Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds have apparently never met in person before, despite their pseudo-rivalry.

  • nucleative@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    170
    ·
    7 months ago

    Both Torvalds and Gates are nerds… Gates decided to monetize it and Torvalds decided to give it away.

    But without Microsoft’s “PC on every desktop” vision for the '90s, we may not have seen such an increased demand for server infrastructure which is all running the Linux kernel now.

    Arguably Torvalds’ strategy had a greater impact than Gates because now many of us carry his kernel in our pocket. But I think both needed each other to get where we are today.

    • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’ve said this before here, but techy people vastly overestimate both the ability and the patience of the typical user, and it’s the reason so few people use FOSS products.

      Products from big tech aimed at private individuals are designed to be as simple to use as possible, which is why they’re so popular.

      • subignition@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        7 months ago

        Big tech designing their products to be overly simple is one of the driving forces behind the average user having poor patience and aptitude for tech.

        • kerrigan778
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          ·
          7 months ago

          No, it’s not. We have other shit to do and very limited quality time.

        • callouscomic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          7 months ago

          Do you hunt for all of your food and cook it from absolute scratch?

          I bet you sometimes use a grocery store.

          • subignition@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            7 months ago

            What are you even talking about? You’re trying to make an analogy here but it’s a really poor one.

            • valkyrieangela
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              7 months ago

              It’s actually the perfect analogy, you just can’t see it because you’re stuck in the bubble.

              • subignition@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                7 months ago

                You’re right, it’s not a bad analogy, you’re just failing to make a cogent point. Even though you’re trolling, I’ll bite:

                “Using a grocery store” encompasses everything from buying fresh ingredients and cooking your meal (assembling a computer from parts, customizing it to your liking) to buying entrees and sides you like at the deli (ordering a custom build with parts you picked, letting someone else do the legwork) to buying whatever TV dinners are on special in the freezer aisle (walking into a Best Buy or Apple Store and buying anything with a screen, because you need a computer and don’t care about the details)

                “Hunting for all of your food and cooking it from absolute scratch” would be what, writing all your own software? Fabricating your own CPU from silicon? Obviously vanishingly few people are doing that, though there certainly are people with electronics knowledge going more granular than slotting parts into an ATX motherboard. But that’s not what myself (or anyone in this thread from what I can tell) is advocating people do. If you think it is, you grossly misunderstand FOSS. I’m genuinely curious what you think I’m getting at by saying some things are overly simple.

                What I’m frustrated with, to use your analogy, are the companies making TV dinners who don’t even include the microwave wattage in their vague instructions on the box. And subsequently, the customers buying them, turning an already mediocre product into a disastrous result, and trashing the company on social media. Then reaching out to the manufacturer only to be told they just need to buy a new microwave. Sometimes the customer doesn’t even bother to read and puts the TV dinner in the oven instead, then gets mad when their kitchen fills with smoke and their dinner is inedible because of the melted plastic.

                • Honytawk@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  It is the perfect analogy, because you are a techy, not a survival hunter.

                  You buying at a grocery store is out of convenience, the alternative is learning how to hunt like a survival hunter.

                  Just like how the average user wants the convenience of easy to use software, because they don’t want to learn the alternative like you.

                  If everyone was like you, then easy to use software wouldn’t be selling so much.

              • barryamelton@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                If you think big tech doesnt cut corners and offloads the work to the users you are in a bubble; there’s software that is secure, performant, pretty, doesn’t break on its own, and doesn’t have an obsolescency clock ticking inside. Oh, and doesn’t spy on you dismantling society by the minute.

          • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yet you still better know how to cook, despite convenience food existing. Hunting is more analogous to calling kernel interfaces.

        • TheFonz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          7 months ago

          Barf. Or maybe, just maybe, we have other shit to do rather than spend hours trying to figure out how to do one thing in Gimp. It’s great that YOU’RE passionate about tech. Some of us have other hobbies. Imagine that holy shit

          • JackbyDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            ·
            7 months ago

            Buddy, if I open Photoshop it’s gonna take me hours to learn how to do one thing too, what a horrible example lmao. There’s like so many easy slam dunks you could’ve said too.

            • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              7 months ago

              Agreed. People just think the first tool that they learned is the easiest to use. I’ve been a longtime Gimp user and find it pretty easy to do what I want.* The few times someone asked me to do something in Photoshop, I was pretty helpless. Of course, I’m a pretty basic user - I wouldn’t dispute that Photoshop is more powerful, but which one is easier to use is very subjective and the vast majority of the time, it just boils down to which one you use more often.

              I’ve seen the same with people who grew up on Libreoffice and then started smashing their computer when they were asked to use MSOffice.

            • TheFonz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              If you think Photoshop has anywhere near the learning curve that is GIMP then I’m sorry. There is nothing I can do to convince you and this conversation is dead in the water. If something free was on par even slightly with Photoshop, then a whole industry would have shifted over to avoid the burden of costs. There’s a reason the potato shop UI hasn’t changed in 20 years.

            • TheFonz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Also, I never mentioned Photoshop. Open any standard drawing app that was developed recently: Procreate, Infinite Paint, Krita, Fresco. Look how straightforward it is to start working. Look at the Ui. It doesn’t get in the way.

              Edit: oh no the FOSS evangelists are not feeling it. I get it. I use a lot of FOSS apps for work. That doesn’t mean we have to be evangelical in our defense of FOSS. Recognize there are issues and we can work to fix them. Don’t get so defensive, Lemmy. My god.

              • JackbyDev@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                I’m not going to spend hours downloading all of those and comparing and contrasting how easy I find their UIs. Some people have different hobbies. Imagine that, holy shit!

                • TheFonz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Hey guess what? They pretty have the same minimalist ui. Way to miss the entire point I made

          • subignition@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            7 months ago

            You should not expect to use a tool (edit: competently) without spending time learning how to use it. Photoshop has a learning curve too, even if it’s an easier one.

            • tomenzgg@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              But, also, who thinks Photoshop is easier‽

              As someone who’d learned Photoshop and, eventually, learned GIMP (just because it was easier to run after eventually switching to Linux), trying to argue that Photoshop has an industry stranglehold because it – apparently – is just so much more intuitive than GIMP is absolutely wild. No one I knew learning Photoshop was finding that the UI or layout just magically clicked (or even swiftly got less impenetrable, as time went on).

            • TheFonz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Yes, as an artist I will choose the path of least resistance. Open any new drawing app today: Procreate, Infinite Paint, Krita, Fresco and look how clean and easy it is to get right to the point and start working. Now open GIMP and pull my eyelashes out already. The tool should not get in the way of the task. I’m with Steve Jobs on this, sorry. Computers are means to an end. For some they can be hobbies. Linux exists. Have fun.

              Edit: oh no! The FOSS evangelists are not feeling it. I get it. I use a lot of FOSS apps for work. That doesn’t mean we have to be evangelical in our defense of FOSS. Recognize there are issues and we can work to fix them. Don’t get so defensive, Lemmy. My god.

            • Raltoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              7 months ago

              Yeah, it’s very obvious that some of the people responding here don’t interact much with non-tech people, and they have DEFINITELY never worked IT.

              Most people aren’t interested in learning the more intricate things. And if you try to force them, they’re not going to get more interested as they learn, because they literally are not interested in tech. They want to accomplish a task, if that takes a bunch of learning just for one thing, they’ll go a different route, or pay someone else to do it for them.

              • subignition@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                7 months ago

                Keep in mind this status quo is already the result of decades of oversimplification. I am not saying everyone needs to compile the Linux kernel in order to have a computer. I’m saying you should have a basic level of familiarity with the computer you’re using, same as any other tool.

                You should know how to check and top up your engine oil, change a tire in an emergency, etc, if you’re going to own a car. You should know how to safely handle, operate, store, transport, and clean your firearm if you’re going to own a gun. You should know how to empty the chamber or bag, clean the filters correctly, what not to suck up and how to troubleshoot if you do, if you’re going to own a vacuum. You should know how to operate it, when and how it should be cleaned, and what not to do while it’s running, if you’re going to own an electric range. You should know the difference between a web browser and your computer’s filesystem, the difference between RAM and storage, and that you can Internet search most errors to judge whether you’re comfortable trying to fix them yourself or not, if you’re going to own a computer.

                There will ALWAYS be a point where it’s more worth paying someone else instead of learning something yourself. But it’s about the cost-benefit analysis, and the threshold for what’s considered “intricate” is a depressingly low bar where computers are concerned. As I’m sure you are well aware.

                • Honytawk@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  you should have a basic level of familiarity with the computer you’re using, same as any other tool

                  Obviously not, they can use it without that understanding just fine for whatever they want to do. That is enough understanding for them. If their computer explodes, they just buy an other one.

        • Raltoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          7 months ago

          That has to be one of the most out of touch takes I’ve seen in a while. You’re basically saying that things should be intentionally more complicated, and you expect the result to be people just power through and getting used to things being that way, instead of just stopping.

          • subignition@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            7 months ago

            …No. I am saying that too much abstraction of how something actually works is detrimental to the end user. It’s not about making things intentionally more complicated, it’s about removing the need to understand key components of something ultimately causing more harm than good.

          • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            7 months ago

            To add to subignition’s point, there is a value in learning useful software. More complicated software means that there is a learning curve - so while you are less productive while learning how to use it, once you gain more experience, you ultimately become more productive. On the other hand, if you want the software to be useful to everyone regardless of his level of experience, you ultimately have to eliminate more complex functionality that makes the software more useful.

            Software is increasingly being distilled down to more and more basic elements, and ultimately, I think that means that people are able to get less done with them these days. This is just my opinion, but in general I have seen computer literacy dropping and people’s productivity likewise decreasing, at least from what I’ve observed from the 1990s up until today. Especially at work, the Linux users that I see are much more knowledgeable and productive than Apple users.

          • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            Or instead just not hiding things that need not be hidden, like file extensions, despite your OS relying on them for identifying types.

      • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        7 months ago

        Nah, I have worked in IT education and in helpdesk. Average user doesn’t have a better time getting into Microsoft products, it’s not easier for them than FOSS. The reason for Windows domination is Microsoft spending money and lobbying power to put it in front of every user.

        • bobo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Maybe true today, but less true in earlier times (90s and early 2000s) when Microsoft was really gaining dominance.

            • bobo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Fair enough, but Linux was quite difficult for a normal user to install back in the 90’s. And you could literally destroy your monitor if you didn’t know what you were doing. I was responding to the notion that using FOSS was somehow easier to get into in the 90s than Microsoft products.

              • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                I don’t think you remember how difficult was to install anything back then.
                I mean yeah, installing Linux was more complicated, and you couldn’t just google shit. Still, I was making pretty good money back then on the side specifically because regular user wasn’t able to do shit with their computer.
                Linux was harder, both were difficult, both required separate set of skills you couldn’t just get.

                • bobo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  You keep saying I don’t remember, which feels a bit dismissive. I do remember. We just have differing opinions on the barriers to entry for Microsoft vs. FOSS in the 90s.

            • caseyweederman@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Luckily they learned from it and redesigned the kernel from scratch – hold on, my producer’s telling me that no, it’s still the NT kernel under there. Outstanding.

      • SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        7 months ago

        What about the boat loads of marketing - ads - aimed at making you believe those proprietary programs are the best? Clearly you fell for it.

        • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          I’ve used my share of free software. Some of it worked well, but it always felt clunky, and just never as straightforward to use as a paid product.

          But sure, I couldn’t possibly have reached that conclusion on my own, it’s obviously the marketing.

          • qqq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            7 months ago

            Sounds like you’re cherry picking both; I’ve seen plenty of garbage that costs money as well.

            • Honytawk@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Sure, but if you look at the top quality softwares, the majority of them are paid.

              Because money is a big encouragement to make them as flawless as possible. Something FOSS just doesn’t have.

              • qqq@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                This is also far from my personal experience, you might not even realize what free software you’re depending on?

                Your browser is most likely the most complex piece of software you interact with daily and it is most likely FOSS. The Linux kernel is FOSS and is incredibly robust. Most compiler suites, FOSS. Most programming languages, FOSS. These are all incredibly well written and robust tools. AOSP, kinda FOSS, and the forks like Graphene are definitely FOSS. Hell even a lot of macOS programs are actually FOSS. I could go on and on, there is absolutely amazing work being done on FOSS by incredibly talented people.

                There is great paid and proprietary software out there, sure, but no it’s not the majority of top quality software in my personal experience and likely a lot of people’s experiences and it is almost guaranteed to rely on a FOSS library somewhere

        • axEl7fB5@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          There are shit proprietary software and good proprietary software. There are shit FLOSS and good FLOSS

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        it’s the reason so few people use FOSS products.

        It’s a reason. Another reason is all the stuff that Microsoft was found guilty of doing during their conviction for abusing their monopoly.

