Hello Jack,
Well ... I'm now back from vacation and held off for a week from reading the Novell thread. Not that I didn't want to, but just to get some things done before jumping right back in ... ;-)
I saw a couple of other posts that I've ignored, just because I don't believe that any of us are going to "convert" each other to the other's "religion" ... and that's really what this comes down to ... "religion".
I am, and have always been, a big proponent of entreprenurial efforts ... the "positive" forward motion to push the limits and move towards the future. I'm not much of a fan of a bunch of whining wannabee companies and employees. I've heard too many times the excuses of those who just are unable to succeed ... blaming anyone but themselves. "Oh ... Microsoft the big bad monopoly is the cause of all my problems ... because of them I can't succeed. Stop that big bad company from preventing my lazy success!" It's become very easy for mediocre people to whine about how success is just too hard to attain because of Microsoft. I don't believe this crap ... success is *always* hard to attain ... and you have to be *good* at what you do, and what moves you make.
I have been in a number of large high-tech companies and also some successful and unsuccessful start-ups, and in all cases I've found that success and failure seems to be controlled by the people. And it is controlled by how those people make decisions on what paths to take ... there are "defensive" paths, and "offensive" paths. I am a believer of the "offensive" paths ...
A couple of comments on post ...
> Scott I have read all of your posts, with, as usual, great
> interest. However, on the subject of MSFT and their monopoly, I
> could not disagree with you more. MSFT has probably the most
> blatantly harmful, computer productivity sapping, trade
> restraining, competition inhibiting monopoly in the history
> of......monopolies. And you're saying they "may have crossed some
> boundaries" ? This monopoly was created by breaking laws set forth
> by the Congress of this country.
I agree completely, except for one thing ... What were all the other companies doing while Microsoft built it's empire? This discussion on the thread attempts to push off the fact that numerous companies all had equal footing back in the 1980's to do the same thing. And even in the 1990's there was room to push forward and change the world. But in the typical "lazy" approach many of the companies in our industry were plagued with employees who would not pick their own course and follow it ... they would not risk their own neck and predict a future! Instead they chose to take "defensive" postures and allow the industry to evolve the way it did. And one axiom that I believe strongly in is "Survival of the fittest."
People who sit around and follow the diatribe of PC Week as their way of making product and strategy decisions are not the "fittest" .... instead it is those that dare to dream, to fight for what is right, and to strive to change the world. It's not the people who follow standards, but the ones who create them! It's not the people who are trying to make announcements to get their name in PC Week, but the ones who develop a product or technology that is recognized as a new and innovative perspective. I have worked with far too many people now to easily recognize the ones that do not fully think through the implications of their actions, and the milestones which stand out and indicate the paths of the future.
> When Micron, who is in the cut-throat PC industry battling for
> survival and needing every sale, will not ship me one of their
> $2,400 PCs without an operating system installed (and my
> only choice of OS is Windows, not made by Micron, but another
> company!), there are deep, deep, issues, not "crossing of
> boundaries".
I agree with this ... and if we witness what is occurring in the industry and around the world, the changes are coming. I just do not believe the perspective that at some point the folks at Microsoft should have looked at each other and said "Ok guys, I guess that what we have done is enough. We ought to stop." That is not the way that the world works. I'm sure that if (or when?) Novell comes to dominate the access to networked resources through distributed name spaces in NDS directories ... and no one anywhere on earth can get to a resource unless it's through a Novell directory ... what will you be saying then? Will you be one of the people who starts the early efforts to say to Novell "Hey guys ... that's enough ... we have a {x}% marketshare and are making enough money."? For some reason I don't think so ... ;-)
> The only reason this has gone on as long as it has is because most
> of the federal bench is made up of a bunch of technical
> illiterates, and even the DOJ had trouble cobbling together
> a group that could effectively make a case (reference their
> mispronouncing of the word "log-in" during opening arguments). But
> the weight of the law is getting ready to manifest itself, and what
> is getting ready to happen will ensure that no one will mistake
> that they merely "crossed a few boundaries".
... and because no other company has grabbed on to a vision and successfully competed. I know that others on this thread will argue this forever, and that's why I say we ought to drop it for now ... we will not convert anyone against their will. I believe that many dumb, egotistical decisions are made within companies which can cause incredible failures and lost opportunities ... and they have. The average person is afraid to stick their neck out and push the limits ... and that is why they are average. ;-)
> I've been a member on SI since Feb 1996, have read every post on
> this NOVL board since that time, all the while adding shares, even
> in the darkest days, when some of the "smart" IS people were
> deriding me and my posts. I am so thankful that I didn't listen to
> them. And strategically speaking, I was dead right about how this
> would play out for Novell.
I too was a believer that with enough time, if Novell could "hold on" then the tides would shift on Microsoft and with proper leadership Novell could reorganize to allow some of the people with vision to once again begin an agressive "offensive" campaign to move the industry forward ... to educate the world about what "could be" ...
> Your posts during those times were technically specific and adept,
> contrasts to some of the generalized "doom and gloom" that was
> prevalent on the board. They were very helpful to me.
I appreciate that, and am glad that they were helpful. I was posting at that time to try and address some of the mis-information that was being spread on the thread, and also to speak out for many of the employees. There are many employees who read this thread on a daily basis ... and they saw no signs of support from *anyone* inside the company for what they were (and are) doing. I got tired of the lame attitudes and wanted to voice some direction and support for the group of people who *do* work hard within the company.
> However, your recent characterization of MSFT having merely
> "crossed a few boundaries" is just incredible to me, for many
> reasons.
I understand that from the many posts that have been generated on this subject. ;-)
I guess that all I can say is that I see numerous ways that this game can be won ... I can see ways to compete effectively with Microsoft, if only others could see these "positive" and "forward looking" directions, instead of the "defensive" and "anti-Microsoft" directions. I know that I can't vocalize some of these revolutionary ideas as well as Frederick, but he is the one person on this thread that I think understand this the best.
Sorry for the long first post-vacation post ... ;-)
And, I have no problem allowing this subject to drop ... but I'll reply to posts addressed to me ... we can wait and discuss more once the DOJ ruling is made ... ;-)
Scott C. Lemon |
