Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds, the creator of the Linux kernel, have surprisingly never met before. That all changed at a recent dinner hosted by Sysinternals creator Mark Russinovich.
The worlds of Linux and Windows finally came together in real life, and Dave Cutler, Microsoft technical fellow and Windows NT lead developer, was also there to witness the moment and meet Torvalds for the first time. “No major kernel decisions were made,” jokes Russinovich in a post on LinkedIn.
[Image: Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds meet for the first time. https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/06/1750435121315.jpg?quality=90&strip=all]
Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds have apparently never met in person before, despite their pseudo-rivalry.
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.
If it wasn’t them, it would have been other people.
Computer science doesn’t rest on shoulder of a “Great Man”
What Torvalds did was inspire a like-minded community to come together and work toward a collective good.
On a shoe-string budget they constantly threaten Gates’ empire.
Gates on the other hand chose to enclose the intellectual commons of computer science and sell them at a profit.
He extracted a heavy toll on all sectors of human activity. And what did this heavy burden buy us ?
Really NOT MUCH ! It squelched out collaboration and turned programming greedy, it delivered poor bloated software that barely worked and then stagnated for 20 years. It created a farm stall for us to live in, their innovation today is only explained as a series of indignities we will have to live with, because of platform dynamics we really, literally cannot escape the black hole that is windows for they have captured the commons and have made themselves unavoidable, like the Troll asking his toll.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
…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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Surely we should cater to those who prioritize convenience, especially at work.
Most of the problem with regular people learning new tech, is that we (tech people, IT people, etc.) Are fucking awful at teaching people things. We throw out way too much way too quick, and the most key thing is that apparently tech people don’t know how to listen or have a conversation.
Regular people don’t hate learning tech, they hate they peolle who teach them. Be better and stop judging people, you aren’t as clever as you think.
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.
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.
If it wasn’t them, it would have been other people. Computer science doesn’t rest on shoulder of a “Great Man”
What Torvalds did was inspire a like-minded community to come together and work toward a collective good. On a shoe-string budget they constantly threaten Gates’ empire.
Gates on the other hand chose to enclose the intellectual commons of computer science and sell them at a profit. He extracted a heavy toll on all sectors of human activity. And what did this heavy burden buy us ? Really NOT MUCH ! It squelched out collaboration and turned programming greedy, it delivered poor bloated software that barely worked and then stagnated for 20 years. It created a farm stall for us to live in, their innovation today is only explained as a series of indignities we will have to live with, because of platform dynamics we really, literally cannot escape the black hole that is windows for they have captured the commons and have made themselves unavoidable, like the Troll asking his toll.
Who’s Gate?
The Typo Monster, he comes out at night, mostly
Now you just need to slay the Apostrophe Monster.
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.
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.
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.
I was there, 3,000 years 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.
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.
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.
Maybe true today, but less true in earlier times (90s and early 2000s) when Microsoft was really gaining dominance.
I don’t think you remember how insanely terrible Windows was in the 90s.
I’m not sure that the alternatives were any better, everything was terrible back then.
Yeah, probably not. But the idea that Windows won because of how great it was just doesn’t hold up
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.
Most users neither know nor care what that is.
They might care when their os showing the same problems it did 30 years 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
It’s a reason. Another reason is all the stuff that Microsoft was found guilty of doing during their conviction for abusing their monopoly.
Is that why Outlook is so intuitive and easy to use?
I did say private individuals, Outlook is more of a corporate product.
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.
Do you hunt for all of your food and cook it from absolute scratch?
I bet you sometimes use a grocery store.
What are you even talking about? You’re trying to make an analogy here but it’s a really poor one.
Christ this is such a Lemmy take.
The other option is users just not using tech at all.
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.
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.
…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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Hey guess what? They pretty have the same minimalist ui. Way to miss the entire point I made
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.
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.
That really nails it, I think. Tech is a hobby for some, a means to an end for the vast majority.
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.
Surely we should cater to those who prioritize convenience, especially at work.
Most of the problem with regular people learning new tech, is that we (tech people, IT people, etc.) Are fucking awful at teaching people things. We throw out way too much way too quick, and the most key thing is that apparently tech people don’t know how to listen or have a conversation.
Regular people don’t hate learning tech, they hate they peolle who teach them. Be better and stop judging people, you aren’t as clever as you think.
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.
What about the boat loads of marketing - ads - aimed at making you believe those proprietary programs are the best? Clearly you fell for it.
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.
Sounds like you’re cherry picking both; I’ve seen plenty of garbage that costs money as well.