Is Bill Gates a lightworker or a darkworker?

[Developer]

I find the latest blog entries on Polarity to be very interesting. Certainly, it is a very accurate model for fictional characters in the fantasy and cartoon genres, where every leading character is strongly polarised. I wonder though; does the polarity theory match our experience of the real world, in particular, Bill Gates?

According to the theory he must be highly polarised one way or the other, or he could not have become so successful.

One might assume he is a darkworker, having become the world's richest man as founder of a monopolist company, crushing all competition with ethically dubious actions and retarding the development of the computing industry.

On the other hand, one could argue that he is a lightworker, as his foundation is doing some excellent work improving people's lives in parts of the world where computers are irrelevant compared to basic needs like food, clean water, and medicine.

What are your thoughts?

[JiriNovotny]

I think that he started as a darkworker and recently polarized to the light side. AFAIK he wasn't doing the charity stuff the whole time.

Nonetheless, I love Microsoft and Windows.

[Steve Pavlina]

Without knowing Bill's true motives, you can't really know for sure.

Even if he took actions that were anti-competitive, what was his reason for doing those things? Was it for personal gain, or was it because he genuinely believed the world would be better served with Microsoft software being spread far and wide?

If I had to guess, I would say Bill is predominantly love-polarized and has been so since the early days of Microsoft. I think he cares a lot more about creating something of value, making a contribution, and impacting people's lives. I don't think personal gain, status, and recognition are of much importance to him.

Microsoft's internal motto in the early days was, "A computer on every desk and in every home... running Microsoft software." That's an outflow orientation to me.

Bill intially resisted taking Microsoft public. I read that he felt it would become too much of a distraction. But his employees who held stock basically demanded it, so they could finally cash in. Many of them became instant millionaires when the company went public.

Many people think that a lightworker will behave in a lovey-dovey manner towards everyone they meet. Surely some will behave that way, but it's not a requirement to serve the greater good.

[fretho]

Interesting. You could say he at least used the light polarity in that regard. One could claim Linus Torvalds was a darkworker because he did it "just for fun." But I still see free/open source as light and proprietary/closed source as dark. I think Windows is basically inferior because it limits your power as a user.

When you have thousands, or millions of people involved, there isn't a clear dark/light polarity. Light and Dark can work alongside each other. The only difference is motives. Light motivated people can work on free software out of a spirit of giving, dark motivated people work on it for fun and as a demonstration of personal power. Similarly light motivated people can work on proprietary software out of a desire to provide a service to customers, and dark motivated people out of a desire to build their personal power base.

So we have dark/light strategy on the one hand, and dark/light motives on the other.

[munish]

Study the minds of Hitler and stalin,if you want to know more about how darkworkers think.Their motives were to impact people's lives.And see what they did.

[ElizaJ]

William Henry Gates III - Darworker. Charitable Organization - facade for him to hide behind.

[shant121]

Originally Posted by ElizaJ

William Henry Gates III - Darworker. Charitable Organization - facade for him to hide behind.

Hide behind from what ElizaJ?


Thanks Steve for the answers...just what I had been thinking about the last couple of days!!!!! I was wondering whether businesspeople like Gates or Google founders or Buffet would categorize as darkworkers. and whether lightworkers have to be love dovey all the time :P

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Without knowing Bill's true motives, you can't really know for sure.

Even if he took actions that were anti-competitive, what was his reason for doing those things? Was it for personal gain, or was it because he genuinely believed the world would be better served with Microsoft software being spread far and wide?

If I had to guess, I would say Bill is predominantly love-polarized and has been so since the early days of Microsoft. I think he cares a lot more about creating something of value, making a contribution, and impacting people's lives. I don't think personal gain, status, and recognition are of much importance to him.

Microsoft's internal motto in the early days was, "A computer on every desk and in every home... running Microsoft software." That's an outflow orientation to me.

Bill intially resisted taking Microsoft public. I read that he felt it would become too much of a distraction. But his employees who held stock basically demanded it, so they could finally cash in. Many of them became instant millionaires when the company went public.

