
Richard Stallman fits into this like a ghost no one wants to admit is still haunting the room. He’s the ideological father of the free software movement, the one who laid the philosophical foundation Torvalds built Linux on, even if Linus never invited him to the party. Stallman didn’t want better software; he wanted freedom, moral clarity, and a digital commons free from the grasp of corporate overlords. While Torvalds was writing C, Stallman was writing manifestos, and now, with Gates and Torvalds grinning like co-conspirators at Redmond, Stallman is the angry prophet shouting from the parking lot of a surveillance palace, still clutching his GNU banner and a half-eaten sandwich.
But the tech world, especially the sanitized, investor-friendly version of it, has no time for prophets anymore. Stallman is inconvenient: brilliant, uncompromising, abrasive, and stubbornly allergic to PR. So while Linus gets photo ops and Gates gets legacy-polishing TED talks, Stallman gets quietly airbrushed out of the narrative like toe-cheese in the Matrix. Yet in many ways, he’s the conscience neither of them can fully erase. He’s not in the room, but the room still trembles when someone whispers “GPL.”
Stallman was right. Too bad nobody listens.
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)
Removed by mod
???
What else would you expect from the “dictator for life”, that he would have the social skills NOT to attend “Conference at Redmond” ?
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.
Round 1, FIGHT!
In my head this means gamepass on linux
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.
Torvalds wrote the kernel, not the operating system. It’s a part of the GNU/Linux OS ;)
The kernel is the OS though.
Is it, though? I don’t know about you, but most (if not all) of my interactions with my computer are at levels above the kernel
… or as I have taken recently to call it, GNU plus Linux.
I know it’s fun to bash on Gates, but it’s also bullshit. Dave Cutler worked on at least two major operating systems. He’s way up there in the Hall of Fame.
Mommy was one of the higher ups at IBM. Gates got most of it just handed to him. They are not the same.
But but but… my parents stories about self-made, and cheapskate, and he’s rich cause apparently he’s not frivolous, and wears sweatpants, and other dumbass lies they ate up…
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.
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 Gate’s empire.
Gate’s 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.
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.
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.
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.
People don’t have to compile their own kernel to benefit from FOSS. Their phone can run the Linux kernel and the services they use run on FOSS. The more stuff based on FOSS they use the less license fees and RnD they subsidize. Imagine if you had to pay for every FOSS instance you use. Linux kernel, ffmpeg, openssl, docker, WebKit, mySQL and whatever, the same way you pay for GSM or ARM trustzone or console-like-platform-tax
Is that why Outlook is so intuitive and easy to use?
Nah, I have worked in IT education and in helpdesk. Average user doesn’t have a better time getting into Microsoft products, it’s not easier for them than FOSS. The reason for Windows domination is Microsoft spending money and lobbying power to put it in front of every user.
Maybe true today, but less true in earlier times (90s and early 2000s) when Microsoft was really gaining dominance.
I don’t think you remember how insanely terrible Windows was in the 90s.
And this in turn led to the younger generations being less tech-literate.
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.
No, it’s not. We have other shit to do and very limited quality time.
Though, if we compare nowadays distros like Bazzite with Windows 11…
Do you hunt for all of your food and cook it from absolute scratch?
I bet you sometimes use a grocery store.
Yet you still better know how to cook, despite convenience food existing. Hunting is more analogous to calling kernel interfaces.
What are you even talking about? You’re trying to make an analogy here but it’s a really poor one.
It’s actually the perfect analogy, you just can’t see it because you’re stuck in the bubble.
You’re right, it’s not a bad analogy, you’re just failing to make a cogent point. Even though you’re trolling, I’ll bite:
“Using a grocery store” encompasses everything from buying fresh ingredients and cooking your meal (assembling a computer from parts, customizing it to your liking) to buying entrees and sides you like at the deli (ordering a custom build with parts you picked, letting someone else do the legwork) to buying whatever TV dinners are on special in the freezer aisle (walking into a Best Buy or Apple Store and buying anything with a screen, because you need a computer and don’t care about the details)
“Hunting for all of your food and cooking it from absolute scratch” would be what, writing all your own software? Fabricating your own CPU from silicon? Obviously vanishingly few people are doing that, though there certainly are people with electronics knowledge going more granular than slotting parts into an ATX motherboard. But that’s not what myself (or anyone in this thread from what I can tell) is advocating people do. If you think it is, you grossly misunderstand FOSS. I’m genuinely curious what you think I’m getting at by saying some things are overly simple.
