←back to thread

244 points rbanffy | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pavlov ◴[] No.44603830[source]
"“Our father, Gary Kildall, was one of the founders of the personal computer industry, but you probably don’t know his name. Those who have heard of him may recall the myth that he ‘missed’ the opportunity to become Bill Gates by going flying instead of meeting with IBM. Unfortunately, this tall tale paints Gary as a ‘could-have-been,’ ignores his deep contributions, and overshadows his role as an inventor of key technologies that define how computer platforms run today.

"Gary viewed computers as learning tools rather than profit engines. His career choices reflect a different definition of success, where innovation means sharing ideas, letting passion drive your work and making source code available for others to build upon. His work ethic during the 1970s resembles that of the open-source community today.

"With this perspective, we offer a portion of our father’s unpublished memoirs so that you can read about his experiences and reflections on the early days of the computer industry, directly in his own voice."

Sounds really interesting. Thanks for making this available!

replies(2): >>44604091 #>>44605235 #
elzbardico ◴[] No.44605235[source]
Let's be frank. Gates was from the WASP elites, old money stuff. IBM would probably find a reason to give him the deal rather than to Gary no matter what.
replies(4): >>44605296 #>>44606938 #>>44610302 #>>44610993 #
acdha ◴[] No.44605296[source]
In particular, his mother – Mary Maxwell Gates – was on the United Way board along with IBM’s chairman John Opel and reportedly discussed her son’s company with Opel a few weeks before they made the decision to license MS-DOS.

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/obituaries/mary-gates-64-...

replies(1): >>44606388 #
WalterBright ◴[] No.44606388[source]
There's little doubt that Ms Gates suggested that IBM look into Bill Gates, but I seriously doubt that IBM made the major business decision to contract with Gates because of his mother's suggestion.
replies(3): >>44606933 #>>44607549 #>>44608148 #
acdha ◴[] No.44607549[source]
None of us know what was said but I have no reason to doubt it based on the reports of his subsequent conversations with lower-level IBM executives. It probably didn’t seem like an especially consequential decision both because neither Gates nor Kildall were especially proven at that time by the standards of a Goliath like IBM and the mainframe guys were notoriously dismissive of PCs (Opel came up through S/360). I’ve seen enough nepotism not to question the plausibility but it’s especially easy to imagine people high up the management ladder at the biggest mainframe manufacturer thinking it didn’t really matter which of the toy computer operating system vendors they picked. I didn’t work in that world then (that was my dad’s generation) but even in the mid-90s when I started working in tech it was not uncommon to find mainframe people who were dismissive of PC or Unix systems as non-serious.
replies(1): >>44608178 #
WalterBright ◴[] No.44608178[source]
Ms Gates wasn't on the board of IBM, she was on the board of another company. That isn't nepotism.

There is no way successful IBM would commit to Microsoft without a thorough vetting.

Few remember, but IBM also sold CPM/86 for the PC. Kildall had his chance, and muffed it with the high price.

replies(3): >>44608865 #>>44608942 #>>44609207 #
1. acdha ◴[] No.44609207{5}[source]
I specified the United Way to avoid confusion on that point. While the word nepotism originated from the Italian word for “nephew” referring to popes appointing their relatives, in modern English usage it more broadly includes friends as well. See for example the OED: “the practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives, friends, or associates, especially by giving them jobs”.

If it helps, pretend that I wrote “cronyism” instead. My point was simply that it having a friendly voice at the board level is a large potential advantage which was only available to one of the vendors. While we cannot prove anything which wasn’t written down, it seems implausible to say it couldn’t have affected things – especially in an era where personal relationships carried more weight and there was less scrutiny of these sorts of things.