Many people think that a lightworker will behave in a lovey-dovey manner towards everyone they meet. Surely some will behave that way, but it's not a requirement to serve the greater good.

that seems like an extremely optimistic view

another interpretation is that the windows arm-twisting hyper competitivity and greed-mindedness threw the software industry into a dark age from which we are only beginning to emerge

Microsoft deserves credit for rapidly developing ubiquitous office software but when it comes to Windows the company motives were greed and control rather than quality and service. Many many excellent companies and technologies, through no flaw of their own, have been sent on a one-way trip to the Recycling Bin by Microsoft entirely because they were seen as a looming threat to wealth and control.

Bill Gates himself never personally wrote any worthwhile software, rather he conned his way into the business. He deceptively bought DOS for an extremely selfish sum and then tricked IBM into destroying their own company by signing the exclusivity contract with Microsoft. He was unendingly selfish when it came to his employees - dealing with Bill Gates often meant being used, abused, unappreciated, and underpaid.

MS Windows does not represent value creation, rather it represents the transfer of wealth from the world at large to Microsoft's empire.

Microsoft does deserve credit for developing & supporting good office software long-term, but this is unrelated to the Windows branch. And even with this software many many valuable innovations were killed for no reason other than greed.

Bill Gates, however, having succeeded in amassing his fortune, seems to have had some kind of realization and now is giving it back. So in the end maybe he will do more good than bad.

Until now Microsoft's actions have certainly been more to the bad than the good. They killed so many valuable companies that sought only to contribute, and could have contributed many valuable technologies, but were restrained from doing so when they were sent to the software gas chamber by Bill Gates.

Of course one can never know Bill's intentions. They may have been good all along. But his effects have been extremely negative in my opinion.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by shant121

Hide behind from what ElizaJ?


Thanks Steve for the answers...just what I had been thinking about the last couple of days!!!!! I was wondering whether businesspeople like Gates or Google founders or Buffet would categorize as darkworkers. and whether lightworkers have to be love dovey all the time :P

Warren Buffet has lived his entire life in the same house he bought 50 years ago for a few thousand dollars. He has refused to raise his annual salary at Berkshire-Hathaway from $100k per year despite his shareholders begging to pay him more.

He isn't lavish, rather he calls himself thrifty. He drives a 15 year old car. He is giving his entire $45 billion fortune - including all future earnings - to charity.

Buffet also has never hurt anyone on his way to power. The only thing he has been criticized for is layoffs - but layoffs are a service to the society as a whole. Keeping employees on who aren't providing value is hardly a service to humanity like some would make it out to be. Rather he took over failing companies and transformed them into enduring successes.

Buffet represents one of the very last honest CEOs. If he wanted he could have paid himself hundreds of millions from shareholder pockets but instead he has done his best to be fair to them and to humanity in general. The people who deal with Buffet only have glowing praise for the way he ensures everyone around him benefits.

I only have ever seen good in Buffet, and i've read the story of his entire life including now when I keep up with him. Whether he's a lightworker or dark depends on his intentions and so we can never really know. However his effect on humanity has been nothing but positive. He's a role-model to all who want to contribute through knowledge of business/economics.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by yossarian

another interpretation is that the windows arm-twisting hyper competitivity and greed-mindedness threw the software industry into a dark age from which we are only beginning to emerge

You could be right.

[danas]

if we compare Microsoft and Macintosh I think Macintosh are the lightworkers. I admit Ive never owned a PC, only Apples (since 1983), but I teach on PCs (which every lesson they have some problem) and with a Mac I feel that every aspect of it was made with love and care. even if its more expensive, I feel it was made with less greed. (maybe Im innocent but that s my feeling)
I own my current Mac for 3 years now and it never crashed, never had a bug. PCs only became friendlier after they were forced to by competition with macs.
You dont necessarily have to be a lightworker if you donate to charity, especially if youre a smart darkworker and you know that a law of the universe is that if you want to receive more you have to give more, and if you know that giving to charity will also make you look very good.
Its like if want to buy milk and its so cheap everyone can afford it, but next to it is organic milk which only richer people can afford, but I feel that the cheap milk was made with more greed (poor cows) and the organic one with more love....

