…position it that way and attack me. I was wrong, and I did eat my column. But I was wrong in a different way than I am generally credited for. Anyway, you should read the book, if it's at all interesting.
Are there any other bloopers in your list of unrealised predictions?
Oh yeah, there is another one that is even worse than that. In 1993, there were various companies touting these little wireless modems that you would hook to your PC. As a pundit responsible for keeping everybody honest, I attacked. And, of course, I overdid it. I actually wrote that "wireless PCs will be like pipeless bathrooms, like port-a-potties. They will be used at rock concerts and construction sites and on vehicles. But, in all other cases, people will prefer to use pipes or wires". And then I wrote that "wireless will never work".
Now, you have to understand, wireless was not working at the time. And the modems were bigger than the PCs. I was right to attack the sons of bitches, but I overdid it. I gave a speech at Motorola a couple of weeks ago, and there were nine guys there ready to rub my face into that one. And, of course, I had to reach in my pocket and pull out my Motorola phone, proving that I prefer to be right than to be consistent.
I have another for you. I also attacked open source. The big mistake I made there was I didn't stop at attacking open source. I went after Linus [Torvalds] himself. And boy, I learned you don't do that. You don't go near Linus. I basically suggested he was being hypocritical going to his company Transmeta, whose software was not open source. So I called him on it. Well every open-source devotee is a vicious email writer. And I got buried in hate mail. It happens to this day.
Has your stance on open-source software changed? Are you still critical?Once again, there is a certain amount of mischaracterisation of what I actually said. And, fortunately, it is in my book, so people can go and see what I actually said. I didn't say that Windows was better than Linux. I was attacking Microsoft and Linux just as furiously but, of course, the Linux people said I was cashing my cheques from Microsoft while I was attacking open source. What really annoys them is that I coined the term "open sores", which is just a little too apt, because it really annoys them that whenever they say "open source" it sounds like "open sores". That is really cool that I nailed them on that.
I didn't say that Windows was better than Linux. I was attacking Microsoft and Linux just as furiously
Bob Metcalfe
But also two things have changed; I have changed and open source has changed. The open source that I attacked deserved attacking. But it's kind of evolved substantially since then. For example, it doesn't mean free software. And it doesn't elevate all those loopy free-software people to the top of the list. But Linux didn't kill Windows and Windows didn't kill Linux, even though they are both deserving of being killed. They are both old, clunky software. And they should be replaced by something slick and new.
But the question remains. Do you end up with better software if you develop it at a rapacious software monopoly? Or do you develop better software if you do it with a ragtag group of amateurs? That question remains.
You mentioned that you have changed too. How?
Well, I am an investor in a supercomputer company that runs Linux open source. The whole model is based on open source. So I am a big fan of it now.
There has been a lot of talk about net neutrality over the last year or so. Your contemporary Vint Cerf, who is credited with helping invent the internet, is a huge supporter of net neutrality, saying it's important to keep the internet open. Otherwise, the big Bell phone companies could stifle innovation by controlling the pipes of the internet. What do you think?
I'm no fan of the big Bell phone companies. I've been attacking them since 1972. And they are coming back, the bastards. On the other hand, I am not an expert on net neutrality; I'm sure there are nuances to that issue that…
