RE: Brave New World

[Dave Hamilton <DHamilton@baydweller.com>]

  Tod Landis wrote:
  
  	Big difference.  Before the acquisition the "Gates"
  	entry emphasized his competitiveness; after the
  	acquisition:  his "philanthropy"!  What philanthropy?
  	(Many of us wonder if he will EVER develop
  	a social conscience and make donation for the public
  	good)
  
  Valid comment on the editorial control of the encyclopedia, however on
  the issue of philanthropy, Gates has given millions to charity.
  Remember a short while back when Ted Turner gave 1 billion to the UN? A
  big deal was made that Gates had _only_ given millions.  You can argue
  about the amounts, but you can't say "What philanthropy".  Of local note
  (to me), Microsoft, on behalf of Gates' wife has setup quite a computer
  education program at some of the high schools in Dallas (where his wife
  is from), both public and private.  So, there is evidence of
  philanthropy.  I try not to assume what people do in their private lives
  - those assumptions are usually wrong.
  
  As far as public good, there are a lot of people employed by Microsoft
  directly, and a lot of people in the software industry employed by
  companies who deal with Microsoft technology and products (including
  me).  If you consider employment as part of the public good (as I do)
  then Gates/Microsoft has done pretty well.  IMHO.
  
  	There are other examples of history rewritten.
  	I was at a Microsoft Internet Developers'
  	conference where a speaker said that Microsoft was a
  	pioneer of GUI development.  Of course, that is a great
  	exaggeration.  Xerox PARC and Apple were the real pioneers.
  
  This is a somewhat arbitrary line you are drawing.  Why include Apple?
  If you are making a point about "pioneer", I would argue that only Xerox
  was the pioneer of the GUI.  If you are talking about "inovation", then
  you have to include anyone who has added or tweaked the GUI, which
  includes a lot of companies, including Apple and Microsoft.
  
  	Similarly, Microsoft did not pioneer object oriented
  	or C++ programming, though MS speakers sometimes
  	claim this.  AT&T and Stroustrup get the credit there.  And
  	I think Borland had a C++ compiler on the market before
  	Microsoft, though I could be wrong.
  
  Once again, pioneer or innovate?  I have never heard Microsoft claim to
  have pioneered object oriented or C++ programming.  There were plenty of
  C++ compilers that pre-dated Visual C++, including Borland, Zortech,
  Watcom, and others.  Each of these companies (and Microsoft) did
  innovate, none of them pioneered.
  
  Besides taking issue with some of your facts, I don't argue your point.
  Mostly because I don't see that you are making one.  Did I miss
  something?
  
  Dave Hamilton
  dhamilton@baydweller.com