I was searching for photos of Bill Gates earlier on today (don’t ask; it’s for an art assignment) nad was, once again, hit by the massive amount of anti-Gates/Micro$oft sentiment out there. Unfortunatley, very little of it is expressed clearly, which makes it easier for pro-M$ people to herd in an smash through it. So I got to thinking; what is it about the company/man that really gets people uptight? Is it the company, or the man, or both?
<br>
<br>
A lot of pro-Microsoft supporters put down all the negative feelings towards jealousy. Bill Gates is a very, very wealthy man. Many other people are not, and coverting thy neighbour’s ass is a tradition of Biblical proportions. But I don’t think this in-and-of itself is the problem; after all, there are many rich people in the world who aren’t as universally hated as Gates is. What people object to, in my mind, is <i>how</i> Gates made his money; by creating a virtual monopoly in the field. This (and I hate to use it, but the context is appropriate since the majority of the people I’m talking about are Americans) goes against the very nature of the so-called “American Dream”, which Gates is often held up to represent (despite coming from an already fairly well-off family). The dream is the get rich. Nowadays, to get rich you need a company. To have a company, you need a product to market (well, for the sake of our argument you do), to have a product to market you need an opening in consumer demand. To have an opening in consumer demand, you need space. Monopolies – no matter what industry they’re in – smother this idea of space.
<br>
<br>
In case you hadn’t noticed, no totally new, mainstream OSs have appeared since Windows first took a stranglehold. (Linux, which is based on far older Unix archetecture, doesn’t count.) None that I’ve heard of, at any rate, and – let’s face it – I’m JRU in this scenario so if I haven’t heard about it, then it also doesn’t count. I’m sure this is not for lack of trying and skills, rather than lack of incentive and opportunity. I mean, with a mass consumer market dominated by Apple and Microsoft, and a “counter culture” market dominated by a million and one different flavours of Unix and Linux, why bother building something new? “Don’t re-invent the wheel” is one phrase I’ve heard about a million times (which just goes to show that even hackers get weighed down by inertia). Basically, there really isn’t any demand for newcommers in the field. The fact is that we’ve just about reached a stage where the sheer momentum of the computing industry is going to make it nigh-on impossible to change it’s direction. Even if someone does create a new OS, people won’t use it if there’s no software that will run on it, and software vendors won’t make software for platforms people aren’t going to be using. The majority of main stream, home-user targeted software is desgined for the Windows platform. Most computer department stores in Australia doen’t even sell Macintosh software – or hardware – anymore (it’s all but vaninshed in the last 18 months or so), regailing such things to specialty stores where Mac afficonados stand around and moan about the “good old days” when Macs were still worth the price of the fancy boxes they come in. Aside from one or two lonley boxes of Red Hat or Corel Linux, it’s wall-to-wall Microsoft. Everywhere. This makes people bitter; as they moan and bemoan what might have been, and curse the lack of viable alternatives where ever a Blue Screen of Death is waiting for them. Windows is far from stable, but it’s current is so strong that it takes someone especially brave (or especially stupid) to fight against it.
<br>
<br>
And <i>that</i> – I feel – is what people <i>really</i> don’t like about Windows and the Microsoft Corporation. The fact that for a lot of people there <i>is no other choice</i>, and there’s not likley to be anytime soon, either. Linux is great, and it even has a nice GUI for people scared of a CLI, but it’s pros don’t outweigh Windows’ cons for most users. Not being able to choose makes the population restless, and that’s the heart of the backlash; being forced to use a product which is often considered to be second-rate.
<br>
<br>
But what about our man, Bill Gates? As the head of the corporation which produces the OS everyone loves to hate he’s obviously going to draw fire (or ire), but it runs a little deeper than that. Most people expect rich people to get rich by doing something honest (in reality, this is almost universally not-true, but people like to dream). The story of DOS is well known – Gates bought it off a man, who in turn (or so it is hinted) copied large portions of it off another. Brilliant corporate strategy? Maybe, but also regarded by most people as somehow “unfair”. Gates made money by expoiting a system, and if there’s one thing people don’t like, it’s an exploited system. Gates certainly made himself the boogeyman of the hacker community the second he “sold out” and put profits over… well, what? The sheer joy of the hacking experience? Linus’ Law? Whatever it was – the <i>zeitgeist</i> of the hacker community perhaps – Gates put the pursuit of money over it. Bam; instant boogeyman.
<br>
<br>
[Damn, lost my train of though… sigh, having a real life certainly puts a crip on the old rant. Aah well…]