Ray Ozzie to replace Gates as Chief Software architect

June 15th, 2006 at 1:05 pm

what’s this i hear about mr. arrington leaving techcrunch, as well?

June 15th, 2006 at 1:11 pm

*role

June 15th, 2006 at 1:33 pm

People come and go. However, Bill’s legacy will forever live (although i support open source ;). I have an utmost respect for him because of his philanthropy. I think he’s passing his baton at the right time to focus on charity.

June 15th, 2006 at 2:30 pm

So? This is a big story?

If Gates had been replaced by a black and a woman, I would have sat up, took notice. Maybe even been inspired. But it’s one pudgy, middle aged white guy replaced by two other pudgy, middle aged white guys.

I mean look at them…does anyone think anything will be any different at Microsoft?

June 15th, 2006 at 3:05 pm

We also have short interview with Bill and Steve now on Channel 9 at http://channel9.msdn.com/showp.....tid=205005

June 15th, 2006 at 4:27 pm

Shelley, WTF does that have to do with anything? Total reverse sexism/racism, and total BS.

So if Ozzie was a black woman, you’re saying that would automatically mean things would change (whatever the F that means). And because Ozzie is white and male, nothing will change, like, automatically, just because he’s white and male?

And then you gotta love your last comment… “I mean look at them…” are you seriously trying to advocate some kind of equality stance and then back up your argument by saying “look at them”… ok I’m looking, now what? Do I know the guy? No.

Finally, what, exactly, in your opinion should change at Microsoft?

June 15th, 2006 at 5:08 pm

The world is a better place because of Bill Gates, and he will make sure in his remaining years that his real legacy is that of a humanitarian. Bono from U2 is one of his best friends and has influenced and inspired him greatly. The world is a better place for both of them.

Bill Gates takes philanthropy very seriously. He looks for the best human return on his investment in order to make a real difference in the world. It is hard work to sort through all the requests to find the ones that are effective and can really improve the lives of the most people. Gates is not interested in having his name plastered on libraries and museums that mostly rich people enjoy. He wants the money to benefit the poor people in real demonstrable ways.

I wrote a blog about the good work of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. You can read about it here. http://dondodge.typepad.com/th.....nd_me.html

Don Dodge

June 15th, 2006 at 6:12 pm

Ryan, a few less white men in charge. A few less of the same old, same old.

Diversity. Equality. Why is this so impossible within the tech community? Why is this so unbelievable. Let’s face it — there’s not a person in this thread who believes the tech community will ever diversify. Most probably don’t even see that it’s a problem.

How can the company grow, when it keeps building the same damn box to constrain itself, again and again.

Nothing will change. Not a thing. What shift to the web? The web…that’s just tech. It’s not even new tech anymore.

Marshall, you think integrating Groove into Office, that shift from desktop to web, is going to revolutionize the company? Tell me: how many people have even heard of Groove before Ozzie was hired at MS?

What needs to change at Microsoft Ryan? What you mean after firing Ballmer? After increasing diversity of the company in upper management and among the engineers? After actually giving the development software away for free, like every other company, instead of ripping off the developers? In addition to actually releasing critical bug releases in a more timely manner, other than bug Tuesday? Did I mention the diversity thing?

I will say that I admire Bill Gates, joining his wife, Melinda, focusing on the foundation work. I could wish that some of their work was reflected more in the upper management at Microsoft. Regardless, I have a feeling whatever soul the company had at the top just left.

June 15th, 2006 at 6:52 pm

Shelley….you are unnecessarily bitter.

Geeks aren’t ruled by race, color, language, religion, sex, etc. The color of your skin has nothing to do with how well you can code. Tech community should not diversify just for the heck of it…but purely on merit.

Bill Gates has been a visionary, business-oriented geek..a fantastic combination, and Ray Ozzie is a fantastic replacement. I would have been disappointed if some pure corporate type had taken over the reins. Ballmer’s aggressiveness, enthusiasm and shrewdness have taken Microsoft to where it is today, and I’m glad that he is still around.

June 15th, 2006 at 7:03 pm

Shelley, you’re a friggin’ racist and a sexist. You’re arguing for change purely on a sex and color basis.

That isn’t diversity, it’s discrimination.

Take it somewhere else.

June 15th, 2006 at 10:15 pm

Shelley: As a rule, I don’t nitpick about grammar. I do comment on such things, however, if I feel that a woman is making all women look bad by shrilling about the great white male conspiracy.

Men can whine, I suppose, but most of them are smart enough not to do so on widely read blogs.

I am not advocating anything in particular for women. We have enough self-appointed spokeswomen as it is. And being one of those evil white males, Marshall is scarcely in a position to criticize you. Being female, I can’t either, apparently, because doing so would mean to you and your aggrieved ilk that I am a self-interested traitor to the feminist cause and that I am undermining sisterly solidarity. What a great deal you have—no opposition allowed.

The numbers of women in technology have dropped probably because many young women have decided not to put off having children and to forgo the punishing long hours that success in tech requires. And there may be more women in medicine, but they are eschewing some specialties (e.g., surgery) for similar reasons.

Hope

June 16th, 2006 at 12:00 am

what microsoft would be without the name of gates?

June 16th, 2006 at 4:44 am

Wow. That shut em up.

June 16th, 2006 at 6:16 am

Ryan, I didn’t interpret what Shelley as saying that one race or sex is stronger than the other. I heard her loudly and clearly that this move doesn’t represent a significant change to microsoft or to tech because of the cookie cutter perspective at the top.

Calling her racist is just whacky.

Go Bill, though. Everything’s right about making a difference in the world.

