It's because in those days there was little to distinguish Bill Gates besides his wealth and the ruthless business practices that Microsoft was frequently in the news for (though, analyzing those same practices retrospectively, some today might have more mercy than commenters did back then). He changed his reputation when he started focusing on philanthropy. Now he stands out from other technology billionaires not only as the richest, but also as the most generous (to charity, anyway).

Yes it was. But in the 90's we didn't have any great personal operating systems competing yet, and no one got fired for buying Microsoft products.

That's important to note; linux and mac weren't really viable options in the 90's for most people.

And BeOS and OS/2

In part due to MS antitrust violations, such as exclusivity deals with major PC manufacturers, buying and shuttering competitors, lying about vaporware, and stealing trade secrets frok technology partners.

WinNT came about in part due to scamming IBM on OS/2 development partnership.

IANAP but it might very well be the way overly jealous people try to cope with their jealousy.

I think it's easy to forget how ruthless Bill Gates and Microsoft actually was, never mind the fact that they were convicted for antitrust violations. The history is littered with casualties from what started as well-intentioned partnerships with Microsoft.

So I think the feeling was not so much jealousy, but more that they didn't compete fairly. Especially in the Linux world (where Greenspun was from), and more so after the Halloween documents leaked.

That feeling was even more pronounced in 1998, when Microsoft dominated computing and it seemed like _any_ attempt to do it big in software would either have to mean getting bought by, or killed by the sheer hugeness of Microsoft.

Nowadays Gates has set up a huge charity, and Microsoft has stumbled on so many things that we kind of feel bad for them instead.