RIP Mr Allen.
For both better and worse you changed the world.
Billionaire Paul Allen, who cofounded Microsoft with Bill Gates in 1975 and is credited with coining the company's name, has died of cancer aged 65. The announcement was made by Vulcan Inc, the vehicle that managed Allen's billions, on behalf of his family and the Paul Allen Network. The organization said he died, “Monday …
I know on this site that a large portion of the participants are Microsoft haters. But you have to admit that the founders have been some of the most philanthropic people in history. Compare that to Bezos or Ellison or Zuch who horde their billions like some modern age Scrooge McDuck.
To be fair, while Allen started philanthropy pretty quickly it took Gates a while to come around. He was a billionaire longer than Zuck has been before he did - though granted when he did it he went ALL in. Hopefully Zuck & Bezos will follow in his footsteps. Ellison is just a cretin, and I wouldn't be surprised if he builds a tomb that puts the Taj Mahal to shame as his way of taking it all with him.
I know on this site that a large portion of the participants are Microsoft haters.
A large portion of the participants here use Microsoft software daily and hate Microsoft business decisions such as firing their software testers and then getting our end users to do the testing, and then ignoring us when we point out that things are broken, etc etc etc etc etc etc. The list of things that annoy us is probably to long to list on El Reg, i'm sure that there must be a post size limit so I won't try and list them all.
But anyway, the short story is that although we might hate dealing with broken software it doesn't mean that we hate everybody who has ever been involved with Microsoft. Just the people that came up with the ideas that are causing us major headaches. And the people who signed those ideas off.
On the other hand, how much more money in the world would be available for charitable purposes or for investing in and improving public services (you know, like a National Health Service), if even half of the money spent on Microsoft licences had been spent on developing and sharing open source software instead?
It's all very well for someone almost unbelievably incredibly wealthy to be able to donate large sums to charity when the main reason that they have most of that money is because of the massive amount of revenue their company has extracted from the public sector (ie, taxpayers) and from individual members of the public ("Windows tax") and from other businesses.
Nonetheless, three bouts of cancer, that's very unlucky; although ultimately we all die of something in the end. My condolences to his friends and family, nevertheless.
Not as much as you'd expect. Large institutions already have that choice and generally choose not to go down that path; when they do implement large projects the outcome is usually a cost and time overrun.
People also by and large spend money on something that exists, or is guaranteed to exist, in a fairly short time frame. I suspect the funding of open source alternatives over buying an available product is several orders of magnitude smaller. Plus, of course, it's only really useful when all your applications are available, not just one.
"Regards Zuck being a hoarder, Ellison a cretin, Bezos a miser, I think ALL these guys will be giving their riches away sooner or later."
>I believe the phrase is 'trying to buy a ticket to Heaven'
Too late. For a couple of them a thin asbestos suit in the other place is the most they can aspire to,
And here I had been blaming Californians for ruining Seattle all these years. They all sold their homes in 1986 and moved north, paid asking price in cash for everything they could get their hands on. Long before the Microsoft three became a thing.
Unfortunately they moved east around 1993 and caused the mid 2000's housing bubble.
Everyone blames boomers for ruining the economy. I believe it was a specific type of boomer. The Californian.
> Typical anonymously-posted bile.
> There's a time and a place. This may be the latter, but it's hardly the former.
> What have YOU contributed?
Well as my original posting was modded - no problem mods, your sandpit - I've been in the business decades and shipped multiple products that sold multi million SKU's. So yes, I've done my small bit.
As for been anon. See above. I've been in the business decades and know exactly how it works. Very very small world. And if you got the SCC ref you'll realize just how long I've been around and how senior I am. To paraphrase a recruiter who cold called me a few decades ago, I was one of the very few people with a resume where they not only recognized all the companies but all the project too. Which is quite an accolade by the usual (low) standards of recruiters. And this is in the 'Valley, CA, not some 'Rsehole, Lancs.
So, yeah, I know what I am talking about. I have been around a long long time.
Hey, mods, what the usual time period that has to elapse before you can trash the dead for the thieving scumbags they really were? Like my recent Steve Jobs outing. Five years?
For future reference.
> And here I had been blaming Californians for ruining Seattle all these years....
Well I dont know how long you've known Seattle , me only since early 1990's, but I got the full history from the locals going back to long before the Boeing crash of the early 1970's to the Post War Boom built on Boeing. If you want to talk historical housing prices of the areas I've lived in and around Seattle, or the Eastside, going back 50 plus years by this stage I'd be glad to oblige.
In Seattle proper there have only been three real estate booms. The original one - the Klondike, the Boeing Boom post war, and the current one which started 10 years ago. The current one has nothing to do with MS on the Eastside but everything to do with the massive influx of population due to the massive SLU real estate development. From the historical 550K ish population to well over 700K in less than a decade.
As for Californians ruining the Pacific Northwest. Well based on my experience of several decades almost all the "Californians" who "ruined" places like Seattle were not born in or from Californian in the first place. The vast majority were people who moved to Cal from elsewhere, back East mainly, then moved on up to the Great Green North. So pretty much the same sort of people who ruined California in the first place. Outsiders. Lifestyle carpet baggers.
Oddly enough the reason I got to know Seattle in the first place was because there were so many people from Seattle in California and I heard first hand so many intriguing stories of where they were from. So I had to go look see.