[fballer11]

is it possible for someone to use that much money for good and not be a lightworker? I don' think he is doing it for pr, and i can't find anything he is hiding behind.

Lets not compare macs and pcs, or software dark ages in response to the main question.

Then again, I am not him

[DrFredbert]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Without knowing Bill's true motives, you can't really know for sure.

I agree whole heartedly.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

If I had to guess, I would say Bill is predominantly love-polarized and has been so since the early days of Microsoft.

Also, even though I totally don't agree with the idea of lightworkers and darkworkers, I do agree that Bill, though some of my GNU genes hate to admit it, is probably one of the good guys.

[radeldudel]

Hehe, talking about Microsoft is a surefire way to get tempers rising

Like Steve said, you can only guess.

I personally don't think someone can just switched from 'darkworker' to 'lightworker' like someone suggested. If you have gone so far into being a darkworker you won't just shed it overnight, so I'd personally guess lightworker.

What I find much more interesting is how much emotion people put into this windows/Mac OS/Linux thing. They are all just tools.

Love you!

[ElizaJ]

Found these interesting articles written about the Gates foundation:

The Blog | Larry Arnstein: Whiplash at the Gates Foundation | The Huffington Post

A contradiction at the Gates Foundation - Los Angeles Times

[radeldudel]

Originally Posted by ElizaJ

Found these interesting articles written about the Gates foundation:

The Blog | Larry Arnstein: Whiplash at the Gates Foundation | The Huffington Post

A contradiction at the Gates Foundation - Los Angeles Times

The latimes-website is not reachable for me right now, but as far as I see the contradiction is investment of money in companies that harm people, and supporting those people who have been harmed?

Hehe, yes, they probably got some guys whos job is only to invest money, and these guys do not care about helping anyone but their revenue stream. (can't blame them, it's their job to make money)

Maybe the Gates Foundation will take this oversight as a lesson and change their investment strategies to exclude companies hurting people.

Love you!

[Mike_T]

I think he's more likely to be a darkworker. Starting his foundation, with all the good it may be doing, does not mean he has necessarily changed into a lightworker.

If you look at how he conducted his business at Microsoft, from the stories about how he formed it, to the practices the company followed as they grew and dominated the industry, I think his motivation looks a lot more like the darkworker polarization. If you accept Steve's theory about what happens to a darkworker vs. a lightworker (attracting competitors, instead of attracting help and generosity), I think it also looks more like the description of a darkworker.

The foundation does not mean that he has changed at all. Forming this foundation isn't incompatible with the darkworker framework. When this foundation was formed, Microsoft was under tremendous pressure about their anti-competitive practices, much moreso than they are today--what better PR could he have than to announce very publicly to the world that you're giving away billions to good causes?

Taking that further, he has more money than he would ever need personally, and there are no major competitors that can really threaten Microsoft, so the challenge isn't really there the way it used to be. Bill needs another venue to challenge him, and his foundation provides another means for accomplishment. He gets to control which causes get *major* funding and which do not, he gets to bully around whichever charities he chooses. He even convinced Warren Buffet to throw all of his money into the Gates Foundation pot, so in effect he's monopolizing the charitable foundation "industry" the same way he did with software.

Still sounds like a darkworker to me.

[ElizaJ]

Mike_T, great comments. Couldn't have said it better mysel.

[JiriNovotny]

Wow, Mike, that is very insightful.

But have you actually seen some interviews with Bill Gates? He seems like he really cares about other people, I just can't quite imagine that he is really doing it just for himself.

I think he is a great guy, darkworker or not

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by JiriNovotny

Wow, Mike, that is very insightful.

But have you actually seen some interviews with Bill Gates? He seems like he really cares about other people, I just can't quite imagine that he is really doing it just for himself.

I think he is a great guy, darkworker or not

I think he cares about people and about advancing technology and society, but at the sametime is hyper competitive and can't stand being less than #1 at whatever it is he does.

