Return to BSD News archive
#! rnews 3632 bsd
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!hobyah.cc.uq.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.cis.okstate.edu!newsfeed.ksu.ksu.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.artisoft.com!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Historic Opportunity facing Free Unix (was Re: The Lai/Baker paper, benchmarks, and the world of free UNIX)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 20:00:51 -0700
Organization: Me
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <3182DF63.2DFB1742@lambert.org>
References: <4ki055$60l@Radon.Stanford.EDU> <4lfm6m$d2c@rigel.tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de> <4lftn3$olb@solaria.cc.gatech.edu> <317C8F0F.307E@curtin.edu.au> <4lgo4c$6fa@solaria.cc.gatech.edu> <317E07F1.441D@curtin.edu.au> <317DAA16.42C86E59@lambert.org> <4lqpu1$j7q@news.missouri.edu> <31813BBE.467CAA89@lambert.org> <4lujcs$46t@symiserver2.symantec.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; Linux 1.1.76 i486)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.system:22570 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:877 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3574 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3431 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:18373 comp.os.linux.advocacy:47426
tedm@symantec.com wrote:
] [big long reasoning stating that Microsoft won't die deleted]
]
] This looks fine on the surface, until you start looking at the
] history of large corporations.
]
] The problem is that any company, no matter how large or small,
] must have a "vision" or leader of some kind. In small
] companies the leader is usually the founder. In large
] companies, a sucession of leaders usually takes place.
]
] Microsoft is a young company yet, and I'd wager to say that as
] long as Bill Gates is taking a personal interest in the
] company, it will thrive. The big question is what happens
] afterward.
[ ... ]
] Eventually, Microsoft will lose Bill G, or he will make a
] fatal mistake, and the glass mirror will be shattered. If
] Microsoft ever declares a large loss then it will lose the
] aura of invincibility that it currently maintains and Bill
] will never be able again to dictate the computer industry
] the way he does now.
[ ... ]
] It just goes back to "the bigger they are the harder they
] fall" A huge company like Apple Computer, or IBM is no
] more immune to stupid leadership or simple mistakes by
] smart leadership than a small company. The only difference
] between those 2 and Microsoft is that Small&Limp hasn't made
] any mistakes ....... yet.
I think that this whole summation is based on some false premises:
1) The inevitability of failure
Counter: it hasn't failed yet.
2) Dependence on a visionary goals and/or leadership
Counter: the Catholic Church during the Inquisition
3) Companies dies of old age
Counter: General foods
Counter #2: governments, specifically Britain
4) Perception is power
Counter: Machiavelli's "The Prince"
5) "The bigger they are, the arder they fall"
Counter: "The exception that makes the rule"
Any one of these should be enough to discredit the causality
chain you are proposing.
Regards,
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.