http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0925/p01s04-woaf.html reports:
"Andrew Carnegie once wrote that to die rich was to die in disgrace.
Like the 19th-century Pennsylvania steel magnate, Microsoft founder Bill
Gates seems determined not to let that happen.
Mr. Gates has promised to give away 95 percent of his personal fortune,
currently valued at $46 billion. He has already endowed the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, created to help fight disease and improve
education worldwide, with $24 billion; since its inception in 2000, the
foundation has distributed more than $6.2 billion ..."
I've read a lot of disparaging stuff about Bill Gates, including there
being ulterior motives for his charity, but his promise and his actions
speak louder.
My own gripes about the guy fall into 2 categories: orphaning FoxPro and
ignoring IBM lessons. This has led to some strong anti-MS feelings. But
seeing him as a person of real - I'll call it great - character does hit
some high notes.
First of all, misgivings over the treatment of VFP have been mitigated
by the promise of support for VFP 8 through 2010. It seems there is some
question about whether VFP 9 will extend that commitment even further
into the future, but it seems there's hope. It's not all we want, but
it's better than we had last year.
On IBM, that's not an anti-MS rant in the first place, but the
observation that his challenge to IBM isn't limited to the desktop, it's
really a contest for setting standards for distributed computing, and as
such really amounts to a 'bet the farm' proposition between MS and IBM
(particularly true now that IBM is throwing billions at Linux). By
brushing aside time-tested and proven business practices developed by
IBM, I do not believe that he will not be able to usurp that companies
authority in this all-important arena. With the stakes so high and the
winner taking all, our concern is that if we bet on him and he loses, we
lose.
On the other hand, pondering a switch to Linux, with the prospect that
IBM will first influence and then seek to set standards (read: dominate)
for that world, conjures up images of a return to old-school rule and
it's baggage, not the least of which is supporting the Really Big Money
Establishment, which is as loathable as it may be laudable.
Even recently, I've expressed a yearning for a successful IBM-backed
Linux world, not because I want to see MS fall, but because I selfishly
want to secure a long future for my own work. Being able to run software
written for IBM machines three decades ago says enough about what such
continuity and stability looks like.
Rather than seeing this as a choice between one losing proposition (stay
with MS and risk a lifetimes' work going down in flames) and another
(switch to IBM with it's baggage), and once again mindful of Bill Gate's
ultimate commitment, I'm now wondering if getting behind him isn't the
better choice after all.
But it does seem that, to deserve that support, some positive course
changes would be very helpful. Here is a short list of things I think he
should do to re-vitalize Microsoft by making people like us happy:
1. Stop reinventing the Windows OS, but instead progress it
transparently from Windows 5 to 6 to 7 to 8
2. Implement the role of "systems programmer", a tier of programmers who
are provided with tools that equal or exceed those available to such
people in the IBM world.
3. Move to establish open, non-proprietary standards for the future
4. Split Microsoft into 2 companies (OS/Applications)
5. Fund (a better named) FoxPro and let it openly compete with his other
solution
Sure, it's all just wishful thinking, but it is consistent with one word
that did more for IBM than all the other words in the dictionary
combined: think.
Bill
©2003 Bill Arnold |
