Bill Gates announced yesterday he is progressively going to disengage himself from day-to-day participation in Microsoft over the next two years, to concentrate exclusively on his foundation. However questionable Microsoft’s business practices may be, they are no worse than Standard Oil’s. The Rockefellers or Carnegie bought social respectability by endowing institutions for the already comfortable. No matter what the IRS may claim, donating to places like Harvard in exchange for naming rights does not qualify as charity in my book.

In contrast, Gates’ humanitarian work has been remarkable — his money is comforting the truly afflicted of this world, like sufferers of leprosy or malaria. His example is highly unlikely to be emulated by Silicon Valley’s skinflint tycoons (Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, I’m looking at you). The latter conveniently convinced themselves their wealth is due entirely to their own efforts, never to luck, or government funding in the case of the Internet moguls. This leads to the self-serving belief that they are absolved of any obligation to society or to those less fortunate (in both senses of the term).

This decision is not entirely unexpected. Microsoft has been floundering for the last several years, and has accrued severe managerial bloat, something the ruthless and paranoid Bill Gates circa 1995 would never have allowed to continue. There is remarkable dearth of insightful commentary on the announcement. My take is that the harrowing and humiliating process of the DoJ anti-trust trial proved cathartic and led him to review his priorities, even if the lawsuit itself ended up with an ineffective slap on the wrist.

Some equally interesting reading coming out of Redmond: Broken Windows Theory, an article by a Microsoft project manager on the back story behind the Windows Vista delay, with some really interesting metrics. Apparently Vista takes no less than 24 hours to compile on a fast dual-processor PC. It has 50 levels of dependencies, 50 million lines of code (one metric I personally find meaningless, as you can get more done in one line of Python than in a hundred lines of C/C++). His conclusion is that due to its scale, Vista could simply be structurally unmanageable. Certainly, the supporting infrastructure, as in automation tools, code and dependency analysis, project management et al. ought to be a project in itself of the same scope as, say, Microsoft Word.

When I worked at France Télécom in the late nineties, they were reeling from the near total failure of Frégate, a half-billion dollar billing system of the future project (another interesting metric: two-thirds of billing systems projects worldwide end in failure). The grapevine even devised a unit of measurement, the Potteau, after an eponymous Ingénieur Général (a typically French title with roots in the military engineering side of the civil service) involved in the project. One potteau equals one man-century. It is deemed the unit beyond which any software project is doomed to failure.

Vista involved 2000 developers over 5 years. That’s over 100 potteaux.