[radeldudel]

A lot of good comments about BG being a darkworker.

Just a few thoughts about Apple/Steve Jobs and Microsoft/Bill Gates (I think these two are contributing mostly to the companies mindset).

Apple, while Jobs was gone, went more open for other hardware companies. There had been talks about letting other companies sell their own hardware with licensed MacOS - when Jobs got back he stopped that, closed MacOS again, made sure it would only run on their own hardware (control).

Microsoft is open for every hardware company. Since there had been a lot of stability problems with windows due to poorly written device drivers for cheap hardware, they added testing centers, certificates to help windows stability (since the users always blamed microsoft when windows crashed due to a poorly written device drivers) (contributing?).

I don't know how it is today, when I tried to create programs for MacOS you had to buy expensive compilers, had to register with Apple, got strict guidelines what you were allowed to do and how, Apple being able to revoke your license anytime. Apple always tried to control the contributors market (control).

Microsoft gives away compilers for free, allows everyone to contribute. They are trying to get higher quality by offering certifications, but you are not forced to do them (yet - contributing).

So, as I see, Apple is working with control and fear: they control their hardware, and the software market, using the fear that apple might revoke your developers license if you do something they don't agree to.

Microsoft invites people to contribute giving information and help for free.

I'm really very excited what will happen to Microsoft when Bill Gates is really gone for good!
As with Apple, we already had a glimpse where they will go when Steve Jobs was gone.


Microsoft even went through hoops to allow as much backward compatability as possible, so you can run ancient programs as long as they dont compromise system stability (but are starting to block more stuff since system stability is suffering through this).

By the way, microsoft is developing programs for the MacOS platform. And I think Microsoft even is a shareholder of Apple, but I don't know how much they own.


Just a few thoughts, though. Sometimes I got the feeling people are blinded a bit much by their emotions about MS/Apple.

Love you!

[Andrew Russell]

Interesting question. I have to agree with radeldudel - it's funny the usual immediate reaction from the MS-is-evil crew.

MS is, obviously, ruthless and large. And Bill Gates is obviously clever and cunning.

But, if you look past the whole big-is-bad thing, you will see that MS do a great deal for 3rd party developers and their users (which also benefit themselves) - a lot of giving things. Many of which radeldudel mentioned (one he didn't was application backwards compatibility).

Of course, as Steve has mentioned, it really depends on the attitude, not the actions. After all, those same actions might just be selfishly (dark) good business practice.

I'd have to ask someone who actually works there, but my thought is that they do spend the majority their time thinking "what would be most awesome for everyone" rather than "what would get us the most profit". Making MS (and BG?) a light company.


Interesting side-thought about BG's thematic "nemesis": I think RMS is (also?) a lightworker - but he's fouling it up badly by trying to "infect" everyone with lightworker syndrome.

[radeldudel]

hehe, and funny thing is, you could turn around each and every reason what BG/Jobs is around.

Instead of saying Jobs wanted to control the programmers (fear) you could say he wanted to create the most stable system (love), this leading to the same result.

The actions do not tell wether someone is dark- or lightworker. Both can use exactly the same steps for whole different reasons. The only thing that matters is: they do take serious action. They don't fuzz around not choosing polarity like the apple board did in absense of Jobs. They got a goal, they take every step to achieve it.


Love you!

[Erock]

The last 3 posts behind me were money, and I have to say I agree with them wholeheartedly. The impression I get (which may be way off) is that if Apple was the one who had created windows and had most computers using their OS, they would be way more controlling, and try to have a complete monopoly on everything. But because they have not been as successful, they tend to have the "cute little simple" role compared to Microsoft's products.

Look at the iPod, for an example. They have totally dominated the mp3 market, and they have released so many different mp3 players and accessories, that I get the feeling they have a very controlling negative mindset. It may be a great business model, but it doesn't do much to serve the greater good.

Also, my tennis coach taught Bill Gates when he was a teenager, and said that he was a very nice, yet kind of quiet guy, and my coach is quite intuitive.

