🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1010612220142.13611B-100000@vtn1>,
 Kelly Bert Manning <ua602@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Alan Baker wrote:
>> 
>> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
>> ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 
>> ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
>> 
>> You know, if you're going to make a statement like that, you might want 
>> to at least pick an example that _supports_ it.
>
>I just did. The 2 persons who came out at the top of the computer industry
>fortune heap inherited millions before they ever got out of high school.
>Gates likes to claim that he didn't use family money, but Bill Gates II
>set him up with his buddies for the financing and his mother just happened
>to be on the national board of united way with the IBMer who had signing
>authority for DOS. Small contry, isn't it.

He inherited nothing at that time. His father wasn't dead. Nor was the 
startup capital for Microsoft more money than anyone else could have 
raised if they showed as much talent and drive.

And I've heard the story about Bill's mother and the IBM executive, but 
none of it would have cut any ice if Microsoft hadn't been able to 
deliver the goods. In point of fact, Gates turned down IBM when they 
first approached Microsoft about possibly doing an OS for them.

>> 
>> Whatever wealth Bill Gates (III) may have from his family pales in 
>> comparison to the money he has made from his own efforts. Whatever I may 
>> think of how original his ideas were, I recognize that the success he 
>> has enjoyed is the fruits of his labours and not a result of his 
>> family's wealth -- pittance that it is.
>
>From "Hard Drive" a description of a typical Bill Gates III negoting
>session with a software writer goes something like 
>  hm, I can tell you're a pretty smart guy, it can't have taken you long to 
>  write this, did it, so a reasonable return on your time is x hours tims
>  y per hour plus I'll throw in a bonus of 
>
>  So much for Mr. Bill's hardwork. Remember how M$ just decided to ignore
>  copyright and use disk compression software belonging to somebody else,
>  hoping they would run out of money for lawyers before M$ did?

All this came long after Microsoft was founded. Even when they bought 
QDOS as the basis for PC-DOS/MS-DOS (the first OS they built for IBM) 
there was much work that Microsoft had to do -- Bill Gates included -- 
to turn it into a finished product.

>
>> 
>> The entire micro-computer industry is a picture-perfect example of 
>> people with good ideas who were willing to work hard making good on 
>> their own merits.
>
>Unless M$ decides they want it for themselves? Or that they are going to
>bundle an M$ version of whatever product you write as an integrated part
>of Windoz?
>
>Without M$ we would have a lot more choice, a lot more companies competing
>in the marketplace and much better software.

Pointing out that MS has grown to such a size that they wield great 
power over the industry does nothing to prove that they grew to that 
size on the strength of inherited money.

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the 
bottom of that cupboard."