The Bill Gates concept of charity.

November 13, 2002 2:03 PM

Four times more dosh to fight Linux than to fight Aids. "in addition to the much trumpeted $100 million Billg has donated to India's fight against HIV, he's funding the Microsoft jihad against Linux to the far more impressive tune of $421 million." The Bill Gates concept of charity. Surprised? No. Uplifted?...me? No.
posted by marvin (15 comments total)

I'd rather not consider Linux to be a charity case.
posted by claxton6 at 2:05 PM on November 13, 2002

Marvin, how much money do you need to have before you're obligated to give more of it to charity than you do to run your business?
posted by Foaf at 2:09 PM on November 13, 2002

Both the FPP and accompanying article are complete trolls. Bill Gates isn't personally funding the fight against Linux, and it's largely because of the way M$ spends its money that he's been able to accumulate the money to spend in India.

What should he do... not donate to India? Next...
posted by mkultra at 2:09 PM on November 13, 2002

So let's just take the $100 million back.
posted by four panels at 2:09 PM on November 13, 2002

So you are pissed that he gave $100 million of his personal money to fight AIDS, and his company spend $421 million of the company's money to compete in the marketplace against a rival?

What are you suggesting?

That Microsoft give an equal amount of money towards AIDS fund?
The stockholders would have Gate's head on a pike.

That Gates should give a matching amount?
People should be happy that he gave a $100 million to begin with, it is his personal money after all...

I am no fan of Microsoft, but this attempt by the The Register to draw lines between these two events is lame...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:11 PM on November 13, 2002

I'm outraged, he should donate all his money to fighting Linux, because I hate that operating system and the rhetoric of its zealots.
posted by Stan Chin at 2:13 PM on November 13, 2002

The author of the article suggests that Gates is trying to "buy" a humanitarian image. I'm pretty cynical about MS, but that strikes me as stupid. Why is it so hard to believe the man really wants to do good?
posted by Foaf at 2:16 PM on November 13, 2002

*sniff* *sniff* Smells like Slashdot...

Seriously, neither article linked in this piece even mentions Linux. I'm all for advocating the OS of your choice, but trying to do it by belittling a $100 donation to an AIDS charity is just ridiculous.
posted by Cyrano at 2:16 PM on November 13, 2002

Let me get this straight:

We are supposed to be upset that a businessman has used more of his money to support his own business than he has given to a specific charity?

I mean, we surely don't want to ruin this Gates-bashing by mentioning that his foundation has given over $2,700,000,000 to global health projects, do we?

I'm sure that if he were to find the cure for AIDS using Windows-powered machines and MS software, the Linux zealots would cry foul that it wasn't an open-source project.

Because anything he does must be evil.

EVIL!
posted by grum@work at 2:18 PM on November 13, 2002

Metafilter: The Rhetoric Of Zealots Is Just A Click Away
posted by yonderboy at 2:18 PM on November 13, 2002

Let me get this, uh, straight ... Bill Gates' money ... it vibrates?
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:20 PM on November 13, 2002

I'm sure that if he were to find the cure for AIDS using Windows-powered machines and MS software, the Linux zealots would cry foul that it wasn't an open-source project.

I love that!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:21 PM on November 13, 2002

Is that supposed to be ironic? - You probably spend more money supporting your job (clothes, transportation, education) than you give to charity...
posted by mildred-pitt at 2:22 PM on November 13, 2002

I hate microsoft as much as the next zealot, but this is ridiculous. If he had donated zero of his personal dollars to fight AIDS, no one would be complaining.
How much has Lou Gerster donated? Bill Joy? You?

On preview- what everyone else said, except for the bit about the vibrating money.
posted by duckstab at 2:23 PM on November 13, 2002

Microsoft's just a corporation. Corporations make money. Microsoft, like all other corporations, mostly gives to charity because it boosts their public image, and therefore yields profits.

If I were to rant about this, I would rant about the regulators of industry, or, more specifically, talk about how the industry writes the regulations. But to single someone out, even if he's the biggest megalomaniac of our times, is kind of useless... it misses the point.

All corporations behave in roughly the same ways qualitatively. Gates just stands out because of scale.
posted by zekinskia at 2:29 PM on November 13, 2002