Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : OBJECT DESIGN Inc.: Bargain of the year!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (1978)	5/28/1998 2:04:00 AM
From: Sea Otter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3194

OffTopic: To Ahahaha Let's see. I'm a CS major (MIT, Berkeley) and run a software consulting firm based on quality and reliabilty - both technical and business. In this Darwinian sea, very few can cut it. The market is a proxy for true value, and in my particular market, I find very few "consumate programmers" with the background you describe. Most of the "scientists" make 60k a year, are narrowly educated and adverse to risk, with limited people and leadership skills, and simply couldn't handle the intellectual and business toughness of silicon valley. I wish I had a dime for every physics PhD resume I've had to throw into the trashcan (physics/math majors are as numerous as barnacles, and about as valuable). They are eager to leave the lab and apply their consumate programming skills, but many are called and few are chosen. Very few break into the big time of the software world. Definition: if you haven't made a million in the software business, then you haven't broken into the big time. I don't know a single person with the background you describe who has reached that bar (but I know plenty from other less-worthy backgrounds). So spare us your lectures. It might work on those who are ignorant of this business, but I am not impressed. Sea Otter P.S. By the way, I DO enjoy your posts, until you veer into areas that you're not qualified to speak to (you obviously know programming, but just as obviously have never worked within a silicon valley startup and thus never really put yourself to the test. Safer to pontificate from a distance, eh?).

To: ahhaha who wrote (1978)	5/28/1998 10:14:00 AM
From: Mark Finger	Respond to of 3194

>>So you've heard that babble about the job of CEO is to make >>shareholders money. You must have got that from the McNealy press. >>If CEOs go about their responsibilities under the intent of >>maximizing stock price, they neither achieve long term revenue >>growth nor do they even maintain existing stock price. Please read what I said. I said "make stockholders money". I did not say maximize short term stock growth. The latter is just one aspect of what I meant, just as interpersonal skills are just one aspect of a good executive (they are simply one tool that can help an executive perform his primary task). Obviously you have your own agenda, which makes it difficult to interpret what others are saying. As for the OR comments about my belief, I like what C. J. Date said about ODBMS's in this book "An Introduction to Database Systems" 6th ed. (1995). He says that ODBMS systems are "ad hoc" and lack a theoretical basis, and until they develop some kind of theoretical basis, they will be flawed and unlikely to grow beyond niche products. To put this in a more understandable perspective, you probably have noticed the common slams on this thread and the Versant one about which implementation is properly OO and what really is a ODBMS. That is a symptom of the lack of theoretical basis. Date does not leave OR implementation unscathed. He particularly says that they will not be good until they implement "domains" (the best short description or analogy I can give for "domains" would be "strong typing" for relational DBMS's). >>It isn't just MSFT that sells junk, you practically can't find a >>company whose code doesn't periodically crash or trash. This is not just true of programming. For example, consider the many design flaws or practice flaws in many other industries that have lead to disasters ("Challenger", ...).