He finishes the discussion of Bill Gates's programming experience by saying that Mr. Gates did some programming, but whether he was a programmer is unresolved. That's not a resolution.
Then he comes to the end of the comment, and is definite:
"What I think is that fanboy's picture of him as the boy genius earning his way from programmer to billionaire misrepresents the nature of Microsoft as a software company. It isn't, it's a marketing company..."
Then he uses a quote that says the same thing to reinforce his emphasis.
The discussion of whether Bill Gates was a programmer is left unresolved and treated as mildly interesting. The question of whether Microsoft was successful because of its software is answered emphatically at the end of the article.
I think from your own phrasing that you didn't notice the emphasis because you agreed with the conclusion so thoroughly.
Discussion on:
Message 7 of 1
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
