????這兩家公司的統治風格也不一樣。它們都會公然拷貝其他公司的成功之處，但微軟會復制合作伙伴的做法，哪怕這意味讓這些伙伴在業內失去立足之地。而在這個“并購招才”（acqi-hire，通過并購直接把收購公司的人才招于麾下，而對其產品或服務置之不顧——譯注）的時代，Facebook則揮舞著拷貝威脅這個大棒直接收購對手。因此微軟時期的蓋茨才那么招人嫉恨，而扎克伯格則不會這么惹人恨（不過有些人還是不想和扎克伯格共事，比如Twitter和Snapchat都斷然拒絕了Facebook出手大方的收購條件）。

????原因可能是因為蓋茨根本不在乎人家對他有沒有好感。他統御全球的盛名就算不能贏得別人的敬重，也足以讓人敬畏了。相比之下，扎克伯格想贏得全世界的抱負就顯得軟弱無力得多了。他總喜歡在公開場合夸夸其談，說什么他在Facebook是多么不想讓公司賺錢（對一個公眾公司的首席執行官來說，這番話簡直就像鯊魚發誓要吃素一樣不靠譜）。或者什么想當年在哈佛時，他和室友曾做過充滿理想主義色彩的長談，討論互聯網如何能讓這個世界增加透明度。

????這番話可能是真的，不過當年在哈佛校園里Facebook的幾個前身似乎并不是這么回事。其中既有名聲不好聽的Facemash，也有他更早時候創辦的一個網站。這個網站就是要吸引學生來吐槽他翹的一門課。這兩個社交網絡雛形都粗暴地利用了用戶所做的貢獻——而這后來在Facebook的隱私政策里又一再重演。

????所以這就是英雄和他的追隨者之間的一大區別：比爾?蓋茨可能是埋下一把刀看著你受傷流血，而扎克伯格則是做了一千張會割人的紙，卻裝得好像你早就知道它們的存在。

????這兩種方式都有助于打造科技巨頭，不過卻都得不到消費者的好感。但當它們用于慈善領域時，卻出現了一些有意思的情況。當比爾?蓋茨把自己的財富用于解決歷史上一直被認為難以解決的問題時，他再次展現出那種世人所熟知的冷酷無情。同時，迄今為止，扎克伯格那些似乎是為他的私利服務的捐獻也體現出了實際價值。

????說到捐錢，蓋茨和扎克伯格都以自己的方式表現得慷慨大方，同時（借用扎克伯格的說法）“充滿使命感”。蓋茨基金會（Gates Foundation）的資產高達400億美元，而且對蓋茨在微軟期間結下的許多怨恨來說，這個基金會的所作所為雖不能讓它們完全平息，但已有所緩和。

????而扎克伯格則在事業發展的很早期就開始高調進軍慈善了。他是最早那批號稱要把自己的絕大部分財富捐給慈善事業的人，這種表態也推動了其他有錢人紛紛跟進。2012年，他向新澤西的公立學校捐了一億美元，去年又把價值近十億美元的Facebook股票捐給了硅谷的非營利組織。他還和蓋茨聯手教授編程，同時改善學校的寬帶設施。

????所以，蓋茨和扎克伯格是在慈善事業非常需要捐助的時期捐給它億萬財富的。他倆都值得褒揚。在慈善領域——這是個總得去爭取稀缺資源的緊缺經濟體，大家長期以來一直就如何有效分配資源這個問題爭論不休。也正是在這個問題上，年輕的扎克伯格和蓋茨再次出現了分歧。

????Styles of dominance are different. Both companies blatantly copied successful features of others, but Microsoft would copy from partners, even if it meant putting them out of business. Facebook, in the age of the acqi-hire, used threats of copying as a cudgel to drive rivals into acquisition. So Gates at Microsoft was hated, while Zuckerberg really isn't. (Some don't want to work with Zuckerberg, however, as Twitter (TWTR) and Snapchat both rebuffed generous offers from Facebook.)

????That may be because Gates didn't care whether anyone liked him or not. His brand of world domination is content to inspire fear, if not respect. By comparison, Zuckerberg's attempt to win the world feels more wishy-washy. He likes to talk publicly about how reluctant he was to generate revenue at Facebook (any such claim from the CEO of a public company is as credible as a shark swearing to a vegan diet). Or how, back at Harvard, he and his roommates used to have long, idealistic talks about how the Internet could add transparency to the world.

????Maybe, but the early iterations of Facebook at Harvard suggest otherwise. There's the infamous Facemash, as well as an earlier site he created to entice students to share insights on a course he failed to attend. Both were primitive social networks that crudely exploited the contributions of their users – a template that would play out again and again in Facebook's privacy policies.

????So here's one difference between the hero and his follower: Bill Gates might plant a knife and watch you suffer. Mark Zuckerberg would make a thousand paper cuts and pretend you imagined them all.

????Both of these approaches can help build a technology colossus, and yet neither will be beloved by consumers. But something interesting happens when these two approaches are translated to the world of philanthropy. There is a familiar ruthlessness that Bill Gates has brought to the application of his wealth to solving problems that have historically proven tough to solve. And, so far, there is a practicality to Zuckerberg's donations that have a self-serving feel to them.

????When it comes to giving money, both Gates and Zuckerberg have been, in their ways, both generous and (to borrow Zuckerberg's term) "mission-driven." The Gates Foundation has $40 billion in assets, and its work has taken the edge off a lot of bitter resentment Gates built up at Microsoft, if not silenced them completely.

????Zuckerberg has moved aggressively into philanthropy much earlier in his career. He was one of the first to pledge to give the bulk of one's wealth to charity, a gesture prompting others to follow. He pledged $100 million to New Jersey public schools in 2012 and nearly a billion dollars worth of Facebook shares to a Silicon Valley non-profit last year. He's also worked with Gates to teach coding and improve broadband in schools.

????So Gates and Zuckerberg are giving billions to charities in a period where such donations are sorely needed. They both deserve praise. Within the world of philanthropy -- itself a tight economy competing for scarce resources -- there has long been a debate over how to allocate resources efficiently. And it's here that a distinction again emerges between young Zuckerberg and old Gates.