Erock

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Andrew Russell

Interesting side-thought about BG's thematic "nemesis": I think RMS is (also?) a lightworker - but he's fouling it up badly by trying to "infect" everyone with lightworker syndrome.

I couldn't agree less. RMS's contributions are both numerous and timeless. Without RMS the entire world would be far far worse off.

In comparison, without Microsoft the entire world would be better off. If Bill Gates had not existed, a nicer person would have taken his place running the company responsible for the IBC-PC OS, and that person may have been less monopolistic.

Gates never actually created any technology. His role in Microsoft was essentially as a negotiator and competitor working to ensure monopoly.

Monopoly is a blindspot of capitalism - in a free market being selfish will benefit everyone until someone achieves monopoly. This is why we have laws against monopoly but not against greed.

Steve Jobs never had a monopoly on anything. His control was control of his product, NOT control of consumers. Although right now he is trying to control consumers with the iTunes DRM issue. But in the rankings of evil billionaires Jobs certainly comes behind Gates just because Jobs never tried to attain monopoly. His focus was always on innovation rather than crippling the competition.

RMS, on the other hand, is the Mother Teresa of software. He has worked ceaselessly on technology for his entire life and gives it all away for free. There is no doubt that he is the most talented and selfless technologist of the information age. It's inaccurate to say he suffers from lightworker syndrome since he is still alive and contributing. If he died of starvation you might have a point. But if everyone developed software like Richard Stallman our current technology would be centuries ahead of where we are now.

The biggest issue with software is having it closed source as a rule so that others can't stand on your shoulders. People end up reinventing the wheel thousands of times over. On top of this, with today's corporate culture, corporations would sooner see a discontinued piece of software rot and vanish out of existance than release it to the public domain. Even if there is no remote possibility of that code being used to compete with current products, corporations will not release it. Why should they? It will only benefit society as a whole, and the corporation is incredibly selfish as a rule.

Anyway I guess I could go on for hours so I'll stop here. People have the right to be selfish, but I wish they would choose not to be.

[Michael Chui]

I think the best conclusion to draw from this thread is that you can know a darkworker by seeing who calls other people darkworkers.

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by Erock

The last 3 posts behind me were money, and I have to say I agree with them wholeheartedly. The impression I get (which may be way off) is that if Apple was the one who had created windows and had most computers using their OS, they would be way more controlling, and try to have a complete monopoly on everything. But because they have not been as successful, they tend to have the "cute little simple" role compared to Microsoft's products.

Apple could never have been a Microsoft. Steve Jobs always had a totally different strategy, and it wouldn't have allowed him to maintain a monopoly over computers. He would never have created an OS that would run on something other than Apple hardware. Because of this, sooner or later someone would introduce an open computer standard (like IBM did with the PC) and the OS + hardware monopoly would crumble (like it did). I don't think he ever wanted to have a monopoly though. Back in the 80's, Jobs considered IBM his main competitor. It was simply about competition.

I think that he believed (and still believes) that the best computer package is one where Apple develops the OS and the hardware. This is a valid strategy because if executed properly it's a much better combination than a stand alone OS running hardware drivers written by god-knows-who. It also allows him to have full control over the user experience (like aesthetics, a major selling point for Apple). Yes, he's a control freak but that doesn't make him bad. I'm a control freak too. But my motivation is to provide the best experience for the users, and I believe that his is too.

Originally Posted by Erock

Look at the iPod, for an example. They have totally dominated the mp3 market, and they have released so many different mp3 players and accessories, that I get the feeling they have a very controlling negative mindset. It may be a great business model, but it doesn't do much to serve the greater good.

They don't own as much of the MP3 player market as Microsoft owns of the OS market. And nobody is forced to buy an iPod if they don't want to, unlike with Windows. If you buy a PC, you usually have to get it with Windows which means you're paying for it (this is changing slowly, but at one time it was impossible to get a PC without Windows). In any case, the iPod line is popular because it's better than everything else out there. Apple came into the market with a smashing product. They didn't kill off the competition to become the only available option and then sat on a mediocre product line (like Microsoft).