June 16th, 2006 at 10:14 am

Hope, to all intents and purposes you’re saying that if there is no equality, diversity, in technology the fault lies with those who have no power, rather than those who hold the power. It lies with the women, who are running off to have babies (totall discounting the fact that many male parents I know spend a considerable amount of time with their children). I imagine that there a rather significant lack of latino and blacks in tech because they’re off, what, picking cotten?

But no, those who dominate in the profession need not be held accountable. I wonder then, what these same people would say about thew new study which shows a higher burn out rate, stress, and dissatisfaction in the tech field above all others. Perhaps, just perhaps, if the field was more diverse, those in it, including white and asian males, would be happier.

Personally I find it interesting that the field with the least women is also the field where the people are the most miserable.

As for discounting what you’ve said, I don’t believe I mentioned once about you betraying your sisters, or the ’cause’. If anything, I think I’ve been more tolerant of your opinion and your right to express it, then you have been of mine. Yet you say I ‘whine’. I would say you have forgotten the hard work of others in the past, which I find surprising in a librarian. And somewhat disappointing.

As for Marshall, he has been very kind to allow this thread to continue, and I’m appreciative. I most likely won’t be back to comment after this, primarily because I should save this for a ‘room of my own’, whenever I decide to set one up again. Marshall, thank you for allowing me to sidetrack your thread.

Ryan, would you say when Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus that the crap at that time was getting out of hand? There is never an end to the time to fight for equality, based on any factor. It’s not always fun, and it doesn’t necessarily fit into the sound bite mentality that weblogging is beginning to foster (more’s the pity).

Varum, your comment reminded me of another I read a while back. It read:

“Dr. Jacobi says: “We are perfectly well aware that industrial and professional competition are entirely different matters from popular sovereignty. But when we find the same instincts aroused, the same opposition excited, the same arguments advanced, and the same determination manifested, by trade unions, to exclude women from trades, by learned societies to exclude them from professions, by universities to exclude them from learning, and by voters to exclude them from the polls, we cannot avoid asking whether the difference in the cases is not balanced by the identity in the mental attitude of the opponents.” The best trades unions have admitted women to their protective and wage associations, or, better still, have helped them to form their own; the worst trades unions, the socialistic and anarchistic, have claimed for them the right to vote. The learned societies are admitting them professionally as fast as they make themselves worthy. The men who hold out against their admission to men’s universities are precisely the class of men who have been most active in assisting to found for them equal colleges of their own, and they are also the men who are most strenuous against their admission to the polls. In medicine, while co-education is deemed better than ignorance, the tendency is to separate the sexes is study as fast as facilities can be made equal. The opponents of woman’s progress and those of woman suffrage are of opposite classes, and their mental attitudes are entirely different. How much harm the struggle for “popular sovereignty” for women has done in hindering the progress of industrial and professional competition, can be judged somewhat by the success of the letter and the failure of the former in the highest fields. It is a significant fact that women do not avail themselves of opportunities open to them in the professions to the extent that it has been claimed they would. The medical examination advertised in January, 1896, by the New York State Civil Service Commission for woman candidates, failed for lack of applicants, although the salaries of women in the State hospitals range from $1,000 to $1,500 a year.”

This is from the work, “Women and the Republic” by Helen Kendrick Johnson. She was writting in opposition to giving women the vote. Why? Because in her opinion, we didn’t need it. After all, the men, those same pesky white guys who probably didn’t look much different than the four pictured in this post, were willing to give us what we ‘needed’. The work deemed proper was there for us. And if we were expected to be mothers and wives, why this freed up our time from having to earn a salary. The demand for the right to vote was considered a slap in the face to these kind and generous gentlemen.

So I return full circle: where is the surprise in this story?

June 16th, 2006 at 12:16 pm

It appears this didn’t get posted before because of the links in it. Reposting what I said a while ago:

That wikipedia link definitely was useful (even though the bulk of the edits were done by shellyp). Those are some pretty interesting books ! I also came across this interesting article by her on oreilly.com on “death of a startup”.

Her point is “But it’s one pudgy, middle aged white guy replaced by two other pudgy, middle aged white guys.” which goes to show that she is negatively judging Ray Ozzie just because he is white and middle-aged (and pudgy ?). Some other demographic, like if he was a black woman, that would have been preferable for her.

How about appreciating and evaluating the “brain”, instead of judging folks on how their support system for the brain (”the body”) looks like ? And of course, no two brains are exactly similar.

Have a good weekend !

June 16th, 2006 at 10:06 pm

I hardly believe this story in the first place is of interest to me and probaly a lot of other people, I come to Tech Crunch to see the latest in Web Startups and Web 2.0 Technology. I dont care who makes the site, who runs the company and who is changing positions. I care (and would probably be backed up by many) about what the site does, maybe how it works, and how succesful it is withing the cluttered and competitive internet world. Microsoft is a big company, and i dont see how Bill Gates moving into a slow retirement from Microsoft will affect the company minutely let alone largely. Can we please have more news on startups and new web technology???

Shelley - Why dont you take a strong stance against the lack of women in Trades/Building, when was the last time you saw a femal Plumber/Mechanic/Builder/Concreter/Electrician/etc, why should you be focusing on just the tech industry??? Wouldnt that mean you are being racist against all the other industries out there???

June 17th, 2006 at 10:01 am

This wasn’t a web 2.0 story. This was a change of leadership at an established enterprise story. Therefore, a discussion on the status quo in technology leadership (and the factors in play that support the status quo) was and is appropriate.

P.S. degenerates and obsessions are okay with me on techcrunch.