      • lefixxx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        People don’t have to compile their own kernel to benefit from FOSS. Their phone can run the Linux kernel and the services they use run on FOSS. The more stuff based on FOSS they use the less license fees and RnD they subsidize. Imagine if you had to pay for every FOSS instance you use. Linux kernel, ffmpeg, openssl, docker, WebKit, mySQL and whatever, the same way you pay for GSM or ARM trustzone or console-like-platform-tax

    • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      7 months ago

      But without Microsoft’s “PC on every desktop” vision for the '90s, we may not have seen such an increased demand for server infrastructure which is all running the Linux kernel now.

      Debatable, in my opinion. There were lots of other companies trying to build personal computers back in those times (IBM being the most prominent). If Microsoft had never existed (or gone about things in a different way), things would have been different, no doubt, but they would still be very important and popular devices. The business-use aspect alone had a great draw and from there, I suspect that adoption at homes, schools, etc. would still follow in a very strong way.

      • nucleative@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        I remember that IBM was famously missing the trend in the late 80s/90s and couldn’t understand why regular consumers would ever want to buy a PC. It’s why they gave the PC clone market away, never seriously approached their OS/2 thing, and never really marketed directly to anybody except businesses.

        Microsoft really pushed the idea that regular people needed a home PC which laid the foundation for so many people already having the hardware in place to jump on the internet as soon as it became accessible.

        For a brief moment it looked like a toss up between Microsoft IIS webservers serving up .asp files (or coldfusion .cf - RIP) vs Apache pushing CGI but in the end the Linux solution was more baked and flexible when it was time to launch and scale an internet startup in that era.

        Somebody else would have done what Microsoft did for sure, had they not been there, and I suppose we could be paying AT&T for Unix licenses these days too. But yeah, ultimately both Gates and Torvalds were right in terms of operating systems and well timed.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          If Microsoft hadn’t been around Apple would have probably defined the early PC era. The Apple II was released in 1977, 4 years before IBM decided to enter the home market with the PC.

          Or Commodore might have been the one to dominate. They sold about 5 million Amigas.

          Or it could have been NeXT after Jobs was forced out of Apple and started a new computer business.

          The winner turned out to be Microsoft, but desktop computers were well on their way to being a standard thing long before Microsoft / IBM got into the market.

          • nucleative@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            There are at least 2 of us! I think it was widely reported that the downfall of MySpace was at least partially linked to their use Coldfusion. When they needed to scale and adapt it just wasn’t ready.

  • comador @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    122
    ·
    7 months ago

    Bill announces a collaboration between the two, starting with an open source implementation of BOB and Clippy AI for Linux…

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    7 months ago

    No major kernel decisions were made,” jokes Russinovich in a post on LinkedIn.

    Man, wouldn’t that be wild, though?

  • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Bill Gates is a monopoly capitalist with zero scruples. He screwed over so many people, vacuumed up so much wealth from all other sectors of the world economy. He has zero qualms about doing this either: There’s video of his depositions in the anti-trust case against Microsoft, and the whole fucking time he just argues semantics in response to the questions, and when pressed after five minutes of defining every fucking word in a sentence, almost always claims he doesn’t know or recall. Obviously a guy that thinks being as dishonest as it is possible to get away with is perfectly good business. And he does that despite whatever the outcome of the case, he’d be richer than billions of humans collectively. What pathology is this?

    There’s so much more shit, like the incessant lobbying for medical patents worldwide, or how, according to Melinda, Gates loved hanging out with Epstein.

    Now, why would anyone want to have their picture taken with that guy? Torvalds is such an unprincipled lib.

    Edit: Listened to some of the deposition in the background. Here Gates is being extremely annoying for example: The interviewer reads back an email from Gates saying something like “browser share is a very, very important goal for this company”, and then asks what other companies he’s comparing browser share with. Gates goes several minutes arguing he’s not talking about any other companies, since literally there are no other companies mentioned in that very sentence, obviously pretending like he doesn’t understand the question. If you listen to all the shit before, they have to go over whether “browser share” means “market share” (Gates says no), whether “very, very important” and “important” have different meanings (Gates says not necessarily, could be hyperbole), and that sort of stuff for minutes on end. Like seriously listen to this, I cannot even describe how stupid it is.

    • FreeWilliam@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I completely agree with you. I can’t believe how people still worship Torvalds, while Stallman, an open capitalist, has done more radical socialist things than Linus by miles. I used to ask myself why people praise Torvalds yet reject radical contributors that started, spread, and work on free software that include BIOS and full on operating systems with a developer team consisting of a few contributors living off of donations and advocating against surveillance, non-free software, DRM, and other capitalist dystopian practices, but now I clearly know that people will do anything they can to avoid being even the slightest of radical. Wether it is with software, technology, economic systems, governments, and more, people don’t want to change as change is uncomfortable, so, as a result, you have people like Torvalds, movements like democratic “socialism”, and corporate whitewash like “open source”.

    • LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      Obviously a guy that thinks being as dishonest as it is possible to get away with is perfectly good business.

      That’s the secret to “earning” billions of dollars.

  • mostlikelyaperson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    7 months ago

    Genuinely kind of surprised they only met now, one would have thought that in over 30 years they would have run into each other at some point at some conference or other.

    • _stranger_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      One of them is a contributor. In general the contributors and the C-suits don’t travel in the same circles. What it really means is that in 30 years Bill Gates has never wanted to meet Linus Torvalds enough to make it happen.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I hate to sound preachy, but this is a good example of “rivals” peacefully meeting.

    So many people I meet IRL seem conditioned to think this person they hate on the internet would be someone they’d shout at like they’re an axe murderer, in the middle of a murder. It’s the example they see. Death threats are, like, normal on Facebook or TV News or whatever they’re into, apparently.

    Again at risk of reaching… this feels like positive masculinity to me.

    And leaders acting like adults.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Except Gates is a piece of shit. You don’t need to shout at Gates, but nobody should ever meet him and treat him like a human.

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    7 months ago

    Maybe I’m wrong, but isn’t Gates retired? And I have no idea if Torvalds is still active.

    But historical photo aside, isn’t this meeting a bunch of nothing?

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      120
      ·
      7 months ago

      Torvalds is still very active on the Linux kernel. As far as I know, he’s in charge of it and makes major decisions about its direction.

      Bill Gates retired from Microsoft in 2008.

        • Valmond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          7 months ago

          Making money/influence. It’s such a scam his “Bill and Melinda Charity” (no taxes on charities).

            • Valmond@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              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?

            • Valmond@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              7 months ago

              Name one bad historical person that didn’t do at least some good.

              Your moral compass is broken.

              • Honytawk@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

                • Valmond@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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.

          • Victor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 months ago

            It’s still giving money away though? Why would you want there to be taxes on charity?

            • Fushuan [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              24
              ·
              7 months ago

              It’s more nuanced though. Here’s how rich people use charities to gain wealth:

              Rich person has tons of money that would be taxed if bill Y passes. Rich person creates a charity and donated 20% of what they would had to pay to the IRS to the charity, with that money the charity uses half for good causes and half is given to X lobby company, which then lobbies politicians to avoid passing that bill.

              In the end, the rich person saved 80% of what they would had to pay.

              Yeah, 10% went to good causes but imagine what the society could afford if 100% went through instead of 0.

              This is a very rough outline of how they do it, but the summary is that they use charities to donate to lobbies while skipping taxes on the donation itself.

              • binomialchicken
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Yeah, 10% went to good causes but imagine what the society could afford if 100% went through instead of 0.

                It’s the US, so more weapons I presume.

                • Fushuan [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  That’s the sentiment that allows these rich fucks to avoid paying taxes without big backlash. First focus on collecting, then on spending…

            • Allero@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              7 months ago

              The point here is that in many jurisdictions doing charity exempts you from certain taxes, and it is possible to shuffle money around under the disguise of philanthropy while still getting all the financial benefits like an actual charity

            • Valmond@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              Giving away money? You sweet summer child.

              Research don’t want “his” (the foundations) money, it comes with so many strings attached all your lives work now belongs to the B&M foundation.

              • Victor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                You sweet summer child.

                Alright dude, I don’t know much about the foundation, sorry. 🤷‍♂️

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            (no taxes on charities).

            What type of taxes are you talking about?

      • PacMan@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        Linus still approves the changes in the kernel. His main baby for the past 15 years or so has been GIT.

        • offspec@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          7 months ago

          I think he maintained git at its inception for like 6 months and then passed it off to someone else, but I could be completely mistaken.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        That means there are highschool seniors who weren’t even alive while Bill Gates was at Microsoft. Interns might not even know who he is.

    • chrash0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      7 months ago

      without checking, Gates’ wealth is probably tied up in a lot of MS stock, and he could probably walk into the office and ask the intern to get him a coffee. but yeah i think mostly retired.

      Linus is still active is maintaining the Linux kernel.

      and yes, this is fluff, not some kind of summit