What I’m frustrated with, to use your analogy, are the companies making TV dinners who don’t even include the microwave wattage in their vague instructions on the box. And subsequently, the customers buying them, turning an already mediocre product into a disastrous result, and trashing the company on social media. Then reaching out to the manufacturer only to be told they just need to buy a new microwave. Sometimes the customer doesn’t even bother to read and puts the TV dinner in the oven instead, then gets mad when their kitchen fills with smoke and their dinner is inedible because of the melted plastic.
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.
If you think big tech doesnt cut corners and offloads the work to the users you are in a bubble; there’s software that is secure, performant, pretty, doesn’t break on its own, and doesn’t have an obsolescency clock ticking inside. Oh, and doesn’t spy on you dismantling society by the minute.
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.
To add to subignition’s point, there is a value in learning useful software. More complicated software means that there is a learning curve - so while you are less productive while learning how to use it, once you gain more experience, you ultimately become more productive. On the other hand, if you want the software to be useful to everyone regardless of his level of experience, you ultimately have to eliminate more complex functionality that makes the software more useful.
Software is increasingly being distilled down to more and more basic elements, and ultimately, I think that means that people are able to get less done with them these days. This is just my opinion, but in general I have seen computer literacy dropping and people’s productivity likewise decreasing, at least from what I’ve observed from the 1990s up until today. Especially at work, the Linux users that I see are much more knowledgeable and productive than Apple users.
Or instead just not hiding things that need not be hidden, like file extensions, despite your OS relying on them for identifying types.
…No. I am saying that too much abstraction of how something actually works is detrimental to the end user. It’s not about making things intentionally more complicated, it’s about removing the need to understand key components of something ultimately causing more harm than good.
Christ this is such a Lemmy take.
The other option is users just not using tech at all.
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.
Agreed. People just think the first tool that they learned is the easiest to use. I’ve been a longtime Gimp user and find it pretty easy to do what I want.* The few times someone asked me to do something in Photoshop, I was pretty helpless. Of course, I’m a pretty basic user - I wouldn’t dispute that Photoshop is more powerful, but which one is easier to use is very subjective and the vast majority of the time, it just boils down to which one you use more often.
I’ve seen the same with people who grew up on Libreoffice and then started smashing their computer when they were asked to use MSOffice.
Also, I never mentioned Photoshop. Open any standard drawing app that was developed recently: Procreate, Infinite Paint, Krita, Fresco. Look how straightforward it is to start working. Look at the Ui. It doesn’t get in the way.
I’m not going to spend hours downloading all of those and comparing and contrasting how easy I find their UIs. Some people have different hobbies. Imagine that, holy shit!
Hey guess what? They pretty have the same minimalist ui. Way to miss the entire point I made
If you think Photoshop has anywhere near the learning curve that is GIMP then I’m sorry. There is nothing I can do to convince you and this conversation is dead in the water. If something free was on par even slightly with Photoshop, then a whole industry would have shifted over to avoid the burden of costs. There’s a reason the potato shop UI hasn’t changed in 20 years.
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.
But, also, who thinks Photoshop is easier‽
As someone who’d learned Photoshop and, eventually, learned GIMP (just because it was easier to run after eventually switching to Linux), trying to argue that Photoshop has an industry stranglehold because it – apparently – is just so much more intuitive than GIMP is absolutely wild. No one I knew learning Photoshop was finding that the UI or layout just magically clicked (or even swiftly got less impenetrable, as time went on).
Yes, as an artist I will choose the path of least resistance. Open any new drawing app today: Procreate, Infinite Paint, Krita, Fresco and look how clean and easy it is to get right to the point and start working. Now open GIMP and pull my eyelashes out already. The tool should not get in the way of the task. I’m with Steve Jobs on this, sorry. Computers are means to an end. For some they can be hobbies. Linux exists. Have fun.
