All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company
Who stands behind the terrorists of September 11?
kent:
To: bazoukas, void main, pkd, HighLamb, ...
There are many logical facts about the involving of B.G. in events of 9/11. But can you prove that B.G. are not able to do it (worldwide financial terrorism)? Do you have you any reasons to say it (except you do not think so)?
[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: Kent B. ]
[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: Kent B. ]
voidmain:
Where I live you are "presumed innocent" until "proven guilty" not "presumed guilty" until "proven innocent". Now he certainly has been proven guilty of many other bad things.
Kintaro:
quote:Originally posted by Kent B.:
Listen to a true story:
Once upon a time a big ocean liner came to an unknown small Island in the ocean. The natives of the island never in their life saw anything bigger than a small boat they made. And when the big ocean liner came to the coast - nobody saw it. Their eyes just refused to see something that could not fit in their imagination. Their mind did not believe their own eyes and denied to accept images of the huge ship!
The same is with you, guys. You were told here/there many times that Bill Gates is evil ... . The problem is you think you never saw a real evil and when they say - here it is - you just can't believe that the well-known bad guy is the real evil. The reality is just bigger than the range your imagination. You are even looking for facts to cover up the Big Bad Wolf in sheep's clothing but there are no facts there to cover up
Kintaro:
quote:Originally posted by Calum:
well if i remember right the only fully functional operating system seriously on the go at the time IBM/Gates did their deal would have been UNIX and its variants. am i right?
--- End quote ---
Not exactly, PC's back then where not very powerfull, so a multiuser, multitasking OS would not be suitable. A basic system like DOS was... But then things got beter and because of this first need of DOS and the company owning it it stayed like then until the early 1990's where multitasking was handy. But Microsoft dragged down the Computer Industry.
quote:
realistically i think there must have been some more systems kicking about out there but they would have been hobbyist affairs, much like DOS was until Gates marketted it to IBM aggressively.
--- End quote ---
Systems like the Apple, Atari, Amiga where the first too have true Multitasking. Microsoft did have a GUI in the Mid 80's but not true multitasking.
quote:
Now correct me if i am wrong, but AT&T were not allowed legally to sell UNIX? something like that anyway, i know that's not totally right because a lot of universities etc bought licences (open source, but strictly non-disclosure). At that time there was no free software foundation, GNU didn't exist, The Berkeley people had not finished their UNIX-alike operating system and were still using utilities and apps of their own devising on a central UNIX OS, am i right so far? i am not too up on my history so somebody please correct or append if you can.
So the reason Bill Gates did his deal with IBM was first dumb luck, but mostly aggressive marketting.
--- End quote ---
Hitler getting his power was dumb luck.
quote:
contrary to popular belief being in the right place at the right time is not entirely about luck. Gates was in the right place at the right time
--- End quote ---
Funny so was hitler!
quote:
because he is a mercenary entrepreneur. He sold licences to an operating system he had not even bought yet to IBM, and got away with it, purely because all the other people who had an operating system to call their own were either too laid back to try and sell to IBM, or uninterested in the moneymaking side of things, interested more in actually developing the technology.
Gates proves his colours a few years later when he screws IBM over when it suited him, pulling out of OS/2 and leaving IBM high and dry. He did the same to Apple . Gates is a businessman, he saw a market and aggressively elbowed his way in there.
--- End quote ---
Your making me want too kill bill gates. In fact i think i might now. Then i would be hero ;)
quote:
In the US the hard facts should lead people to admire his determination. And i do not say that to slight the US, just saying Gates is from the states so ther eyou go. The conservative party here think in much the same way in some respects, the liberal government that got such a majority in australia is not entirely dissimilar (smooth veneer on top when it's going okay, dirty tricks and lies as soon as the going gets tough).
--- End quote ---
You got that right. DOWN WITH HOWARD!!!
quote:
Also, void main i know how you feel about Gates being associated with the US, we all have our cross to bear. For my part i can't stand it when Scotland is mentioned in the same sentence as "Great" Britain...
--- End quote ---
Ali G is why it is great
Iminow gansta's i'd betta go :D
Kintaro:
quote:Originally posted by drg:
Well, Bill Gates was too stupid to finalize DOS as it should be; therefore, he spoiled it and implemented it everywhere he could. Since that time Bill Gates spoiled everything he legally or illegally acquired/touched. The man who leads the industry has no brains of his own! (Yes, he is a good mercenary entrepreneur but not a professional). When MS DOS met competition that was better than MS DOS, what did Bill Gates do? Yes, played dirty games that they did not expect. They were too decent to compete with the young evil. If a neophyte in computers and programming such as Bill Gates, who did not even finish college was able to invent spoiled DOS - any average professional would do it much better without spoiling it. Because of Bill Gates
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version