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.
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