That really nails it, I think. Tech is a hobby for some, a means to an end for the vast majority.
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.
Surely we should cater to those who prioritize convenience, especially at work.
Most of the problem with regular people learning new tech, is that we (tech people, IT people, etc.) Are fucking awful at teaching people things. We throw out way too much way too quick, and the most key thing is that apparently tech people don’t know how to listen or have a conversation.
Regular people don’t hate learning tech, they hate they peolle who teach them. Be better and stop judging people, you aren’t as clever as you think.
Keep in mind this status quo is already the result of decades of oversimplification. I am not saying everyone needs to compile the Linux kernel in order to have a computer. I’m saying you should have a basic level of familiarity with the computer you’re using, same as any other tool.
You should know how to check and top up your engine oil, change a tire in an emergency, etc, if you’re going to own a car. You should know how to safely handle, operate, store, transport, and clean your firearm if you’re going to own a gun. You should know how to empty the chamber or bag, clean the filters correctly, what not to suck up and how to troubleshoot if you do, if you’re going to own a vacuum. You should know how to operate it, when and how it should be cleaned, and what not to do while it’s running, if you’re going to own an electric range. You should know the difference between a web browser and your computer’s filesystem, the difference between RAM and storage, and that you can Internet search most errors to judge whether you’re comfortable trying to fix them yourself or not, if you’re going to own a computer.
There will ALWAYS be a point where it’s more worth paying someone else instead of learning something yourself. But it’s about the cost-benefit analysis, and the threshold for what’s considered “intricate” is a depressingly low bar where computers are concerned. As I’m sure you are well aware.
you should have a basic level of familiarity with the computer you’re using, same as any other tool
Obviously not, they can use it without that understanding just fine for whatever they want to do. That is enough understanding for them. If their computer explodes, they just buy an other one.
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.
Sounds like you’re cherry picking both; I’ve seen plenty of garbage that costs money as well.
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.
This is also far from my personal experience, you might not even realize what free software you’re depending on?
Your browser is most likely the most complex piece of software you interact with daily and it is most likely FOSS. The Linux kernel is FOSS and is incredibly robust. Most compiler suites, FOSS. Most programming languages, FOSS. These are all incredibly well written and robust tools. AOSP, kinda FOSS, and the forks like Graphene are definitely FOSS. Hell even a lot of macOS programs are actually FOSS. I could go on and on, there is absolutely amazing work being done on FOSS by incredibly talented people.
There is great paid and proprietary software out there, sure, but no it’s not the majority of top quality software in my personal experience and likely a lot of people’s experiences and it is almost guaranteed to rely on a FOSS library somewhere
They are used due to support not quality. Companies need to be able to purchase service and support agreements and very often FOSS has none of that.
Linus looks old now 😭
I guess that’s how time works but still…
I said in another thread about this, he looks like an older Tom Scott.
About that, Tom Scott is also old now.
That’s why I said older.
But yeah … Sad truths.
Down to the red shirt.
And hoodie!
deleted by creator
Too bad Steve Wozniak wasn’t there too lol
I hate to sound preachy, but this is a good example of “rivals” peacefully meeting.
So many people I meet IRL seem conditioned to think this person they hate on the internet would be someone they’d shout at like they’re an axe murderer, in the middle of a murder. It’s the example they see. Death threats are, like, normal on Facebook or TV News or whatever they’re into, apparently.
Again at risk of reaching… this feels like positive masculinity to me.
And leaders acting like adults.
Bill announces a collaboration between the two, starting with an open source implementation of BOB and Clippy AI for Linux…
Clippy!
Now powered by Copilot!
CoClippy?
So, which one of them heard boss music?
What if they both did
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.
No major kernel decisions were made,” jokes Russinovich in a post on LinkedIn.
Man, wouldn’t that be wild, though?
Missing the opportunity for a legit decent LinkedIn post?
I dunno. Tempting…
Maybe I’m wrong, but isn’t Gates retired? And I have no idea if Torvalds is still active.
