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.
He is not a good person. But the foundation has done some good work.
seems like a justification to me dude. you’re literally justifying his indiscretions, that you even call out, by saying the charity he heads “has done some good work”.
And I sure as hell don’t white wash Bill Gates. You don’t get to that level of wealth and dominance without cracking skulls and ruining lives every step of the way.
I don’t know if you’re actually being misleading or confusing by accident but calling attention to it being “nuanced” is a clear indicator that your argument supports that the “ends justify the means”.
It’s not justification. He is a person. It is a non-profit. The non-profit has vaccinated countless people, for instance. That is a good thing. Bill Gates still sucks.
Why is this complicated? You can’t be serious right now, this is such obvious nonsense on your part.
it’s a nonprofit he directly benefits from because it has his name on it. he directly benefits from it by using it as a way to sway political power. he directly benefits from it through financial gains paid through the organization.
the entire concept of the foundation is contingent on his financial success. something of which he is well known for destroying lives for.
so tell me, how many of those ruined lives were acceptable for the good that his charity does? how many more lives must be ruined for the good to continue to be acceptable? would you find it acceptable if your life was destroyed to continue the good his charity does? would you be willing to accept your life to be ruined or ended to support the continuation of his charity?
I don’t understand why you don’t see the obvious correlation between the two so I’ll over simplify it.
bad man makes bad money making people suffer. bad money makes good stuff happen under bad man name. bad man still bad man doing good stuff for bad reasons.
you sit and justify his actions by arguing he’s doing good things. I question if he’s doing good things just to do them or if they’re a byproduct of him “cleansing” his name. after all, bad men do bad things. Ever heard of Alfred Nobel?
Please explain to me why these three statements are incompatible. Please explain to me how I have been whitewashing Bill Gates when I’m explicitly saying over and over again he is a bad person. Please explain to me how I have not acknowledged that nonprofits are often used for corrupt purposes.
I do not understand how many ways I have to say this to get it through your incredibly thick skull.
You’re being obtuse. The nuance here is that Bill Gates being.a bad person and his charity org having done some good in the world are facts that are not necessarily dependent or correlated with each other. That’s all. The fact that Gates might be using his org to prop his image is also a consequence of his character, and doesn’t take away from the good the charity has done. Or would you rather the charity didn’t exist at all just so your thirst for consistency would be appeased, all the while people would be dying?
seems like a justification to me dude. you’re literally justifying his indiscretions, that you even call out, by saying the charity he heads “has done some good work”.
I don’t know if you’re actually being misleading or confusing by accident but calling attention to it being “nuanced” is a clear indicator that your argument supports that the “ends justify the means”.
It’s not justification. He is a person. It is a non-profit. The non-profit has vaccinated countless people, for instance. That is a good thing. Bill Gates still sucks.
Why is this complicated? You can’t be serious right now, this is such obvious nonsense on your part.
it’s a nonprofit he directly benefits from because it has his name on it. he directly benefits from it by using it as a way to sway political power. he directly benefits from it through financial gains paid through the organization.
the entire concept of the foundation is contingent on his financial success. something of which he is well known for destroying lives for.
so tell me, how many of those ruined lives were acceptable for the good that his charity does? how many more lives must be ruined for the good to continue to be acceptable? would you find it acceptable if your life was destroyed to continue the good his charity does? would you be willing to accept your life to be ruined or ended to support the continuation of his charity?
I don’t understand why you don’t see the obvious correlation between the two so I’ll over simplify it.
bad man makes bad money making people suffer. bad money makes good stuff happen under bad man name. bad man still bad man doing good stuff for bad reasons.
you sit and justify his actions by arguing he’s doing good things. I question if he’s doing good things just to do them or if they’re a byproduct of him “cleansing” his name. after all, bad men do bad things. Ever heard of Alfred Nobel?
Dude ffs
Bill Gates is a bad person
The US has a corrupt charity structure
The B&MG Foundation has done some good work
Please explain to me why these three statements are incompatible. Please explain to me how I have been whitewashing Bill Gates when I’m explicitly saying over and over again he is a bad person. Please explain to me how I have not acknowledged that nonprofits are often used for corrupt purposes.
I do not understand how many ways I have to say this to get it through your incredibly thick skull.
You’re being obtuse. The nuance here is that Bill Gates being.a bad person and his charity org having done some good in the world are facts that are not necessarily dependent or correlated with each other. That’s all. The fact that Gates might be using his org to prop his image is also a consequence of his character, and doesn’t take away from the good the charity has done. Or would you rather the charity didn’t exist at all just so your thirst for consistency would be appeased, all the while people would be dying?
Forget it, they’re out there thinking they’ll be the next one to “benefit” some million dollars from the billionaire table