[Gllug] Gates, self proclaimed father of open-source

[itsbruce at uklinux.net]

On 11/9/01, 11:53:46 AM, SteveC <steve at fractalus.com> wrote regarding Re: 
[Gllug] Gates, self proclaimed father of open-source:


> Now this bit has an acorn of truth. I wasn't there in the early 80's like
> most people on this list :-) but from what I have read Microsofts 
attempts
> to go beyond IBM hardware when Compaq came up and then on with other
> manufacturers was crucial to having an open market in hardware, bringing
> standard in and costs down etc.

It was the clone manufacturers who came to MS, not the other way round.  
They wanted DOS on their machines to show that they really were clones 
and could run anything an IBM PC (people were still calling them IBM PC 
Compatibles when I started with PCs) could run.

What people forget (or never knew) is how lucky Bill Gates was.  Nobody 
knew how important the IBM PC would be, not IBM and not Gates.  It's one 
of the reasons his monopoly was so successful - at the beginning nobody 
took it seriously.  And DOS was so crap that people continuted not to 
take it seriously.  Obviously PCs weren't big enough to run good 
operating systems so the individual programs would have to do all the 
work (remember how each word-processing/accounting/spreadsheet app had 
its own set of printer drivers?  How each game or graphics app had it's 
own screen drivers?). Having a monopoly on producing a crap and tiny OS 
wasn't something most people envied.  And it make life even more 
difficult for people producing competing DOSs: "Your DOS is better than 
MS-DOS?  So what, DOS is crap and my applications have to do all the work 
anyway."

Bill Gates didn't know how big the PC would be and he didn't know the 
clones would happen.  He didn't make it happen, he took advantage of it.  
Boy, did he take advantage of it.

-- 

Bruce

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug