Is Bill Gates Really Helping Humanity?

[Zip Code]

"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away.", so said Tom
Waites in his classic rap, "Step Right Up", a paean about come ons and rip
offs.

Now, we have all explored the fact that the Gate$ Foundation is no more than
a front to promote and try to claw onto marketshare for windos by lining
the pockets of Third World government bureaucrats all in the name of
helping "children with AIDS".

But, let's pretend that we've been teleported to some alternate universe,
where everything is on the level, and that money is really helping children
with AIDS.

But does it justify the other actions of the Gate$'s, the Ballmers and
Microsoft? That is, is the net gain a societal good, or a societal bad.

One thing to consider is the proxy war being fought against Linux and Open
Source by SCO for Microsoft. Let us also consider the egregious and
piggish acquisition of 'software patents' which are no being used to slow
the migration to Linux in Munich.

The fight against AIDs and many diseases and problems worldwide are really
computing problems. The scientists, engineers, social planners etc are all
dependent on software for research, budgets, development and so on. The
scientific community in many parts has already embraced Linux. Certainly,
applications that require supercomputer clusters, such as genetic
modelling, would run on Linux...and in the future, based on announcements
from IBM and the U.S. Government, it seems like more and more
supercomputing will be Linux clusters.

So, here you have the world, trying to advance and solve the world's
problems and the worlds mysteries. Here you have Linux, and OSS, which are
serving greatly. And much of that service is because these software
products can evolve freely and grow and change. The 'Openness' lets the
best minds contribute to the advancement of the software...and that in turn
helps to build better medical models and to help defeat AIDS.

Yet, the Gate$ want to put the lock and brakes on this development -- and
for one reason, and one reason only -- to line their already stuffed
pockets with even more gold.

So, when Bill Gate$ pays lip service to 'helping' children with AIDS -- but
then retards the advancement of scientific knowledge and software
advancement with software 'patents', and spurious lawsuits -- is he not the
world's biggist /roadblock/ to curing AIDS and solving the world's
problems?

 

[Scott M.]

Take your head out of your butt! Gates has pledged over 50% of his
(personal) net worth to the Gates Foundation. And that foundation has been
heralded by many (on both sides of the technology debate) as being one of
the best run and more efficient philanthropic organizations out there.

Get a hobby that doesn't involve turning good deeds (done by people you know
nothing about) for causes (you also know nothing about) in places (you know
nothing about) and turn them into acts of corporate greed.

 

[Zip Code]

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

Microsoft uses patents defensively, not offensively, because they don't
like having patents used against them. The only case i've ever heard of
MS trying to profit from their patents is the VFAT patent in the case of
camera manufacturers. That patent has not been used against OSS though.

Very well then.

If Mr. Gate$ and the Gate$ Foundation is so beneficent, and really wants to
help children with AIDS...I ask that they now GPL any and all software
patents and make them public.

This would then prevent them from ever being sued based on those patents.

If they really want to help to save children with AIDs they must allow Linux
and OSS to continue to develop and release their death chokehold on the
software industry....

 

[The Voice of Reason]

<snip>

Summary of post:
- Despite giving shitloads of money to charity, Bill Gates is still
evil because he doesn't like my favourite software.
- OSS cures cancer.

 

[bondo]

Damn this $tupid keyboard. it$ make$ my $'$ turn into $ everytime
$someone po$t$ lame M$ flame$!

 

[Rex Ballard]

"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away.", so said Tom
Waites in his classic rap, "Step Right Up", a paean about come ons and rip
offs.

Now, we have all explored the fact that the Gate$ Foundation is no more than
a front to promote and try to claw onto marketshare for windos by lining
the pockets of Third World government bureaucrats all in the name of
helping "children with AIDS".

Actually, the Gates foundation does some very useful and beneficial
things. They provide vaccines for children to prevent diseases that
are almost unknown in the US (other than for the vaccine) such as
Diptheria, Pertussis (Whooping Cough), Rubella (Measles), Tetnus,
Mumps, Polio, and Malaria. These are all very fine efforts.

Furthermore, because the primary source of funds is just Bill and
friends, there is a much more efficient handling of the money.