Despite everything the Seattle area is still a great place. Superior in every way to the ultra smug, ultra complacent, ultra white hipster town that is Portland. Even after 25 years I still find Portland a slightly repellent place.
A bit like Tacoma.
> You forgot to mention your modesty and critically objective self-evaluation,
Well I have been working in the business in for 35 years by this stage. Mostly in California, mostly in the Bay Area. Nice sunny day here in SF. No fog so far.
If you would like to discuss in finer detail anything from 6502 asm on the Apple II, the ROM memory map of the MacPlus all the way to custom code gens for LLVM , how exactly to bring up a hypervisor process manager (written in x86/C) on bare iron, or the finer points of re-architecting the rewrite of a major segment leading desktop OS application feel free to ask away. Some of us actually got to work on lots of fun projects over the years. Although the VP of Engineering gig was a real drag. So I dont do management now.
Are you a guy on the IT support desk by any chance?
Not really. U.S. Senators tinkering with the Community Reinvestment Act caused the housing bubble. Californians, for better or worse, are not gods. Only government has the potential to screw things up so monumentally.
I'm "from California" (landed there with my MilBrat lifestyle). The Better Half is a native from Ballard so now I live on the East Side, specifically, in Redmond, and have been here for half a decade. I'm not a part "of this", I don't engage in the laughable Tech Industry here, the non-existent Tech Culture, and none too interested in the new housing boom either. The East Side is a candy cane and gingerbread, Stepford, Surburban, bedroom community shit hole (did I mention I Also grew up in Stockton and have a rock solid foundation for comparison?).
No, these people are Not Californians. California (and mostly SoCal, you can tell by their driving style, not kidding) was just their Last Stop, and so that's the license plate you see on their shitty SUVs. THey are, in fact, mostly East Coasters. The Better Half and I argue about this quite a lot in fact.
SAdly, I've seen this in three places I've left specifically because of these folk.
Lifestyle Carpetbaggers...I super like that.
"Billionaire Paul Allen, who cofounded Microsoft with Bill Gates in 1975 and is credited with coining the company's name"
I always thought it was Bill Gate's wife that came up with the name? *wink wink, nudge nudge*
Joking aside, it's sad. Like others have said, for better or for worse, he helped change the world and has done a lot more to help people than other bazillionaires. RIP.
I hope he is forced to maintain their systems using Registry Edits.
Have a copy of his bio, (from an Op Shop), the tech part is a nice read, he was at the forefront of IT for a while.
And I thought Gates was the salesman and Allen the techie (Writing a boot loader for the Altair while on the plane to deliver BASIC to the vendor? Cant imagine his Bill-ness doing that!).
And using a line editor created an entire breed of programmers who checked their code after they hit "return" ... something that's missing these days.
I'm not down on progress or change but we have to realize that every cloud rains sometimes even if it's sold with a silver lining - Allen was very talented, Gates too but the coding environment that they were raise in don't exist any longer - writing a boot loader means that you know a lot more than just how to write code.
Few people these days are trained to write code and then sit back and look at it to check that it does what it's supposed to do and only that - that's the users job isn't it? I wonder how Allen felt about that?
Given his contributions to technology, climate change, disease prevention and cure, this man should be knighted by Her Majesty The Queen of England. He was an inspiration to those who worked in IT, you could go as far to say, without him, IT would be decades behind. He's a man I'd be proud to have just an iota in common with.
A moment of silence for our fallen comrade, you fought well good sir, now you don't need to suffer anymore.
Gates had tried to buy Allen's shares at a low price in 1983.
Source for this ? Paraphrasing Allen: I came into the office one afternoon unexpectedly as I was undergoing cancer treatment and overheard Steve and Bill discuss diluting my shares. I burst in ... That was very unpleasant, possibly the worst day in my life.
Don't know the details but it isn't a necessarily evil activity.
You have 4 staff, you lose one, you need to replace them to keep the business running,
You can't afford to pay the new hire enough to lure them away from HP/Ti/IBM so you offer stock. If the one you lose has 1/4 of the stock you don't have anything to offer the new hire.
It's why the incentive/vesting plans for founders are so complex now
Still sounds pretty evil to me, notwithstanding the fact Allen wouldn't have been short of a few bob.
You have 4 staff, you lose one - offer them some of your *own shares* rather than pinching someone else's. After all, you're betting the employee will be a great revenue earner.
That creates a weird incentive that people who remain working for the company get diluted while anyone that leaves doesn't.
Not directly equivalent but was involved in a company where one co-founder died leaving his widow owning half the business. She wouldn't give up any shares to recruit a new technical co-founder and the company died. VCs now typically have a first-refusal/claw-back clause if a founder leaves early or dies.
with a company that small ( 4 people ) and one says "I'm leaving to be a silent partner , send me my 25%" then surely the 3 doing the work would pay themselves corresponding salaries to relect the work they were putting in .
In fact , I dont see why they wouldnt follow the amazon model and say "oh , no profit this year , sorry shareholders"
That's why you need to carefully construct share agreements, so that they act properly as their aim of both rewarding employees and keeping them in the company as you point out with the widow example.
If you bought a present for someone, and it later became immensely valuable, you don't get to ask for it back. It's the same with share schemes granting part ownership of the company without any attached terms. It's basic common sense to cover the case of someone leaving. If you haven't covered that, then you live with it, which includes making them offers, but doesn't consist of shafting them.
In other words, if you made a bad decision you may have to live with it, rather than being a dick.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018