I've noticed that their success comes largely because they don't sit on their butt with one model for five years, like most other companies do. They release something new very often. This is a good thing though. They could easily sit on a couple of products and rake in the cash, but they keep developing new stuff. How many giant 20,000 employee companies can you name that are not only releasing innovative products, but doing it at a rapid pace? It took Microsoft almost six years to make a major OS update. Apple releases a significant update to their OS an average of once per year.

[Andrew Russell]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Although right now he is trying to control consumers with the iTunes DRM issue.

You might find this open letter by Steve Jobs interesting. It also clearly illustrates that often the thoughts are not what you'd expect, given the actions.

On the subject of releasing things into the public domain - you have to applaude John Carmack on this one for releasing all but the latest of his engines under GPL.

Anyway, Bill Gates or not, you can't fault Microsoft the company for not driving massive innovation in the software industry. Although they did very well with the whole DOS licencing thing, the main reason they were monumentally successful was their openness with developers in a time when other companies were charging through the nose to let developers onto their platform.

Originally Posted by yossarian

I couldn't agree less. RMS's contributions are both numerous and timeless. Without RMS the entire world would be far far worse off.

I have no doubt that RMS has contributed much to the software industry - but if you follow his views on software to their conclusion, he would have it such that everyone had to give away their software (source and all) for free. Which is not a good thing if you're a developer (hence I say lightworker syndrome). It makes certain types of software unfeasible - the world is far better off with the current mix of open and closed source software.

Originally Posted by Baltar

It took Microsoft almost six years to make a major OS update.

I don't think that was their intent. They kind of screwed that one up.

As to large companies developing loads of new stuff, I'm surprised you neglected to mention Google.

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by Andrew Russell

I have no doubt that RMS has contributed much to the software industry - but if you follow his views on software to their conclusion, he would have it such that everyone had to give away their software (source and all) for free. Which is not a good thing if you're a developer (hence I say lightworker syndrome). It makes certain types of software unfeasible - the world is far better off with the current mix of open and closed source software.

I was just reading about him in Wikipedia, and found a great quote:

"When Brian Reid in 1979 placed 'time bombs' in Scribe to restrict unlicensed access to the software, Stallman proclaimed that 'the prospect of charging money for software was a crime against humanity.'"

Just to clarify, "time bomb" just means that the software will stop functioning after a certain date. This technique evolved into what's widely used today -- the "limited trial". In a limited trial, a program stops working a certain number of days after it's installed. If you buy it, you get a code to permanently activate it. But the quote says a lot about him. Imagine how many people would lose their jobs and how much of an economic worldwide impact there would be if it suddenly became illegal to charge money for software. His philosophy works great if you're living in Gene Roddenberry's world of Star Trek, but reality is quite different.

By the way, there's an interesting article by Eric S. Raymond (major open source proponent and spokesperson) in which he criticizes RMS and the FSF. In essense, he says exactly what I think about the issue -- that the FSF's idea of "freedom" involves forcing people to not be able to exercise their freedom to choose a proprietary license for their software.

Originally Posted by Andrew Russell

I don't think that was their intent. They kind of screwed that one up.

"Kind of screwed that one up" is an understatement. If they had to compete with other companies instead of being an entrenched monopoly, they would've either released an update much sooner or would've been long dead by now.

Originally Posted by Andrew Russell

As to large companies developing loads of new stuff, I'm surprised you neglected to mention Google.

I guess so. But they seem to be mostly focused on (rather uninteresting to me at least) web services. So they're not one of the first companies I think of when I think of cool innovative stuff. The search engine is great, but everything else..

[Andrew Russell]

Originally Posted by Baltar

His philosophy works great if you're living in Gene Roddenberry's world of Star Trek, but reality is quite different.

I made a similar comment on another forum - GPL can only be universally successful in software when it could be universally successful in all aspects of life. The big requirement would be replicator technology, along with unlimited energy, so real objects could be copied like software is.

That article by ESR details many of the points raised here - I highly recomend it.

As for Google - take a look over here.