Talk:Bill Gates

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Icon conspiracy.svg

This Conspiracy related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

RFK an anti-vaxxer?[edit]

The first paragraph of the vaccination section claims that a Robert F. Kennedy originated the polio paralyzation hoax, and links to RFK's page. Is there another Robert F. Kennedy page, or credibly sourced material that a)proves RFK was an anti-vaxxer or b)associates the claim with a different Kennedy? As it stands, the passage is confusing and unsourced. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess it’s up to me to tidy up the incoherent ramblings of my past; no, it’s not that Robert F Kennedy, it’s Robert Kennedy, Jr. You can google his name; he has been spreading lies against Bill Gates for a while now.The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 06:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

United States v. Microsoft[edit]

For those who aren't aware, Microsoft had an antitrust lawsuit in the late 1990s where the US government accused them of being a monopoly. During that case, Bill testified in a recorded disposition and evaded questions in interesting ways to say the least. Maybe a section dedicated to this topic could be added on this article or the Microsoft one. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Mainspace[edit]

Isn't this page ready for mainspace now? Bongolian (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible conflation between CP/M and QDOS[edit]

Maybe it's because I have an obsession with Microsoft operating systems, but I have the impression that the way the section Bill Gates stole MS-DOS code from QDOS is worded may confuse people or give them the wrong idea. QDOS being written in parenthesis immediately after CP/M may give the impression that the two are the same. The section title also causes confusion. I'd propose it be renamed to "Bill Gates stole code from CP/M!", since that is the claim. QDOS was the working name of the CP/M clone made by Tim Paterson for SCP, which was released as 86-DOS. Microsoft bought 86-DOS and renamed it to MS-DOS. In summary, the section should make clear that the claim isn't that Bill Gates copied QDOS, but that Tim Paterson copied CP/M.

Here are some random thoughts that also debunk this theory or weakens its narrative:

  • According to Paterson's blog, Killdall never claimed that QDOS copied CP/M's source code, but that Paterson dissected the inner workings of CP/M to make QDOS.[1] Although I couldn't find the passage in Killdall's memoir that confirms this.
  • As far as I am aware, the CP/M source code wasn't publicly available back then. Even if it was, it was written in PL/M, while QDOS was written in 8086 assembly language.
    • Translating from a high level language to assembly language is harder than writing it yourself.
  • The only things that the two systems have in common, is the BIOS/BDOS/CCP (or io.sys/msdos.sys/command.com) architecture and the API. All design similarities are present to ensure compatibility with CP/M.
  • QDOS uses FAT12, while CP/M uses a completely different file system (the file system implementation is basically half the BDOS code).
    • Why copy the code, when you have to rewrite half of it anyways?
  • It wouldn't even work as an attack on Bill Gates personally, because it was Tim Paterson who originally wrote DOS. If he infringed upon CP/M's copyright, nobody else would have necessarily known it.
  • Any sufficiently good assembly programmer would be able to legally reverse-engineer CP/M just by knowing its well documented API. No clean-room process would be needed.
    • CP/M isn't particularly complex. Gary Killdall's biggest achievement wasn't the implementation itself, but being able to take the mainframe and minicomputer OSes of the time and trimming them down to be able to work well on the limited microcomputers of the time, while still being useful.
  • While MS-DOS 1.x was a shameless CP/M clone, MS-DOS 2.0 was a complete rewrite and deviated significantly from the original CP/M architecture. It might as well be considered a completely different OS.

So this entire thing falls flat on its face on so many levels. --Lukflug (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)