Everyone Else Must Fail

ElectricAnt writes "First of all, I should mention that this book is complementary to Softwar: An Intimate Portrait of Larry Ellison and Oracle reviewed earlier here. Everyone Else Must Fail has not been approved, endorsed or edited by Oracle or Larry Ellison, so it could be that many things were said out loud for the first time. Karen Southwick is a journalist who has covered many technology subjects, and written three previous books about Silicon Valley's business side. She wrote this book, at least partially, based on the interviews with former Oracle executives who were either fired by Larry (as Ray Lane) or left Oracle to start their own business (Tom Siebel)." Read on for the rest of ElectricAnt's review. Everyone Else Must Fail: The Unvarnished Truth About Oracle and Larry Ellison author Karen Southwick pages 320 publisher Crown Business rating 6/10 reviewer ElectricAnt ISBN 0609610694 summary The way you shouldn't run your business My first impression was that this book was a former employee's act of revenge against the big bully boss, but as you read along you see that Southwick kept a neutral point of view, presenting only the facts without jumping to the conclusions.

As you would expect, there is more business than technology in the book, not to say that this is bad, but you'll find only the top slice of Oracle's business: sales, marketing, consulting etc. You won't find many discussions on how, why and which technology has been created or adopted by Oracle -- it's mostly how this technology has been sold to customers, and what happened afterwards.

Southwick covers nearly all of Oracle's history, starting with 1979 and up to mid-summer 2003 when Oracle launched its campaign to acquire PeopleSoft. The book's starts with a quote attributed to Genghis Khan ("It is not sufficient that I succeed. Everyone else must fail.") which Larry Ellison obviously likes and uses quite often. After a start like that, it's all downhill from there.

Larry Ellison is portrayed as a natural leader: visionary, extraordinary productive and effective. At the same time, he is the "supreme dictator," "extreme narcissist," "most controversial CEO," all this is combined to make "a grandiose, deeply flawed, yet extraordinary, human being." My favorite quote in this book belongs to Rich Hagberg (a management consultant). When he drives by Oracle's towers, he says, "I tell my kids that's where Darth Vader lives." This is not the book's only harsh definition of Ellison. If Softwar is an "intimate" portrait of Larry Ellison then Everyone Else Must Fail is definitely an "intimidating" portrait of him.

Oracle's culture is defined as "brutal, draining, and filled with potential pitfalls." The relationship between Larry and his subordinates, and what's equally important, with Oracles customers (the Oracle mindset is described as "use 'em and dump 'em.") Everyone is expendable, success must be achieved by all means, and everything is measured by how useful a person is to help Ellison implement his vision.

The list of dumped Oracle executives includes Tom Siebel of Siebel, Craig Conway of PeopleSoft, Greg Brady of i2 Technologies, Marc Benioff of Salesforce.com, Gray Bloom of Veritas, the list goes on and on. As soon as Larry Ellison feels that an executive gains popularity with customers, employees, and can, potentially, outplace him, he will find a reason to get rid of that person. Due to Ellison's personal "insecurity" to deliver the news face-to-face, many of those execs were fired "remotely," usually over the phone, and while on vacation. Coincidentally, almost all of them were fired just before the next portion of their stock options vested. Some of the discharged workers filed wrongful termination suits, but few of them won: none of them have talked to Larry since.

Only Bob Miner, Oracle's co-founder, top developer of Oracle's DB, and later head of development, is shown as a friend. Unfortunately, Bob Miner died in 1994 of lung cancer and Larry was left in the void. Over the last three years, Ellison fired all key members of his management team and concentrated all power in his own hands, leaving Oracle without much a needed counterbalance to Ellison's whimsical desires. With increased competition from IBM and Microsoft, unhappy customers, and flawed leadership, Karen Southwick questions the future of Oracle but leaves the question open.

The customers of Oracle DB were technology experts and didn't mind the need to fiddle with the product until they got it working; the real problems started when Oracle began to release ERP and CRM applications. These applications use the technology and don't invent it. In Ellison's eyes, though, the technology is "cool"; he likes to create technology and respects engineers, he doesn't like to perfect it. If something goes wrong with the product, the company attitude seems to be that it's because customers did something stupid.

I found the comparison between Oracle, Microsoft and IBM very interesting: both Oracle and Microsoft are seen as "technology" companies, both have core technologies (database and operating system) and everything else revolves around them, "you better buy everything from us or you're out." It's a sink-or-swim approach.

By contrast, IBM has marketed itself as a "solution" company that brings whatever customer asks for, the best-of-breed approach. However, in positioning .NET as an enterprise system, Microsoft makes one step forward to the solution approach. Oracle still hasn't make any steps in that direction.

A few things in the book are very entertaining -- for example, the story of Rick Bennett, who single-handedly served Oracle as an advertising agency from 1984 to 1990, the most aggressive ads Oracle ever ran were created by him. When Ingres was acquired by ASK Computer Systems Oracle ran a full page ad: "WE KICK ASK." This and some other examples of Oracle's ads from that era can be found on Bennett's website.

If you're looking for a recipe how to piss off your customers, screw up your employees, alienate your partners this book is for you: it has a detailed description how to achieve all that based on Larry Ellison's extensive experience.

You can purchase Everyone Else Must Fail: The Unvarnished Truth About Oracle and Larry Ellison from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to submit a review for consideration, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Comments

Microsoft too

[deanj]

Not that this should be a great surprise to anyone, but Microsoft acts this way too. It seems that they think that ANYTHING that has any computing power is their territory, and they're out to claim it. Cell phones, embedded systems, and of course ALL computers.

Just wish they'd just concentrate (and fix) the damn OS and it's GUI.

Re:Microsoft too

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Well, Microsoft is only ruthless to its competitors. From the sounds of it, Ellison is ruthless to the people who work for him. Microsoft is strategy, Ellison is just plain psycho. Think of the villian in the movies who cuts down his own henchmen with a machine gun to make a point.

Granted all companies generally regard customers as an annoyance. The feeling is mutual.

Re:Microsoft too

[DAldredge]

Microsoft is/was ruthless to contractors that work/worked for them. Just look how they are/were treated.

Re:Microsoft too

[SpaceRook]

Not that this should be a great surprise to anyone, but Microsoft acts this way too.
Microsoft has a good reputation for treating their employes well. Executives are well compensated, and the geeks get to have a lot of fun. Also, the level of sh!t they put their customers through is merely par for the course.

The thing that struck me about this Oracle book review was the "you better buy everything from us or you're out" quote. That is SO not the way to do business anymore. No one wants to be locked down to a particular company. It's costly and dangerous. People want to buy the best solutions and be able to fit them together.

Re:Microsoft too

[t0ny]

I know people who work for Microsoft. They have nothing but good things to say about the work environment, pretty much to the point where they couldnt envision working for another company.

On another note, the only thing I see in the press regarding Oracle is Ellison whining about Microsoft, or some other non-technical related subject. The man is just a troll, plain and simple. He needs to focus on making his product better, rather than saying how bad their competitors are. The title "Everyone Else Must Fail" is a very good summation of the attitude Ive seen from Ellison.

Compare this with things Gates says in the press- he is always looking at better ways of applying technology, ways to make things easier, etc. He (correctly, IMO) wants computing a simple human experience, something people dont need five years of experience to do. Much like using a hammer or screwdriver: an experienced carpenter will still be able to use the tools more effectively, but a newbie can still drive a nail or screw into a wall with the same tools.

Note to self: prepare to be modded down for saying something good about Microsoft.

Re:Microsoft too

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think everyone that complains about being modded down gets +5 Insightful.

Re:Microsoft too

[Anonymous Coward]

Would have modded up except for the whiny comment about preparing to be modded down.

Re:Microsoft too

[cavemanf16]

"Microsoft is strategy, Ellison is just plain psycho. Think of the villian in the movies who cuts down his own henchmen with a machine gun to make a point."

Read any of the Chinese classic military works, such as "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. You'll find that hacking off the head of an insurgent who threatens to throw the army/citizenry/etc. into a panic can be an effective tool to keep the entire rest of the army following orders.

Oracle and Microsoft are just sacrificing a few lambs now and then to keep the rest of the sheep in line.

But you'll also notice in those works that a smaller army can easily defeat a numerically superior and more powerful army through smarter use of the resources at their disposal. Much like how open source software methodologies have been cutting into Microsoft and Oracle more and more for the past 10 years.

Re:Microsoft too

[blamanj]

OK, you we're believable and reasonable up until the point where you started talking about how much Gates is a better representative of his company.

If you read any of his anti-trust testminony it's clear he's simply lying and everyone knows it, it just that most of it happens to be in that legal gray area that the Reagan Iran/Contra team exploited so well, "I don't recall."

OTOH, the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation _is_ doing some very nice stuff, and I don't think that Ellison can compare at all.

Re:Microsoft too

[ccp]

But you'll also notice in those works that a smaller army can easily defeat a numerically superior and more powerful army through smarter use of the resources at their disposal. Much like how open source software methodologies have been cutting into Microsoft and Oracle more and more for the past 10 years.

I'd rather think that the advantege of OSS was the vastly bigger army, even if loosely coordinated, and sometimes fracticious.

Chhers,

Re:Microsoft too

[kin_korn_karn]

Business != military.
It's this line of thinking that leads to things like example firings and predatory practices. You don't just want to make more money than Competitor X, you want to CRUSH Competitor X.

When Sun Tzu started being taught in MBA classes was when western civilization started to decline.

Re:Microsoft too

[The Spoonman]

Not that this should be a great surprise to anyone, but Microsoft acts this way too. It seems that they think that ANYTHING that has any computing power is their territory, and they're out to claim it. Cell phones, embedded systems, and of course ALL computers.

There is a difference here. Aside from some paranoid theories, and a media-attention-grabbing sham of an antitrust case, there's been no evidence to show MS as "Evil", at best they could be labeled misguided and zealous. Larry Ellison, OTOH has been shown time and time again as a raging lunatic who would better serve the world drooling in a padded cell than being responsible for forcing his crappy, crappy DB products on the world. Say what you want about MS products, they're Golden Ideals compared to anything Oracle produces.

Re:Microsoft too

[JK Master-Slave]

Contract employees are generally treated that way at any company. You want a good job, you get hired. You want a quick-and-dirty job, you contract.

Re:Microsoft too

[DNS-and-BIND]

Buying respect with a charity is an old, old, old tactic. It works, too...it worked for Carnegie and Rockefeller and all the old robber barons who make Bill Gates look like a benevolent old man. Microsoft is evil as hell, but they never had people killed or beaten.

Re:Microsoft too

[Urox]

I know several people who worked for microsoft (and only one of them a contractor). I'd also like to point out that these friends are rather exclusive of each other and worked in separate departments. They all left the company (except for the one that works overseas) within 5 years due to a hostile environment. Various complaints of "insane work hours: microsoft is your life" to misogynistic behavior of some managers and co-workers.

There are people who are going to fit right in to some environments and others who are pushed out of them.

As for how "nice" Gates is: he is very charitable (as his grandfather was) and damn intelligent (he asks the right questions from businesses he interacts with), but a pain in the ass (as much as his grandfather wasn't) in person if you're not important to him (whereas Larry will fire you if you start to rival his importance).

Re:Microsoft too

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of the villian in the movies who cuts down his own henchmen with a machine gun to make a point.

Communists did that. So, you saying Ellison is a commy ? ...

Re:Microsoft too

[bogie]

"Compare this with things Gates says in the press- he is always looking at better ways of applying technology, ways to make things easier, etc. He (correctly, IMO) wants computing a simple human experience, something people don't need five years of experience to do."

Correct. Microsoft wants its products to be easy to use and helpful, good for them. But God help you if you get in their way or have an alternative view as to what makes a product good. Because then you get to watch this "we just want to help" company mercilessly stomp you into the ground.

They do with FUD, they do it by bribing the government, and they do everything in their power to make doing things anyway except for the Microsoft way extremely painful.

They are a ruthless, power hungry, nasty, control freak of the company whose only goal is total world domination by ANY means necessary.

Oh but they want to make computing easy for newbies so its O.K.

*points gun at head and pulls trigger*

Re:Microsoft too

[BitchKapoor]

I think it actually functions as some sort of apology in this bizarre little subculture to keep the Slashdot-groupthink moderators at bay, and hence increase the chance of the moderators who might mod it up to see it and do so. I'll have to agree with you that it's not a direct cause-effect correlation of whinewhinewhine => +5 Insightful.

Re:Microsoft too

[EvilAlien]

One of the point of hiring contractors is that they don't have the same rights... and are therefore good abuse targets. You can't blame Microsoft for that ;) ... well, maybe a little.

Anyways, the point is that Microsoft is far better at customer care, employee relations, and those other soft skills than this book tells us Oracle is. I have no reason to dispute that either.

Re:Microsoft too

[Anonymous Coward]

I know several people who work for Microsoft, and without fail they love the place. OTOH, the people I know who've left say they didn't enjoy the work, felt highly pressured and all the rest. Draw your own conclusions.

Re:Microsoft too

[bit01]

Of course M$'s employees are treated well. The amount of money M$ receives per employee is extraordinary, probably the highest in the world. It is being paid $35,000,000,000+/year for a few programs it largely wrote more than a decade ago.

---

It is wrong that an intellectual property (IP) creator should not be rewarded for their work. It is equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons. Reform IP law and curtail business excesses.

Re:Microsoft too

[EvilTwinSkippy]

As a student of Taoism, with a particular interest in the Art of War, I can say that Sun Tsu never stated that you will beat a larger foe with a smaller army. That's some fluff from Colenel Santiago in Alpha Centari.

Another pertinant quote from the Art of War itself, in Chapter III (Attack by Strategim):

In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regimen t, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

IOW the best way to win is not to fight.

Re:Microsoft too

[Urox]

Needed to add: contributions to qualifying charities are tax deductible. That's less money that he's giving to uncle sam.

Re:Microsoft too

[quintessencesluglord]

Sun Tzu also stated that a commander should be subject to the same rules/penalties as imposed on the other soldiers (Bad! Mr. Ellison Bad!). GPL anyone?

The idea is to rule from mutual respect and discipline (moreso a trademark of OSS than disfocus of resourse utilization now)... tyrannies always end in revolt.

Your interpretation is very much out of context.

Re:Microsoft too

[Moofie]

Bullshit.

I'll blame Microsoft for it, I'll blame Microsoft's stock holders for it. I'll blame the labor laws, and I'll blame the courts. I'll blame anybody who profits from the exploitation of those contractors. I'll blame anybody who has the power to stop the practice and doesn't do it.

ALL of those people are, to a greater or lesser degree, responsible for the practice of taking advantage of contractors. It needs to stop.

Re:Microsoft too

[Moofie]

I don't understand why it's important to make more money than competitor X.

I can understand why it's good to be more profitable on a per-unit than competitor X (by doing business more cleverly and efficiently), but just raw more money isn't a win.

Yes, economies of scale often select for larger rather than smaller operations, but it's important to remember that you can still get rich with a small company.

Re:Microsoft too

[t0ny]

Evil as hell? Have they killed anybody, or raped your sister, or stolen your turkey on Thanksgiving?

Some people have a really weak definition of 'evil'. You need to get out there and get some real life experience- then maybe that word will actually mean something to you.

Heh

[mongbot]

If you're looking for a recipe how to piss off your customers, screw up your employees, alienate your partners this book is for you: it has a detailed description how to achieve all that based on Larry Ellison's extensive experience. No thanks. I think I'll wait for Crazy as a Sh*thouse Rat: The Darl McBride Story.

Re:Heh

[kaan]

No thanks. I think I'll wait for Crazy as a Sh*thouse Rat: The Darl McBride Story.

Well who's gonna be crazier - Darl for living on another planet, or you for shelling out $699 to buy a copy of The Darl McBride Story?

Yeah, I'm speculating on the price, but prior experience suggests that $699 would be more or less correct for something "produced" by SCO...

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly does "crazy as a shithouse rat" mean, and where the hell does it come from?

Re:Heh

[RobL3]

Jesus, -that- was funny.

Re:Heh

[B1ackD0g]

That is, without a doubt, the funniest comment I've ever seen on /. Thanks for that. Now can you explain why I fell out of my chair to my cube-mates?

Re:Heh

[EdlinUser]

Thanks, I needed that.

One of my biggest /. crackups, and I've had a few (UID 50696).

Huh?

[El_Ge_Ex]

"I tell my kids that's where Darth Vader lives."

Wouldn't that be Redmond?

(sorry, too easy)

-B

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

no, thats the *borg* ala star trek next generation.

clearly you are not quite ready to become a feces flinging microsoft bashing monkey like the other /.'ers. shame on you :)

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Gatus of Borg is in Redmond.

Re:Huh?

[scrytch]

"I tell my kids that's where Darth Vader lives."

Wouldn't that be the Death Star?

Re:Huh?

[sharkey]

Wouldn't that be Redmond?

You're thinking of Sauron.

One OS to rule them all, one OS to bind them.
One OS to bring them all, and in the darkness grind them.
In the land of Redmond where the shadows lie...

Re:Huh?

[UnknowingFool]

I thought that would be Atlanta (CNN), Africa (the Lion King), or Charleston (Verizon).

ASK and Ingres

[Hayzeus]

What ever became of that? Much of my work back in the day used to consist of various mods and extensions to ASK's MANMAN product -- FORTRAN-66, baby! I hated their product, though -- it was, as we used to say, fugly -- even for F-66.

Re:ASK and Ingres

[joshsnow]

What ever became of that?

Ask went bust and sold Ingres to Computer Associates. It was rebranded CA-OpenIngres. Ingres used to be a great product, back in the day when the big 4 were Oracle, Ingres, Informix and Sybase. Now, we have only Sybase and Oracle. Ingres seems to have dropped off of the radar and informix was acquired by IBM last year.

Previous Book was "semi" unauthorised

[fastdecade]

It must be said the previous book, at least according to the publisher's claims, wasn't just a spew of marketing from Oracle ---- it was supposed to be written independently, with Ellison having the right only to add footnotes, and NOT to modify the text.

That's the theory anyway. Who knows what sort of political games go on in actually agreeing to get a deal like this --- is there an unwritten rule that the author must play ball? Haven't read either, so I'm not sure ...

Damn CEO's

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Ack, I have finally found one that is more of an axe murderer than the other's I've worked for. Yippie and pass the pink slips.

Re:Damn CEO's

[DAldredge]

Did you used to work for HP/ComDEC?

Re:Damn CEO's

[EvilTwinSkippy]

K&S. They moved all of manufacturing to the Phillipines, and then a few years later, all of engineering to someplace in the far east. I have been laid off by then.

Of course I never speak about current employeers. a) They are fun people to work for. b) I'm paranoid and you never know who is reading along.

are CEO's and dictators synonamous?

[Anonymous Coward]

forget Larry for a second. For a CEO to succeed, does it require that person to be a dictator?

Re:are CEO's and dictators synonamous?

[Anonymous Coward]

That bastard's javastation was a bigger crime against humanity than anything Hussien came up with. The boot time alone was a violation of the Geneva convention.

Re:are CEO's and dictators synonamous?

[drooling-dog]

For a CEO to succeed, does it require that person to be a dictator?

Well, I wasn't a dictator.

Oh yeah, I didn't succeed either. Never mind...

Re:are CEO's and dictators synonamous?

[UID30]

No.

Re:are CEO's and dictators synonamous?

[HenryFlower]

No. See Good to Great and Built to Last. The thesis of both books is that great companies build a strong team of leaders around a strong culture. Dictators can deliver results for a time, but the company dies when the dictator leaves. Both books are based on empirical evidence (actual performance over time) not B-school BS speculation.

Re:are CEO's and dictators synonamous?

[JonSari]

Harvard Business Review did a study of leadership styles and broke CEO leadership styles into four categories. "Box"--coming from creating a box for employees to work in, having little tolerance for going beyond those constraints--was hands-down the most common style, with 40% of CEOs using that strategy. However, there are another 60% using other primary strategies.

Nobody is perfect...

[clifgriffin]

I am nobody...therefore....

Re:Nobody is perfect...

[Linux_ho]

I am nobody...therefore....

How very Zen.

Re:Nobody is perfect...

[The Lynxpro]

"I am nobody...therefore...."

Someone apparently has a Ulysses complex... :)

Re:Nobody is perfect...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck is ulysses? Oh, nevermind..

What do you expect?

[Ars-Fartsica]

Do you expect a succesful CEO in a cut-throat business to be a cheerful guy? Ellison is paranoid (San Jose airport out to get me), arrogant (we're going to take on Microsoft) and often clumsy (Peoplesoft), but he is also still the king of database software (for the time being).

The only thing that separates Larry from the other ones is the neato cars he buys for Oracle employees who happen to be his ex-girlfriend.

Re:What do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

"but he is also still the king of database software"

Actually his staff made him the king.

Re:What do you expect?

[BWJones]

Do you expect a succesful CEO in a cut-throat business to be a cheerful guy? Ellison is paranoid (San Jose airport out to get me), arrogant (we're going to take on Microsoft) and often clumsy (Peoplesoft), but he is also still the king of database software (for the time being).

I cannot claim to know him well, but I have met him once and found him to be intelligent, well spoken, and......rather cheerful.

Look, becoming the CEO of the worlds second largest software company is bound to tick a few folks off here and there and being worth as much money as that also tends to isolate one from certain realities that result in a few eccentricities. The San Jose airport thing applies to everyone and I am sure he is wealthy enough to pay the fines that result from flying in past certain hours. The Microsoft thing applies to everyone in software who is not Microsoft (since Microsoft apparently wants to compete with everyone else), and the Peoplesoft thing is simply product diversification. If Oracle could not be all things to all people, other companies are bound to spring up to fill needs.

Re:What do you expect?

[gbjbaanb]

Look, becoming the CEO of the worlds second largest software company is bound to tick a few folks off

saying that is bound to tick him off too :)

Re:What do you expect?

[bit01]

Also keep in mind that in addition to a good start, talent, luck, hard work etc. etc. all else being equal an unethical person will at least break even with an ethical person because an unethical person has the option of acting ethically. The ethical person does not have the option of acting unethically.

---

"The secret of acting is sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it made." -- George Burns

If he needs a hobby

[Otter]

In Ellison's eyes, though, the technology is "cool"; he likes to create technology and respects engineers, he doesn't like to perfect it. If something goes wrong with the product, the company attitude seems to be that it's because customers did something stupid.

It sounds like he'd fit in quite nicely in the open-source world. In fact, his philosophy would make a nice introduction for the Mplayer FAQ. (Q: Why are .avi files are playing with the colors reversed? A: Bite me.)

If you're looking for a recipe how to piss off your customers, screw up your employees, alienate your partners this book is for you: it has a detailed description how to achieve all that based on Larry Ellison's extensive experience.

And yet, somehow Ellison is a billionaire with a MiG and an America's Cup campaign and ElectricAnt is writing reviews on Slashdot...

Re:If he needs a hobby

[Anonymous Coward]

"It sounds like he'd fit in quite nicely in the open-source world."

I don't know how someone described as "he is the 'supreme dictator,' 'extreme narcissist,'" would fit into an open and free culture.

"And yet, somehow Ellison is a billionaire with a MiG and an America's Cup campaign and ElectricAnt is writing reviews on Slashdot"

So you have to be a billionaire to criticize one? You aren't even writing reviews.

Re:If he needs a hobby

[kayen_telva]

And yet, somehow Ellison is a billionaire with a MiG and an America's Cup campaign and ElectricAnt is writing reviews on Slashdot...

you see ellison's life as desirable ? as something to imitate ? to strive for ? wow.

Re:If he needs a hobby

[Just Some Guy]

Good Lord, I'd never actually read that before. From a section of the FAQ:

Q #132: I can't see any picture, only hear the sound
A: you are blind

Q: #133: I have configured and compiled mplayer, how do I use it?
A: try sticking it up your ass.

Thanks for the tip. I'd read about unpleasant dealings with the MPlayer group, but didn't realize how obnoxious they really were. That was an eye-opener.

Re:If he needs a hobby

[DAldredge]

He could help run the OpenBSD project.

Re:If he needs a hobby

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: Why are .avi files are playing with the colors reversed?
A: Bite me.

Whaaaaat ? It's better than promising you that you will see a whole new world in the next product which should be out in .. ehhhmmm ... any time now. Watch some South Park. Do anything, just get some sense of humor. Send them a reply with "I BITE YA TOO. Fix the damn colors". It should make a great start :).

Re:If he needs a hobby

[sTalking_Goat]

rofl. Why are these Mplayer guys such assholes?

Re:If he needs a hobby

[yppiz]

That's the joke FAQ. Here's a link to the real Mplayer FAQ.

--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

Re:If he needs a hobby

[elmegil]

You haven't met some of the project leaders in OSS projects, have you?

Re:If he needs a hobby

[Just Some Guy]

My strained eyes didn't pick out the first darker-yellow link amid the less-dark-yellow text against the dark-yellow-olive background when I was looking fot the FAQ, and you're right: there is another FAQ on the site. But note that in the "MPLAYER DOCUMENTATION" (their caps, not mine) section, they link to both FAQs as authoritative without any indication that the second one is supposed to be humorous (either in the FAQ itself or on the page linking to it).

Re:If he needs a hobby

[jazman_777]

Thanks for the tip. I'd read about unpleasant dealings with the MPlayer group, but didn't realize how obnoxious they really were. That was an eye-opener.

Must've used Richard Morrell's (of Smoothwall infamy) _How to Support Your Users_ tract.

Re:If he needs a hobby

[NDPTAL85]

Being a billionaire = good thing.

Not being a billionaire = bad thing.

Ok class dismissed.

Re:If he needs a hobby

[autechre]

I agree. Sure, he's rich. I'm sure many in the "business world" consider him to be "successfull". But is he happy? Are the people around him happy that he's there? Is someone's life better because of him? That's my definition of success.

I don't even know what America's Cup is, and I'd rather have true friends than a MiG.

Re:If he needs a hobby

[Anonymous Coward]

Being rich doesn't suck. Can you say the same about not being rich?

Love, Larry.

Re:If he needs a hobby

[edbarrett]

Please note, before everyone gets bent out of shape, FAQ2 is a joke. The actual FAQ is here (and very good, BTW).

More foolishness from FAQ2:

Q: #1+2=~17: iuefg hehpfeh feu xhfaohefh hsoiae e mplaykhder????
A: mplayer is only supported up to 3 promille of blodalcohol.
A2: umount /dev/vodka && eject /dev/stomach
A3: kjafh mplayeeer bol?!!
A4: Gone fishing.
A5: where's the toilet paper?

Re:If he needs a hobby

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that attitude would work well with Stallman. We may have found someome more vapid than Stallman to promote GNU software. [It's GNU Oracle, you insensitive prick! You're fired!]

Re:If he needs a hobby

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, haven't you seen Citizen Kane? He was rich, but he missed the innocence of his youth on his death bed.

Of course, most poor people start missing the innocence of their youth once they stop being one, and keep on missing it 'till they die. But that's not my point.

My point here is, what was it, oh yeah, stay outta my booze!

Not been approved, etc.

[TrollBridge]

"...has not been approved, endorsed or edited by Oracle or Larry Ellison, so it could be that many things were said out loud for the first time."

Or for that matter, it could be that many things (in the book) may be patenly false. How are we to know?

Re:Not been approved, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe by the other people who were present?

Re:Not been approved, etc.

[TrollBridge]

Ahh yes, because one is sure to get 100% objective, truthful accounts from people who were victims of Ellison's ambition and have a genuine interest in seeing that he is portrayed in as negative a light possible.

Perhaps I'm being cynical, but I don't hold out much hope for truth in a one-sided publication.

Re:Not been approved, etc.

[Malcontent]

What kind of a book would you expect if you only talked to people who hate the guy?

This is nothing more then trolling.

Naaa...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking more along the lines of UniMatrix95

;-)

Larry and Oracle

[erc]

Well, you *do* know what ORACLE stands for, don't you? One Real Asshole Called Larry Ellison.

I still remember a lot of the guy's screwups, I was in the Bay Area in the late 80's and early 90's, when Larry habitually compared himself to God. All in all, an incredibly arrogant individual.

Re:Larry and Oracle

[EvilTwinSkippy]

2 Words: Network Computer.

Re:Larry and Oracle

[inteller]

all of that and he is ugly to boot!

Re:Larry and Oracle

[nathanm]

I'm surprised nobody's replied yet with this old joke:

Q: What's the difference between Larry Ellison and God?

A: God doesn't think he's Larry Ellison.

Greg Brady made a poor career decision...

[iiioxx]

Instead of going into the software business, he should have been an architect like his father.

So what happens...

[Space cowboy]

... when major Oracle customers read:


(the mindset) ... with Oracles customers (the Oracle mindset is described as "use 'em and dump 'em.")


I know I'd not be particularly happy, but what else do you do ? If your business needs Oracle, then there is no real alternative - Informix is a distant second place, with the rest of the pack some why behind. Good luck porting from "standard SQL" to "standard SQL" as well :-)

I have a certain amount of respect for Ellison (purely down to his PR image, of course :-) but if he's manipulated power into his own hands as much as the review makes out, Oracle is doomed. No one man can provide the needs of a gigantic company like Oracle over the long term - it has to be a collabarative effort ...

Simon

Re:So what happens...

[Dastardly]

have a certain amount of respect for Ellison (purely down to his PR image, of course :-) but if he's manipulated power into his own hands as much as the review makes out, Oracle is doomed. No one man can provide the needs of a gigantic company like Oracle over the long term - it has to be a collabarative effort ...

So, you read "Good to Great"? Basically, it looks like Larry has put Oracle into the position where the second he leaves they will be screwed. But, they may still do well while he is around. He sounds like the architypical CEO that creates companies that self-destruct when he leaves.

Re:So what happens...

[I8TheWorm]

There are plenty of alternatives to Oracle as both a DB and an ERP. As a matter of fact, on the DB side, many customers realize this as Oracle's marketshare is still dropping, which you can find here and here.

SAP is still crowned victorious in the ERP solutions market. And quite frankly, DB2 and SQL Server are much easier to admin than Oracle, both with an extremely rich set of features, with SQL Server beating Oracle in benckmarks for some time now (until the recent release of 10g where Oracle beats SQL Server in the cluster market) seen here. Unfortunately for IBM, DB2 doesn't rank very well in either clustered or non-clustered.

Then there's the issue of licensing....

Re:So what happens...

[ccp]

Basically, it looks like Larry has put Oracle into the position where the second he leaves they will be screwed.

I have the suspicion that, for Larry, this is not a bug, but a feature.

Cheers,

Re:So what happens...

[JK Master-Slave]

The shocking thing is, many people build their business and reputation on Oracle software. And act like they are making a wise business decision.

If their business is dependent on and tied together by software that 'lives' on the whim of one man (Ellision) it's hard to call it a wisely structured business. Maybe he'll live forever. He's certainly 'married' to his company. It seems like a deal with the devil though.

Re:So what happens...

[Anonymous Coward]

No one man can provide the needs of a gigantic company like Oracle over the long term - it has to be a collabarative effort ...

Wouldn't you consider 26 years a "long term"?

Well whoise the Billionaire Him or the Author

[FRAKK2]

No matter what you say about him, the software does the business, do i care about management people?

No these are the fuckers that will outsource you in a second, fuck em glad they did not get their fucking stock options.

Oracle is were it is today because it is the best at what it does, did not have to bribe anyone or tell them if they did not use their software, they would be fucked over.

Whatever tyou may say about him, he built a company and a product that shhits over microsofts best and did it because they were the best.

Re:Well whoise the Billionaire Him or the Author

[Anonymous Coward]

Does a person have to be a painter like Van Gogh to critique a painting? You are not an author (judging from your spelling) but you're criticizing one.

Re:Well whoise the Billionaire Him or the Author

[BigGerman]

Mod this up please (I have not seen mod points in months...)
Larry is a respected for putting together product and a company like no other. Microsoft does not count because many of their products (like SQL server) make it only because they piggyback on Windows monopoly.
Larry deserves a break and entitled to do any weird / ugly thing he did.

Re:Well whoise the Billionaire Him or the Author

[Anonymous Coward]

That's like saying Hitler gets a pass because he was a vegetarian and "introduced" order to Germany.

Re:Well whoise the Billionaire Him or the Author

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see why you aren't getting mod points any more.

Re:Well whoise the Billionaire Him or the Author

[Animats]

Go ahead, mod him up +1 (Funny).

Re:Well whoise the Billionaire Him or the Author

[Moofie]

Yeah, you can do whatever you want, as long as you're rich.

What the hell kind of ethical structure is that?

Southwick kept a neutral point of view.

[Anonymous Coward]

But hey, we're not worried about the attitude of the book, just the author - so we can talk about how Darth Vader runs Oracle!

I read this book

[Anonymous Coward]

The book does not say you can't not fail, but only that failing for failure's sake is an option that isn't not possible.

Yes.

[DAldredge]

The CEO of Chick-Fil-A, a > 1 Billion USD company, is paranoid, aragant, nor does he do anything to earn a buck.

Re:Yes.

[El_Ge_Ex]

The CEO of Chick-Fil-A, a > 1 Billion USD company, is paranoid, aragant, nor does he do anything to earn a buck.

Now if only they were open on Sundays....

-B

Re:Yes.

[DAldredge]

They won't. The CEO is a religious man and doesn't want it to happen. He also doesn't think it is right to keep people from their famlies on Sunday.

Re:Yes.

[daviddennis]

Um, do you mean he is NOT paranoid, arrogant, etc?

Chick-fil-a sells what are probably the best chicken nuggets in the business, but whenever I feel a deep craving for them, it's Sunday and they're not open!

I can admire his consistency to sticking to principles, though. I'm sure that's what keeps him sane.

D

The way you shouldn't run your business

[cats-paw]

I guess I will point out the obvious.

If you shouldn't run your business that way
then why is it so successful ?

Re:The way you shouldn't run your business

[EvilTwinSkippy]

We used to measure success in decades. Now it's measured in quarters. But that's not the real issue.

I would argue that no leader of these large corporations is successful. No matter how large the company grows, the feel the need to make it bigger and bigger and bigger. They all finally get to the point that they are carved up by "the people" in the form an Anti-Trust law, or implode ala Enron.

None of this would happen if leaders would learn contentment. Once you have a working business model, a strong staff, and a steady stream of customers, it is time to sit back and let your investors profit.

Today, no one is profiting. The big names are in a war of attrition and a run for the bottom. Smaller companies are having to compete against artifically low prices, and direct competition from large companies trying to soak up every available dollar.

Investors don't get dividends. Capital is tied up either acquiring companies, protecting the company from aquisitions, or jumping off a cliff with these idiotic offshoring schemes.

So if everyone is miserable, why are we doing it? Ask Captain Ahab.

Re:The way you shouldn't run your business

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism was very successfull up until about the 1980s. Just because you can't see the forest through the trees doesn't mean it isn't there, and just because something is successfull now doesn't mean it isn't going to cause a lot of people pain and grief in the long run.

Re:The way you shouldn't run your business

[rossifer]

It's successful for that individual running the business, but not for the business in any longer term measure.

Since there is little incentive provided other than to pump the stock price no matter what, the short term view wins.

Also, Larry doesn't care what happens when he's gone. As long as he can get his money out, he's sitting pretty for the rest of his life...

Regards,
Ross

Re:The way you shouldn't run your business

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I want your job your cool if I kill you then apply?

It ethics.

I know, you're a conservative, so you'll have to check dictionary.com for that one.

Re:The way you shouldn't run your business

[pipingguy]

None of this would happen if leaders would learn contentment. Once you have a working business model, a strong staff, and a steady stream of customers, it is time to sit back and let your investors profit.

Support privately-owned companies with your investment dollars instead. I'd rather trust a rigidly-held private company than a wishy-washy one that panders to flighty market whims based on percieved shareholder demands.

As someone said, the current malaise is due to boomer investors wanting NOW NOW NOW.

Ironically, this is the generation that "had it all" as a result of the post WW2 boom, but now they want more.

Re:The way you shouldn't run your business

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because Oracle's market share has grown enormously in the last few years. Wait a minute... I believe Microsoft will eventually eat their lunch with SQL Server. And for those cases where a MS operating system just will not do, MYSQL is getting more powerful all the time. I think the conclusion is obvious: Oracle is dying, and Larry is going down with it, clutching a network computer as he falls.

Re:The way you shouldn't run your business

[Moofie]

Because success is amoral.

You don't have to be an ethical person to succeed.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't be an ethical person. In MY life, that means that I will choose my ethics and my morality over my short-term success, every single time.

It's called integrity. It pays off in the long run.

Re:The way you shouldn't run your business

[Moofie]

Er, how do you support privately held companies with investment dollars?

If they sell me stock, they're not privately held...

Re:The way you shouldn't run your business

[pipingguy]

Do you know the principals? Do you trust what they are doing? Have you seen previous examples of their work? Are they doing good stuff, *in your opinion*?

If you don't know these things, you are contributing to the vast wasteland of stock speculation where people (not you, likely) shortchange investors in favour of their own pockets. This is not a fault of the "capitalist system", it is rather the ME generation (as opposed to those old farts that fought and won) that got used to having everything they wanted.

Re:The way you shouldn't run your business

[Moofie]

On that, we are in total agreement.

I was just pickin' nits. Want some?

Re:The way you shouldn't run your business

[pipingguy]

Sure, fling my way. Offline (decipher from website) or do it here.

Re:The way you shouldn't run your business

[Moofie]

I was being facetious, referring to nits as tiny little tasty insects. Very crunchy. Just a joke. : )

Re:The way you shouldn't run your business

[pipingguy]

Taunt not the dragon, for he...no, wait. That's not it. FEAR ME as I control all your effo...CRAP! That's not it either. Be very, very afraid of stuff! Yes, *that's* it!
Paul

Re:The way you shouldn't run your business

[Moofie]

something something, with ketchup, and other stuff.

No clue.

You mean like this....

[gosand]

It seems that they think that ANYTHING that has any computing power is their territory, and they're out to claim it. Cell phones, embedded systems, and of course ALL computers.

What would Bill Gates look like crossed with Rich Uncle Pennybags (aka the Monopoly Guy)? Remember, the Monopoly tagline is "Own it all"

See what I am talking about over here, on a T-shirt . (and don't pay attention to that link to "poundingsand.com", it used to be my URL, but was hijacked. :(

hahhahhhahaha ror

[Anonymous Coward]

hhahhahhaha omfg jesus christ

Piss off customers?

[nsxdavid]

I think the idea that he goes out of his way to piss off customers sounds a bit one-sided.

We use Oracle for our back office / billing systems for our MMPOGs; have for about 10 years or so now. Indeed Oracle has been rather obnoxious to us on two occasions; one when they wanted to audit us (being a pretty small fry compared to their other customers, it was bizzare enough but turned out okay because we were in compliance as usual) and when they refused to negotiate on support fees even though we seldom if ever used it (but wanted it just in case something really bad went on).

I'm not sure, however, that if you totally alienate your customers you'd be doing quite as well as Oracle has.

Personally, I think Oracle's DB products are amazingly stable. We had our billing system running, under constant heavy load, for 3 years straight on an NT box. Only shut it down because we wanted to do some system changes. And even that was optional.

I think their tools are antiques though. SQL Server, as a competing commercial product, is much easier to administrate and so forth.

But, like many things, we have Oracle in house experience. Switching would not really be desireable unless they went nuts on us in some way.

I have yet to read the book, but I think I should to get some insight even if it is pretty one-sided.

Re:Piss off customers?

[nelsonal]

I would suggest reading both this and Softwar (a somewhat friendlier bio, that allowed Larry to add footnotes to the manuscript which is sort of a cool idea it lets you read what the character was thinking when something happened). Odd that two books about the same person were published within weeks of each other.

Not sure about Ellison but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what to think of Ellison. However, I have to say that most of the people reviewed control companies (Siebel, Peoplesoft) that produce products I find to be vastly overcomplicated and overhyped. I have to say that Oracle is probably a better place without them, and I think more highly of Ellison as a result of his getting rid of them...

Haven't you every thought, sometimes, that a number of high level execs from your company should just go? Yet no-one will every git rid of them. At least Ellison has the guts to rid upper management of people that do not belong, even if the reason for that is in his head. Whose to say some of those firings were not actually good ideas?

Re:Not sure about Ellison but...

[nelsonal]

On a side note, his CFO has stuck with him for more than a decade. the new VP and Director Safra Catz (or possibly Chuck Phillips), is likely to eventually be his successor, I think the Peoplesoft merger is her project.

Re:Not sure about Ellison but...

[gnu-generation-one]

"I'm not sure what to think of Ellison."

James Bond villain.

"Ours is the loneliest profession, Mr. Bond."

autocracy

[Doc Ruby]

With a ruthless Ellison out for "success" at any cost, his immediate offer to a nascent Department of Fatherland Security of a universal Oracle database modelling every American's every move is chilling. Imagine the harrowing monoculture we'd have when everyone has a unique stored procedure in their ID cards for every bridge/highway entrance, credit transaction, library visit, ballot response.

Re:autocracy

[Sean80]

I have to say I find this post a little naive. The universally unique identifier you worry about whenever you make a credit transaction is, er, called a credit card number. If you're in the SF bay area, and you have one of those automated toll thingys for whenever you cross a bridge, and you pay it via credit card, well, there are marketers out there who can add 1 and 1. In so many other ways - change channels, log on to a website - people are watching.

You don't need Larry to propose a unique number for you to be tracked everywhere.

Re:autocracy

[Doc Ruby]

Of course the unique number isn't the problem. We each have many: credit card, social security number, driver's license number, phone numbers, electronic toll payments, the list seems endless. However, the power is in the JOIN. The government has the power to get access to each of these unique keys, and the resources to implement the realtime JOINs to relate us into the crosshairs. With a crusader like Ashcroft "protecting" us and a powermonger like Ellison selling him the tools, the "private" space will be reserved for only those corporations sending checks to Washington "lobbyist" accounts. We citizens must own our own keys, before they link them together into chains.

ask the RIAA's labels....

[rbird76]

when you're on top, you can do whatever you want, but if you screw your customers hard enough, eventually they'll find a way to take it out on you. Lots of mp3's would be trading hands no matter what the RIAA's labels had done, but they'd probably be selling more and more easily controlling distribution, and copying would be an annoyance rather than a threat to business, if they hadn't screwed both their artists and their customers. Instead, enough people are pissed and tired of paying the prices asked for CDs that they are willing to sift through lots of crap to screw the RIAA. Not nailing your customers helps to insure that only a few people are likely to try to hurt you when they have the chance.

There's a phrase that seems relevant: When you have a tiger by the tail, you best not let go. Ellison has the tiger by the tail. But he won't forever, and if he's been spending his time beating the hell out of the tiger, things will get bad for him.

Is this is a book review, a synopsis, or a rant?

[Saanvik]

There are three paragraphs talking about the content and quality of book and the rest is a synopsis of the book. Also, although the reviewer says that author "kept a neutral point of view" the reviewer ends with

If you're looking for a recipe how to piss off your customers, screw up your employees, alienate your partners this book is for you: it has a detailed description how to achieve all that based on Larry Ellison's extensive experience.

While the book may be neutral, this paragraph isn't.

IMO, it's pretty clear that the reviewer is more interested in making a statement about how s/he feels about Larry, using sections from the book to follow it up, than in reviewing the book.

Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[leoaugust]

One thing that the Review did not bring out, which I think the Book might have, is the total fixation that Ellsion has on Gates. It is almost like a fetish. The significant parts of his career can almost said to be defined more by Gates that by his ownself. Gates ain't my favorite, but Ellison is less so.

The Big Fight: Oracle vs. Microsoft "In this corner is challenger Oracle CEO Larry Ellison and the NC (Network Computer). In the opposite corner is reigning champion Microsoft CEO Bill Gates and the NetPC. The low-cost computing fight has begun. This fight between Ellison and Gates isn?t solely about low-cost computing. It also concerns who?s in charge of the computer industry and mixes in the personal animosity between the two software rivals. Referring to Microsoft, Ellison said, ?The idea the world could be controlled by one company is shocking and unacceptable.? "

There was a time when Oracle's Ellison Closer Than Ever To Richest-Man Title "Larry Ellison may spend some quality time with his calculator this week. His net worth hasn't been this close to that of rival Bill Gates since 1986--that is, figuring in only their stakes in Microsoft and Oracle. While Oracle's stock has held up well this month, Microsoft shares have fallen dramatically because of renewed speculation that the government will break up the company. As of today's market close, Microsoft Chairman Gates' stake in Microsoft is worth $49.4 billion. Oracle Chief Executive Ellison has $48 billion worth of Oracle stock."

But then it so happened Ellison was reduced to Dumpster Diving into M$ trash "Ellison maintained his company did nothing illegal in commissioning the investigation, which was revealed earlier this month after the detective agency Oracle had retained, Investigative Group International, was caught trying to buy from dustmen the office rubbish of the Association for Competitive Technology, a Microsoft-funded industry front group. To demonstrate his apparent belief that all's fair in Love, War and Corporate Public Relations, Ellison challenged Microsoft to investigate his own company in return. "We will ship them our garbage," he joked. "We will ship our garbage to Redmond, and they can go through it. We believe in full disclosure.""

Characteristically Ellison told a Forbes reporter in 1996 that he was about to purchase a T-38 Supersonic jet fighter. "Maybe I should fire a few Maverick missiles in his [Gates'] living room," he joked.

His fixation was apparent when he said ""The only software company we care about a lick ... is Microsoft Oracle is second only to Microsoft in terms of operating margin strength. And while much of Oracle's advertising is focused on its database battle with IBM, Ellison conceded that Microsoft remains his main focus. "The only software company we care about a lick ... is Microsoft," said Ellison, who also fielded questions regarding analysts' and investors' major concerns: executive departures and competition in Oracle's key database market."

In keynote speeches, informal gatherings and private interviews, "the Oracle chief slips easily into long rants on what he sees as Gates' quest to dominate everything Microsoft touches. One favorite Ellison refrain is that Gates wants a world of "Microsoft English." Ellison in recent years has built a public image around pointed attacks on his competitor Microsoft, often singling out its Chairman, rich-man Gates, as a villainous copier of technology with a misguided vision of the computer industry."

Other nice juicy Larry_Speak

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so you've got a lot of examples of Ellison talking about MS. Since I don't know the history of that, would you care to explain the context of each quote? Did Ellison bring up MS, or did someone else? Does MS simply come up out of the blue, or is it on topic for the conversation? Context is always good.

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[Malcontent]

Why not? Isn't MS the only real threat to Oracle? Maybe IBM too but surely it would be a huge mistake not to keep tabs on MS.

Also don't forget the Gates is just as ruthless as ellison if not more so. I think Ellison understands exactly what Gates is capable of and wants to make sure he does not end up on the long list Gates victims.

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[JK Master-Slave]

Goodness gracious.

We don't have to pick and choose between Bill Gates and Larry Ellision.

They can both be scum and the world doesn't explode into loose fragments of self-contradiction.

Hell, people can even admire Gates and revile Ellision if they like. Gates is certainly a nicer person to work for and with.

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

I am trying to figure out, b.t.w., why I keep sticking that extra 'i' in Ellison's name. (yep, had to slow down and conciously omit the 'i' yet again).

(posted anonymously to get the 0 without someone modding it so)

(ummm, Slow Down Cowboy eruptions- why the 'Cowboy' putdown. My first edition copy of 'Running Linux' which is probably the first good Linux book ever published, has a cowboy on the cover, and for a good reason)

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[odin53]

Also don't forget the Gates is just as ruthless as ellison if not more so. I think Ellison understands exactly what Gates is capable of and wants to make sure he does not end up on the long list Gates victims.

Gates may be a ruthless businessman, but I don't get the impression that he's a ruthless person. Of course, I don't know him, so take this with grain of salt, but I can't imagine Bill Gates ever saying "Maybe I should fire a few Maverick missiles in his [Ellison's] living room" or frequently use Larry and Oracle interchangeably -- "Larry divides the world into two things -- the stuff he owns and everything else. And Oracle wants to own everything." That's just vindictive. I think it's telling that Larry is one of the least generous billionaires out there ($ 69 million as of 2002, or 0.4% of his wealth), while Gates is one of the most generous ($25.6 billion as of 2002, or 60% of his wealth).

I get the impression that Larry is a total narcissist and a bad person, concerned with beating everyone and looking good (to the last point, look at his materialism and the way he dresses and puts himself out). He's ruthless like a mobster is ruthless -- kill or be killed, and everyone's a potential killer. Whereas Bill is entirely socially-inept, and runs his business like a game without realizing its real-world effects, but is basically a good guy (nowhere near as materialistic, doesn't really care or even understand fully what people think of him). He's ruthless like a ruthless Monopoly game player -- bend the rules, maybe even cheat, be a poor loser, but it's still just a game.

Put it this way: if Larry were to lose Oracle and all of his money, I think Larry would be plotting someone's death. If Bill Gates were to lose Microsoft and all of his money, I think Bill would just start over and try to do something else.

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[Malcontent]

"but I can't imagine Bill Gates ever saying "Maybe I should fire a few Maverick missiles in his [Ellison's] living room" "

I am not so sure. This is the same company that put out memos using gross terminology like "knife the baby" and "cut off the air supply". This is serial killer talk. I don't know if the terminology originated with gates but he did not raise any objections to it.

"He's ruthless like a ruthless Monopoly game player -- bend the rules, maybe even cheat, be a poor loser, but it's still just a game."

You are making up to be some sort a bafoon. Sure he wants to project that image (and many people have bought it apparently) but I think you are very wrong. Good honest decent people don't lie, cheat, steal, and break the law habitually.

"Put it this way: if Larry were to lose Oracle and all of his money, I think Larry would be plotting someone's death."

That's just bullshit. How did you arrive that bit of anlysis? You have psychic abilities or something.

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[Malcontent]

"Gates is certainly a nicer person to work for and with."

He is a known and habitual backstabber. He has betrayed just about every company he has set up partnerships with. He has stolen technology and customers from strategic parners.

Maybe he treats his employees well and therefore is nice to work for but he betrays the people he works with.

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[odin53]

Look, I'm not really analyzing anything; I'm just giving my impressions of the two based on what I've read or heard about them. Like when you form a first impression, if you will, of someone you've met, although I've never met either of them, so my impressions come solely from the media.

That said...

This is the same company that put out memos using gross terminology like "knife the baby" and "cut off the air supply". This is serial killer talk. I don't know if the terminology originated with gates but he did not raise any objections to it.

First of all, these are corporate memos, not letters from Bill to his grandmother. I believe those quotes came from the various memos (e.g., the Halloween memos) that have been leaked in the past, which were written by employees. I don't think any of them were Gates's terms. You're right, though, he didn't object to them. But those quotes are clearly metaphorical, not literal; there's absolutely no question that a baby and someone's trachea were not being targeted. Larry, on the other hand, was being literal, although he was joking. There's a giant difference. Larry was talking about Bill's HOUSE, not MSFT's offices! He was buying an actual fighter jet that at some point in its history was able to shoot those missiles!! I know it was a joke, but it doesn't come off well when he jokes about real-life things like that. Even you attribute the "knife the baby" quote to Bill, there's absolutely no possible way to say that Bill himself is joking about knifing an actual baby. I just don't interpret the Bill quotes as personally malicious -- they're clearly talking about a company, or open source software in general -- but I do interpret Larry's to be that way.

In other words, I don't get the impression that Bill has ever threatened, joked, or even contemplated hurting a person (e.g., Jim Clark or Linus Torvalds). Larry, on the other hand, has publicly joked about blowing up Bill's house.

You are making up to be some sort a bafoon. Sure he wants to project that image (and many people have bought it apparently) but I think you are very wrong. Good honest decent people don't lie, cheat, steal, and break the law habitually.

I'm not making him out to be some sort of a buffoon. I'm saying that he runs his business like a game -- that is, he's willing to bend and break rules as if the rules aren't all that significant. My impression is that he sees a difference between business rules and life rules. Fair enough, although of course it's all a matter of perspective, and business rules still do have real life effects. He's apparently an extremely tough manager with a volatile management style; he's a perfectionist and a control freak. But I don't get the impression he's that way outside Microsoft. And that's perfectly normal, IMHO. My SO, for example, is known at her company as an extremely tough manager, a perfectionist, a control freak, very, very, very impatient, and, um, loud. But outside of work, with me and her friends and family, she's the sweetest girl in the world (well, she's still somewhat impatient). She just views work differently than her personal life. I know, therefore, she's a good, wonderful person, even though she may have a different reputation at work.

"Put it this way: if Larry were to lose Oracle and all of his money, I think Larry would be plotting someone's death."

That's just bullshit. How did you arrive that bit of anlysis? You have psychic abilities or something.

Like I said, I'm not analyzing anything; I'm just talking about my impressions. Of course I don't have psychic abilities, but I'm sorry if you can't understand how people form impressions of other people based on more than the one or two most obvious factors. I do hope that you're not as simplistic as to think, for example, RMS is a great guy simply because of what he believes in and Bill Gates is a bad guy because of how he runs his business. RMS could be a complete asshole and a really bad p

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[Malcontent]

"But those quotes are clearly metaphorical, not literal; there's absolutely no question that a baby and someone's trachea were not being"

They may be metaphorical but in the entire universe of metaphors top level MS executives chose ones that are gross and violent. As I said this is serial killer talk not normal people talk. I use metaphors all the time but I would never have chosen imagery like that.

It's obvious to me that this kind of talk goes on all the time at MS headquarters.

"Gates could be the nicest guy around, but still run his business ruthlessly"

I could not disagree with you more. The definition of morality does not change when you clock in to work and when you go home. If you are an honest, ethical person then you will behave that way no matter what. I acknowledge that some people have sliding scales of morality or situational ethics but by definition those people are immoral and unethical. Morality is built into your character and shows in all your actions.

Bill Gates is immoral in his business dealings which makes him an immoral person. Ethical people don't spend 8 hours a day screwing people, it just does not work that way.

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[odin53]

They may be metaphorical but in the entire universe of metaphors top level MS executives chose ones that are gross and violent. As I said this is serial killer talk not normal people talk. I use metaphors all the time but I would never have chosen imagery like that.

Fair enough; those metaphors are pretty inappropriate. I've never used them, myself. However, 1) I hear people use similar violent metaphors pretty often; 2) people obviously enjoy playing fake violence or even criminal acts -- see Doom, GTA, etc. -- what do you think of those people? I think it's safe to say those people aren't immoral or evil, and they're PRETENDING they're ACTUALLY KILLING PEOPLE or committing crimes, not using a rhetorical device; 3) people make and watch violent TV shows, violent books, etc. and no one thinks they're immoral or evil; and 4) notwithstanding anything I've just said, I've known many people that enjoy saying gross and inappropriate things just to shock people or make a point, and I don't think they're immoral or evil either. My point in all of this is that you can't condemn someone on the basis of two colorful phrases.

It's obvious to me that this kind of talk goes on all the time at MS headquarters.

Perhaps. But while I may not want to spend a whole lot of time socially with the people that use that kind of talk, I hesitate to judge the PEOPLE as evil simply on their choice of words.

The definition of morality does not change when you clock in to work and when you go home. If you are an honest, ethical person then you will behave that way no matter what. I acknowledge that some people have sliding scales of morality or situational ethics but by definition those people are immoral and unethical. Morality is built into your character and shows in all your actions.

Okay, here is the real crux of your argument. (I seriously hope your arguments above about the choice of phrase wasn't a strong part of your argument.) You seem to think there's a set definition of morality in everything, including business. I won't disagree that there's a universal set of morals that everyone should agree on, but I really have to question the idea that, for example, leveraging your monopoly position in a market is immoral! It's illegal, it's unethical (because it's illegal and general business practice avoids it), but immoral? Whose morals?

I'm not a serious cultural relativist, but I do appreciate that sets of mores easily differ between different contexts, and that sometimes these sets don't perfectly overlap.

Judging from your signature, I would think that you probably believe manufacturers who help design and build bombs or guns or other military goods are immoral. Am I right? Do you think capitalism is immoral? [I suspect you do.]

Gosh, I can think of so many examples of business practices that I suspect you'd think are immoral or unethical, but are certainly not unethical (and I would say certainly not immoral) to most business people.

Here's an example to think about: Are the management at Philip Morris immoral because they continue to contribute to lung cancer? Are the people at Microsoft more or less immoral than Philip Morris people? What universal mores did Philip Morris people break? What laws did Philip Morris people break? What universal mores did Microsoft people break? What laws did Microsoft people break?

Also, I'm quite surprised by your belief that people who have a more fluid idea of morality -- e.g., looking at the context ("situational" morality, as you put it) -- are themselves immoral and unethical!! What about the father who steals a loaf of bread for his children: is he immoral? Is he unethical? If I believe he wasn't immoral, am I immoral? What if I thought it wasn't immoral, but unethical? Can that dichotomy even exist in your world?

Not to beat a dead horse (gasp, what a violent metaphor! I must be immoral!), but what about "environmental terrorists"? Are they immoral for causing such

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[Malcontent]

" My point in all of this is that you can't condemn someone on the basis of two colorful phrases."

I am not. These two phrases don't stand alone. They are taken in context with a world of words and actions from the same top level execs at MS.

"I hesitate to judge the PEOPLE as evil simply on their choice of words. "

First of all it'e perfectly OK to judge people by what they say. You are judging Ellison by what he says aren't you? Secondly I am not "simply" judging them by what they say I am aslo judging them by what they do.

" for example, leveraging your monopoly position in a market is immoral! It's illegal, it's unethical (because it's illegal and general business practice avoids it), but immoral? Whose morals?"

Wow what an odd statement. First of all Bill Gates has done much worse then things then leveraging his monopoly. He has also stolen technology from his partners, he has reneged on contracts, he has stolen customers from his partners, he has lied repeatedly and backstabbed just about everybody he partnered up with.

Secondly yes being unethical and breaking the law is immoral. Whose morals? Well just about anybodies. Did your mother tell you it was OK to be unethical? Did your mother tell you to break the law in order to make money? What moral system approves of unethical and illegal behavior. I can only think of one structure of thought that has no problem with unethical and illegal behaviour and that is satanism.

"Judging from your signature, I would think that you probably believe manufacturers who help design and build bombs or guns or other military goods are immoral. Am I right? Do you think capitalism is immoral? [I suspect you do.]"

I believe that everybody in the chain of an immoral act bears some responsiblity no matter how small. I as a taxpayer bear a minute percentage of responsiblity for the bombs that fall on innocent children in afghanistan. There are others that bear more responsiblity with the brunt of it being borne by the pilot who released the bomb. My signature refers to our obsession and love affair with war. The US is unable to go 10 years without declaring war on somebody or another. It's necrophelia love of death, love of corpses. We revere war, we revere warriors.

As for capitalism I do think it's immoral in the christian sense. Christianity (as thought by christ) and Capitalism are mutually exclusive. Love of money is the root of all evil and capitalism is based on love of money. It is harder for a rich man to get to heaven then for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Capitalism is based on the deadly sins. Where would capitalism be without Greed, gluttony, covetousness, pride, sloth, lust etc?

"What universal mores did Microsoft people break? What laws did Microsoft people break?"

Lying, cheating, stealing to start with. Are you aware that there was a trial and that MS was found guilty?

"Also, I'm quite surprised by your belief that people who have a more fluid idea of morality -- e.g., looking at the context ("situational" morality, as you put it) -- are themselves immoral and unethical!!"

I never said such a thing.

"but what about "environmental terrorists"? Are they immoral for causing such destruction in the name of protecting the environment? Are they unethical?"

If they caused destruction then yes they were immoral. Why is that so hard to understand for you? If you kill people, destroy other peoples property, lie, cheat, steal etc you are immoral. In most cases you are also a criminal and deserve to be punished according to the law. If you are an environmentalist and you destroy a logging truck then you should be tried for vandalism and be fined or jailed. Why is that concept so foreign to you?

"Is he immoral in all his business dealings?"

No. Does he have to be? Is it OK for him to be immoral in 90% of his business dealings? Is it OK to be 10% immoral? He is immoral in a lot of his business dealings.

"But I seriously don't th

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[odin53]

You are judging Ellison by what he says aren't you?

I'm not judging him like you are. I'm saying he's an asshole, not that he's evil.

Wow what an odd statement. First of all Bill Gates has done much worse then things then leveraging his monopoly. He has also stolen technology from his partners, he has reneged on contracts, he has stolen customers from his partners, he has lied repeatedly and backstabbed just about everybody he partnered up with.

I frankly don't know enough about what else Bill Gates has done, but I do know what I've heard about. He has been extremely aggressive in competing with others, sure. Microsoft has broken some laws, too, yes. But I haven't heard anything about outright stealing technology; Microsoft has certainly copied (i.e., imitated) others, rather than completely innovating, but that's not necessarily illegal or immoral. (Is OpenOffice immoral? It's practically a copy of MS Office. Is FreeDOS immoral? It's MEANT to be a copy of MS-DOS.) Microsoft has simply acquired companies rather than building their own technology -- also not illegal, even if it's not that respectable. I've never heard that they've reneged on contracts, but there's ALWAYS two sides to that kind of story. "Stealing" customers is also that kind of two-sided story. Indeed, all businesses are in the business of "stealing" customers from other businesses --that's called competition. Lying is bad, yes, I won't argue with that. But yet again, many times it's a perspective thing -- as is "backstabbing." Give me more information, and then I can make a proper judgment.

Secondly yes being unethical and breaking the law is immoral. Whose morals? Well just about anybodies. Did your mother tell you it was OK to be unethical? Did your mother tell you to break the law in order to make money? What moral system approves of unethical and illegal behavior. I can only think of one structure of thought that has no problem with unethical and illegal behaviour and that is satanism.

Do you think every law is proper? Are there no laws that are wrong in themselves? Would breaking those wrong laws be unethical and immoral? Why do laws change, if they're always right? Were the people who dodged the draft in protest of Vietnam unethical? Immoral? Is it unethical to buy Cuban cigars? Immoral?

How about this: are people who smoke pot unethical? Immoral? Are the people that passed the anti-drug laws unethical? Immoral? Are homosexuals who live in states with sodomy laws unethical? Immoral? Are politicians who want to ban same-sex marriage unethical? Immoral? Is it unethical to buy prescription drugs in Canada? Immoral? Is it unethical to try to prevent Americans from buying such drugs? Immoral?

Why is it so hard for you to see the complexity? Do you not see the difference between a law and a more?

"What universal mores did Microsoft people break? What laws did Microsoft people break?"

Lying, cheating, stealing to start with. Are you aware that there was a trial and that MS was found guilty?

I certainly know that Microsoft was found guilty of violating the antitrust laws, which is not the same as "lying, cheating, and stealing". Oddly enough, as a matter of fact, "lying, cheating and stealing" don't appear in the Sherman Act or the Clayton Act. Apparently you have no idea what their violation was and what it meant. A company can certainly violate the antitrust laws without lying, cheating or stealing. But I'm not really arguing that they didn't do those things and I certainly didn't ask those questions to show that Microsoft didn't do those things -- I asked those questions in order to contrast against Philip Morris's own violations of mores and laws, in order to show that there's complexity in the issues.

If they caused destruction then yes they were immoral. Why is that so hard to understand for you? If you kill people, destroy other peoples property, lie, cheat, steal etc you are immoral. In

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[Moofie]

Nitpick:

The T-38 cannot carry missiles without extensive refitting. T means Trainer. It is never armed.

Now, the Northrop F-5 Tiger shares most of the airframe and some powerplant options with the T-38, and it can be fitted with radar and weaponry. I don't know, however, if it has ever been fitted with Air to Ground Missiles (like the Maverick).

Anyhow. Moving along. : )

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[Malcontent]

"Microsoft has broken some laws, too, yes."

Why is that OK with you? Why is somebody who breaks laws a better person then somebody who did not break laws? You judge ellison harshly even though he has never been charged with a crime and you want to give Bill gates a pass even though he has been convicted.

"But I haven't heard anything about outright stealing technology;"

In that case you have your head buried in the sand. Sendo, Priceline , and Stac are just a few of the victims of theft of Intellectual property by MS. I am not talking about copying applications here I am talking about out and out stealing of technology and breaking contracts. Here is a quote from one of the articles I linked to.
During one of those meetings, Priceline said Microsoft CEO Bill Gates told Priceline founder Jay Walker that he wasn't going to let patent infringement claims stand in his way.

According to a Priceline press release announcing the suit, "Mr. Gates went on to say that many other companies were suing Microsoft for patent infringement and that priceline.com could, in effect, get in line."

Further down the article.
This is not the first time a company has claimed that Microsoft stole its technology after meeting to discuss a business relationship.

In December 1998, Goldtouch Technologies sued the software giant, saying Microsoft illegally copied its design for an ergonomic mouse after the two companies had discussed the product.

Other companies who've sued Microsoft for patent infringement include Eolas Technologies, which claimed earlier this year that the Redmond, Wash., giant infringed upon a plug-in patent. And in 1994, a jury ordered Microsoft to settle with Stac Electronics Inc. for violating a data-compression patent.

MS has a history of sleazy behavior like this.

"Give me more information, and then I can make a proper judgment."

I have provided you with a few links, google can provide much more.

"But I'm not really arguing that they didn't do those things"

Why not? If they did lie, cheat and steal is it OK with you? Is that moral? If I could prove to you that MS lied cheated and stole would you agree with me that they are immoral? My guess is that you don't think there is anything wrong with lying, cheating and stealing as long it's done in the name of making money.

"I asked those questions in order to contrast against Philip Morris's own violations of mores and laws, in order to show that there's complexity in the issues."

It's not that complex. Both Phillip Morris and MS are immoral companies doing immoral things. You can argue about the degree of immorality but that's a hollow argument. that's like saying one mass murderer is less immoral then another one because he killed less people.

"But are they being immoral? What are they being immoral about? Destroying other people's things? I guess in itself that's immoral."

Yes they are being immoral. Yes destroying other people's property is immoral and illegal.

"But are you trying to say there's absolutely no justification for such things? There's never a time when destroying somebody else's things is NOT immoral?"

I never said and I'd appreciate it if you did not put words into my mouth. There may very well be circumstances when it's OK to destroy other people's property. You keep trying to muddy up the issue by throwing up these stupid straw man arguments but I am not going to bite.