But historical photo aside, isn’t this meeting a bunch of nothing?
Torvalds is still very active on the Linux kernel. As far as I know, he’s in charge of it and makes major decisions about its direction.
Bill Gates retired from Microsoft in 2008.
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.
Gates is still very active in his charity organization
Making money/influence. It’s such a scam his “Bill and Melinda Charity” (no taxes on charities).
We can point out how bullshit the charity system is in the US while also acknowledging that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has done some good
Name one bad historical person that didn’t do at least some good.
Your moral compass is broken.
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.
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.
Their pr firm seems to function very well at least.
Guess you’re going to whitewash bezos, musk and zuckerberg next?
Edit: lot of free work done for the magnificent mr Gates and his tax avoiding fundation. Do you think you’ll get some crumbles from the rich mans table?
Nope. And I sure as hell don’t white wash Bill Gates. You don’t get to that level of wealth and dominance without cracking skulls and ruining lives every step of the way. He is not a good person. But the foundation has done some good work. Surely this isn’t too nuanced for you to understand?
Edit: no clue why it automatically capitalized wash
It capitalized Wash because spell checker is the leaf on the wind.
Every dictator did “some good work”, are you thinking they are good people?
IMO your moral compass need maintenance.
the ends don’t justify the means.
Hitler experimented on hundreds of thousands of Jews and the medical world benefited from it greatly.
does that mean you’re going to nuance the Nazi regime because they “did some good”?
no amount of good is worth the ounce of evil used to make it.
edit: if the ends justify the means, where do you draw the line? how many lives must suffer in order for the goal to be achieved? 1 life? 10? 1 million?
and to those of you claiming Godwin’s law, I used it as an example. I don’t think Bill Gates is Hitler, I never even said anything like that. we could easily use the Tuskegee Airmen and the US Department of Health. How many of those families had to suffer to make the ends justified in your opinion.
IMO none. there is no amount of loss of life that is acceptance for any means. life is precious and unique and deserves to be protected.
edit 2: I didn’t realize humanity sold out their morals and ethics for the “greater good”. my mistake thinking we were better than that. sorry.
Lol no. Of all the sleazy and greasy millionaires, Gates is one of the few whose actions speaks for themselves. Dude has been doing noble causes for most of my life.
I’m all for talking shit about the rich, but it better be true.
His pr firm really works well.
Check out when elon ditched his pr firm. He went frm that loved lil crazy fun type to what he really is.
Search the web for “polio”
Google en passant.
(no taxes on charities).
What type of taxes are you talking about?
It’s still giving money away though? Why would you want there to be taxes on charity?
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.
That’s the sentiment that allows these rich fucks to avoid paying taxes without big backlash. First focus on collecting, then on spending…
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.
You sweet summer child.
Alright dude, I don’t know much about the foundation, sorry. 🤷♂️
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.
Gotcha. That sounds very bad indeed.
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
Well that’s disgusting, ain’t it. 🫤
Amen
That means there are highschool seniors who weren’t even alive while Bill Gates was at Microsoft. Interns might not even know who he is.
DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS 👏🎸
That was balmer though, IIRC. Crazy times
I recently learned that Steve Ballmer is a director of and big donor to the Jewish National Fund, which supports the Israeli military and the settlers in the West Bank and around Gaza. This made me like Steve Ballmer slightly less.
https://shopisrael.com/blogs/support/does-steve-ballmer-support-israel
It was Balmer, but Gates was in the back clapping along and jumping over a chair lmao
I’m sure if they work there they know who he is though lol but possibly I suppose
without checking, Gates’ wealth is probably tied up in a lot of MS stock, and he could probably walk into the office and ask the intern to get him a coffee. but yeah i think mostly retired.
Linus is still active is maintaining the Linux kernel.
and yes, this is fluff, not some kind of summit
Gates could probably walk into most offices and get a free coffee and an impromptu meeting with the CEO if he wants to.
True, if anything he has less of a chance of getting a coffee at the MS office because the coffee machines will be out of order… “Kindly I’m Sorry sirs its on windows”
Still cool though. Also I think Bill has more money.
Than the intern? I mean…yeah. probably.