But, let's pretend that we've been teleported to some alternate universe,
where everything is on the level, and that money is really helping children
with AIDS.

As indicated above, the Gates Foundation, which is primarily managed
by Melinda, and many of Bill Gates' mother's friends, has done a
pretty good job of making sure that some very good things are being
done with the money.

But does it justify the other actions of the Gate$'s, the Ballmers and
Microsoft? That is, is the net gain a societal good, or a societal bad.

Thus far, I have heard of now public announcements where Microsoft
told the leader of a country in Africa or South America "If you agree
to use Windows exclusively, I can save 80% of your children from an
early death. If you don't agree, they will die before they are 7
years old.

Other charities also have strings. The united christian childrens
fund and several other Christian charities of this type require that
the parents and children convert to Christianity as a prerequisite to
aid. The mother of 3 children, all under the age of seven, all highly
vulnerable and very likely to die, telling the village chief to "take
the deal" and agree to run their single village PC on Windows, just
seems like an easy decision. The only problem is when that single
computer is also the sight through which the village markets its
hand-made goods to the western world. At this point, the conversion
means they starve to death, and not converting means that their
children will die of Polio, LockJaw, whooping cough, smallpox,
measles, or malaria. All of which involve slow painful death, usually
including periods of delirium.

Thats a heck of a choice, but you might find some ways to adjust, even
if only temporarily.

One thing to consider is the proxy war being fought against Linux and Open
Source by SCO for Microsoft. Let us also consider the egregious and
piggish acquisition of 'software patents' which are no being used to slow
the migration to Linux in Munich.

There are many patents which were implemented in Linux, ranging from
SSL to schedulers, to PAM. In nearly every case, these patent owners
not only promised not to demand royalties, but also permitted
unlimited non-exclusive use and distribution rights, so long as the
patented "device" was implemented under an Open Source license. In
some cases, the Patent holder even insisted that such nonexclusive use
would only be granted to code written and published under GPL.

Red Hat, IBM, Netscape/AOL, and many others have contributed their
patents under these conditions.

Of course, the company that did all of those patent searches refuses
to publish those patents because they are afraid of becoming liable.
The irony is that if those patents were listed, nearly all of them
would be found to not only already be documented, but also have been
granted permission for use in Linux and other Open Source code.

When Linux has accidentally stepped on a patent, they normally try to
settle first, then switch to an alternative. In most cases, the Linux
development team has 3-5 implementations to choose from, and the
patent holder knows this.

The fight against AIDs and many diseases and problems worldwide are really
computing problems. The scientists, engineers, social planners etc are all
dependent on software for research, budgets, development and so on. The
scientific community in many parts has already embraced Linux. Certainly,
applications that require supercomputer clusters, such as genetic
modelling, would run on Linux...and in the future, based on announcements
from IBM and the U.S. Government, it seems like more and more
supercomputing will be Linux clusters.

This is already the story. Ironically, if researchers using Linux do
find a vaccine for AIDS, it will probably be Gates Foundation workers
giving the shots. Gates will get the credit for the miracle that
Linux produced.

But this is already the case. The average PC user now spends a
substantial portion of his time interacting with Open Source softawre,
including Linux servers, BSD routers, and most have Linux enabled
Cable/DSL modems, routers, wireless hubs, and printer server. Most
people use Google, and get referred to linux enabled sites.

After Linux and Open Source does all of the work, the results are fed
back to Internet Explorer, on a Windows PC, which means Microsoft gets
all of the credit. Ironically, many of these same Linux powered sites
will do things which require that the user not only have IE on Win32,
but also requires that the user enable features which will make him
much more vulnerable to viruses, hacks, and attacks.

So, here you have the world, trying to advance and solve the world's
problems and the worlds mysteries. Here you have Linux, and OSS, which are
serving greatly. And much of that service is because these software
products can evolve freely and grow and change. The 'Openness' lets the
best minds contribute to the advancement of the software...and that in turn
helps to build better medical models and to help defeat AIDS.

Yep. This has been the story for 20+ years. *NIX does all of the
hard work, Windows does trivial display functions, and everyone
assumes that Windows is what's doing it all.