Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds, the creator of the Linux kernel, have surprisingly never met before. That all changed at a recent dinner hosted by Sysinternals creator Mark Russinovich.
The worlds of Linux and Windows finally came together in real life, and Dave Cutler, Microsoft technical fellow and Windows NT lead developer, was also there to witness the moment and meet Torvalds for the first time. “No major kernel decisions were made,” jokes Russinovich in a post on LinkedIn.
[Image: Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds meet for the first time. https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/06/1750435121315.jpg?quality=90&strip=all]
Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds have apparently never met in person before, despite their pseudo-rivalry.
You seems to be up in arms defending a shitty billionaire and his shitty charity, repeating over and over again that they did “some good”, what kind of argument even is that? Dictators do “some good” too you know.
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
I don’t think you realise the bad things he did (and still does, like patenting everything he ‘funds’ in research) versus the “some good” things coming out of it, that’s about it I think. That’s why your comments make me feel like you excuse an execrable people "just because ‘some good’ came out of it.
BTW I had to scroll throug the whole original post, Connect (the lemmy soft) lost your answers, so if you answer to this I might not be able to respond.
Dude I have said multiple times that he is a bad person who has “cracked skulls and ruined lives.” How much clearer do I need to be?
I have excused nothing. His foundation doing some good work, which it has, has nothing to do with whether or not he is a good or bad person. I have never said it vindicates him. I never said it washes away what he’s done. I have said nothing remotely like that.
You have an ax to grind and you see red. You aren’t reading what I am actually writing.
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.
I didn’t compare them, but in your mind you understood it that way.
I used Hitler as an example, an extreme one, but still an example of “the ends justify the means”.
could have use any number of examples, but I went with one I thought everyone could relate to. clearly I miscalculated the selfishness of modern day philosophies.
When did I say the ends justified the means? I explicitly said that Bill Gates is a bad person and I didn’t say the foundation was clean or something. I don’t think you understand what that phrase means.
He is not a good person. But the foundation has done some good work.
seems like a justification to me dude. you’re literally justifying his indiscretions, that you even call out, by saying the charity he heads “has done some good work”.
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.
I don’t know if you’re actually being misleading or confusing by accident but calling attention to it being “nuanced” is a clear indicator that your argument supports that the “ends justify the means”.
It’s not justification. He is a person. It is a non-profit. The non-profit has vaccinated countless people, for instance. That is a good thing. Bill Gates still sucks.
Why is this complicated? You can’t be serious right now, this is such obvious nonsense on your part.
it’s a nonprofit he directly benefits from because it has his name on it. he directly benefits from it by using it as a way to sway political power. he directly benefits from it through financial gains paid through the organization.
the entire concept of the foundation is contingent on his financial success. something of which he is well known for destroying lives for.
so tell me, how many of those ruined lives were acceptable for the good that his charity does? how many more lives must be ruined for the good to continue to be acceptable? would you find it acceptable if your life was destroyed to continue the good his charity does? would you be willing to accept your life to be ruined or ended to support the continuation of his charity?
I don’t understand why you don’t see the obvious correlation between the two so I’ll over simplify it.
bad man makes bad money making people suffer. bad money makes good stuff happen under bad man name. bad man still bad man doing good stuff for bad reasons.
you sit and justify his actions by arguing he’s doing good things. I question if he’s doing good things just to do them or if they’re a byproduct of him “cleansing” his name. after all, bad men do bad things. Ever heard of Alfred Nobel?
Please explain to me why these three statements are incompatible. Please explain to me how I have been whitewashing Bill Gates when I’m explicitly saying over and over again he is a bad person. Please explain to me how I have not acknowledged that nonprofits are often used for corrupt purposes.
I do not understand how many ways I have to say this to get it through your incredibly thick skull.
You’re being obtuse. The nuance here is that Bill Gates being.a bad person and his charity org having done some good in the world are facts that are not necessarily dependent or correlated with each other. That’s all. The fact that Gates might be using his org to prop his image is also a consequence of his character, and doesn’t take away from the good the charity has done. Or would you rather the charity didn’t exist at all just so your thirst for consistency would be appeased, all the while people would be dying?
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.
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.
You’re right, that isn’t how it works. Which is why I would never say that. Point out where I said anything remotely like that please.
I answered Honytawk 🤷🏼♀️?
You seems to be up in arms defending a shitty billionaire and his shitty charity, repeating over and over again that they did “some good”, what kind of argument even is that? Dictators do “some good” too you know.
You’re on a crusade attacking everyone.
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.
No. I never said anything like that. That’s an absurd thing to say.
Are we just going to keep going back-and-forth with you keep telling me what I believe while you ignore what I actually say?
I don’t think you realise the bad things he did (and still does, like patenting everything he ‘funds’ in research) versus the “some good” things coming out of it, that’s about it I think. That’s why your comments make me feel like you excuse an execrable people "just because ‘some good’ came out of it.
BTW I had to scroll throug the whole original post, Connect (the lemmy soft) lost your answers, so if you answer to this I might not be able to respond.
Dude I have said multiple times that he is a bad person who has “cracked skulls and ruined lives.” How much clearer do I need to be?
I have excused nothing. His foundation doing some good work, which it has, has nothing to do with whether or not he is a good or bad person. I have never said it vindicates him. I never said it washes away what he’s done. I have said nothing remotely like that.
You have an ax to grind and you see red. You aren’t reading what I am actually writing.
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.
I hate billionaires as much as the next gal, but I think comparing Bill Gates to Hitler is a bit extreme
Welcome to Lemmy, heh.
I didn’t compare them, but in your mind you understood it that way.
I used Hitler as an example, an extreme one, but still an example of “the ends justify the means”.
could have use any number of examples, but I went with one I thought everyone could relate to. clearly I miscalculated the selfishness of modern day philosophies.
You literally used Nazis as an argument against Gates. That’s comparing. What is your deal?
It’s not selfish philosophies, you shoehorned in Nazis so damn fast. That’s not relatable, it’s a cheap tactic.
When did I say the ends justified the means? I explicitly said that Bill Gates is a bad person and I didn’t say the foundation was clean or something. I don’t think you understand what that phrase means.
seems like a justification to me dude. you’re literally justifying his indiscretions, that you even call out, by saying the charity he heads “has done some good work”.
I don’t know if you’re actually being misleading or confusing by accident but calling attention to it being “nuanced” is a clear indicator that your argument supports that the “ends justify the means”.
It’s not justification. He is a person. It is a non-profit. The non-profit has vaccinated countless people, for instance. That is a good thing. Bill Gates still sucks.
Why is this complicated? You can’t be serious right now, this is such obvious nonsense on your part.
it’s a nonprofit he directly benefits from because it has his name on it. he directly benefits from it by using it as a way to sway political power. he directly benefits from it through financial gains paid through the organization.
the entire concept of the foundation is contingent on his financial success. something of which he is well known for destroying lives for.
so tell me, how many of those ruined lives were acceptable for the good that his charity does? how many more lives must be ruined for the good to continue to be acceptable? would you find it acceptable if your life was destroyed to continue the good his charity does? would you be willing to accept your life to be ruined or ended to support the continuation of his charity?
I don’t understand why you don’t see the obvious correlation between the two so I’ll over simplify it.
bad man makes bad money making people suffer. bad money makes good stuff happen under bad man name. bad man still bad man doing good stuff for bad reasons.
you sit and justify his actions by arguing he’s doing good things. I question if he’s doing good things just to do them or if they’re a byproduct of him “cleansing” his name. after all, bad men do bad things. Ever heard of Alfred Nobel?
Dude ffs
Bill Gates is a bad person
The US has a corrupt charity structure
The B&MG Foundation has done some good work
Please explain to me why these three statements are incompatible. Please explain to me how I have been whitewashing Bill Gates when I’m explicitly saying over and over again he is a bad person. Please explain to me how I have not acknowledged that nonprofits are often used for corrupt purposes.
I do not understand how many ways I have to say this to get it through your incredibly thick skull.
You’re being obtuse. The nuance here is that Bill Gates being.a bad person and his charity org having done some good in the world are facts that are not necessarily dependent or correlated with each other. That’s all. The fact that Gates might be using his org to prop his image is also a consequence of his character, and doesn’t take away from the good the charity has done. Or would you rather the charity didn’t exist at all just so your thirst for consistency would be appeased, all the while people would be dying?
Forget it, they’re out there thinking they’ll be the next one to “benefit” some million dollars from the billionaire table
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Let me google that for you.
It’s like asking for proof there is sand in the desert