"Why is it so hard for you to believe that morality and ethics are a complicated issue? Countless people have struggled with these issues for thousands of years because it's so complicated, yet you seem to think it's black and white.'

It's not hard for me to believe th

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[odin53]

"Microsoft has broken some laws, too, yes."

Why is that OK with you? Why is somebody who breaks laws a better person then somebody who did not break laws? You judge ellison harshly even though he has never been charged with a crime and you want to give Bill gates a pass even though he has been convicted.


It's not OK with me that they've broken laws. We started out talking about Bill Gates the person, and I'm talking about whether he's an asshole or not. "He" has not been convicted; Microsoft has. There's a difference. The reason why I keep harping on the difference between breaking a law and morality is that there IS a difference, and one can be a perfectly nice, even moral, person but still break a law.

I have provided you with a few links, google can provide much more.

Thank you for the links. The only one, though, that I put any weight on is the Stac case -- it went through litigation and MSFT got in trouble. The others all talk about companies who have CLAIMED that MSFT has infringed technology and have sued. Does that mean MSFT actually stole technology? No. MSFT has an enormous number of products and is involved in a lot of different product lines. And MSFT is a very large, deep pocketed target. And copyright and patent infringement is a messy issue -- I hope you understand that, since most /.'ers understand that very well. (I find it ironic that you pointed at Priceline's patent infringement claim against Expedia -- most /.'ers HATE business method patents, and that's what Priceline was suing about. Seems kind of silly to claim that Priceline "owns" the process of "charg[ing] consumers automatically once a hotel room meets their conditions", and thus even sillier to claim that Microsoft, er, Bill Gates is a horrible horrible person for thinking that he couldn't develop technology to do that.)

If I could prove to you that MS lied cheated and stole would you agree with me that they are immoral?

Yes, I would (well, not "MS" of course but the people who did it and the people who have responsibility for it). Except that if you use examples like violating business method patents or even examples of copyright infringement, only one of which resulted in a spanking, I'm not going to agree very easily.

In many cases it's very difficult to judge the morality of an act especially given historical perspective.

You said previously: "I acknowledge that some people have sliding scales of morality or situational ethics but by definition those people are immoral and unethical." What you just said sounds contradictory.

Your beliefs contradict reality. There is ample evidence including his own words and emails that indicate that we was trying to screw over specific people and retaliate against specific people. It's all a part of public evidence.

OK -- I wholeheartedly admit my ignorance, and I'm very interested to know: Who, specifically? What specifically was he trying to do? And most importantly, was it adjudged as true? Quotes from The Register absolutely do not count as "proof" btw -- Ideally, I'm looking for the evidence that a jury decided was true as the finders of fact in a trial.

You remember the video tape incident don't you?

I do, but I don't remember the aftermath -- what happened to that?

Really? There were a couple of executives that were threatened financially and warned not to testify against MS. Why do you think the intimidation has to be physical? Why would gates hit somebody when he could ruin them financially?

What executives? MSFT executives? What kind of "financial threat" was it? Who was threatening it?

The intimidation doesn't necessarily have to be physical, but the reason why I said that is that the intimidation, for it to work, has to be real, immediate and credible. Physical intimidation is usually very easy to do with credibility. Other kinds of intimidation -- l

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[drsmithy]

I am not so sure. This is the same company that put out memos using gross terminology like "knife the baby" and "cut off the air supply". This is serial killer talk. I don't know if the terminology originated with gates but he did not raise any objections to it.

Haven't sat in many board meetings I take it ?

Shit, most people I know use more colourful metaphors at the pub and don't find any of them particularly scary.

"I'd hit it", "I'd nail it" and "I'd bang her" are pretty common metaphors for sex. Do you consider everyone who uses them to be engaging in "serial killer talk" ?

Good honest decent people don't lie, cheat, steal, and break the law habitually.

Of course they do, every day. Pretending to like someone they don't at the office. Telling people they're having a great day when it's really terrible. Answering "good" to "how are you" when they've got a killer hangover. Crossing the road illegally. Speeding. Downloading music off the 'net. Everyone does it.

I'd bet money nearly everyone in the world rarely goes more than a day without lying at least once and breaking at least one law.

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[Malcontent]

"We started out talking about Bill Gates the person, and I'm talking about whether he's an asshole or not. "He" has not been convicted; Microsoft has."

That is a cop out. MS is not a person. MS is a corporation run by bill gates. If MS commits a crime it didn't do it by using it's non corporal body. It did it by using the words and actions of it's top level management which is headed by Bill Gates. Bill gates is absolutely responsible for all crimes committed by MS.

" The reason why I keep harping on the difference between breaking a law and morality is that there IS a difference, and one can be a perfectly nice, even moral, person but still break a law."

You are right in the abstract case. Of course I could be a nice person and break some law regarding jaywalking or something. But you seem to think that just because you can think of a situation in which a nice person can break the law that means that Bill gates is a nice person. That's a false sylogism. Concentrate on the facts regarding Bill gates and his actions. What he did was wrong, immoral and illegal. Just because it's possible for a nice person to break the law that does not mean Bill Gates is a nice person.

"Thank you for the links. The only one, though, that I put any weight on is the Stac case"

In that case you need to keep reading. You are wilfully keeping yourself ignorant of the situation. ATT, Apple, Borland, Sendo, Eolas, IBM, SAP and a whole slew of other companies have filed suits and settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars with MS. Maybe if it was just one company you can chalk it up to some sort of a fluke but this is unprecedented.

Look at the actual words spoken by Bill gates himself. He himself acknowledged that he was treading on somebody elses patent and shrugged it off by saying "sue me!". If that is not the behavior of an asshole jerk I don't know what is.

"Yes, I would (well, not "MS" of course but the people who did it and the people who have responsibility for it). Except that if you use examples like violating business method patents or even examples of copyright infringement, only one of which resulted in a spanking, I'm not going to agree very easily."

Well then the stac case ought to be enough right? Or is your position that it's OK to steal just once? How about the quicktime suit? How about the Eolas suit if you recall eolas won that suit and now it's in the appeals process. How about the settlement with borland and Corel. How about AT&Ts suit for speech recognition technology that MS stole. The Sendo case is pretty telling too why don't you read about that one for a while. The list goes on and on. Just do some research.

"Who, specifically?"

Do I really have to do your research for you? Just do a google search. You will see that CEOs of major retailers like gateway and Compaq were threatened that the price of windows would go up for them if they testified against MS.

"Ideally, I'm looking for the evidence that a jury decided was true as the finders of fact in a trial."

It's a part of the trial record. It was brought out in testimony under oath. The justice dept never followed up and charged MS with witness tampering though.

"I do, but I don't remember the aftermath -- what happened to that?"

Nothing. Like I said the justice dept decided not to go after MS for evidence tampering, witness tampering or perjury even though they had a rock solid case for all three. The perjury case was obvious as Bill gates clearly lied under oath, MS admitted that they tampered with the video tape and the fact that they tried to intimidate witnesses came out under cross examination.

"You're right, I don't, and I appreciate the links. But you have to understand that I don't think you have all the facts, either, or at least are discounting EVERY Microsoft/Gates fact even when not all facts should fairly be discounted."

Nobody has all the facts. Nobody can have all the facts. I have more facts then you. I have lots of facts that paint a picture of an immoral sleazy man who runs a immoral sleazy company which will repeatedly lie, cheat and steal in order to make more money. There can be no disputing that. The evidence is all over the place.

Re:Ellsion Was defined by Negative Space of Gates

[revscat]

I wish I had time to reply to more of your message, but I'm at work and busy today. But I did want to respond to this:

How about this: are people who smoke pot unethical? Immoral?

Yes. And no. There are two separate issues to consider: the act of smoking pot, and the breaking of the law. The breaking of the law is immoral, while the pot smoking is not. Whether it is a justifiable action depends upon how much emphasis you place upon obeying the law.

I personally do not think that a prohibition on smoking pot is a justified cause of lawbreaking, but then again I occasionally smoke out.

Try thinking long term.

[AltGrendel]

Ok, if he has all the power, what happens when he dies? Has he properly trained anyone to take the reigns? (no) Is there anyone in the top tier that could effectively step in if something happend? (apparently not) If he's getting ready to shoot himself in the foot, is there anyone there he'd listen to with out getting angry and fireing them for saying "Hey, that may not be a good idea"? (doesn't seem to be).

As long as he's alive, Oracle will "do ok", but once he's out of the picture for any reason, it turns into a house of cards.

Re:Try thinking long term.

[Dastardly]

And, for a detailed analysis of why Oracle will be unable to sustain its results see this book:


Good to Great

And, this excerpt here:

Excerpt

Do i understand you correctly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying it was ugly for Fortran? That's like saying something is dense compared to a neutron star. It probably doesn't make sense, and if it turns out it did, it's still so far at one end of the spectrum it's not useful.

Ellison and Jobs

[wazzzup]

Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs are reportedly good friends - Ellison even serves on Apple' board.

My question is, when they're in the same room together, does the air begin to smell like shit? Because these have got be be two of the biggest assholes around.

I don't even want to know what would happen if Ellison, Jobs and Ballmer got together in the same room.

Re:Ellison and Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Ballmer's just a big cock so you do the math.

Re: Ellison and Jobs

[UrgleHoth]

Would Ballmer add the smell of sweat to the room?

Re:Ellison and Jobs

[JK Master-Slave]

They're probably 'good friends' in the same way that rival 'beauty queens' can be 'good friends' at a pagent.

I wonder if Ellison buys coke from Jobs?

Re:Ellison and Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

No he's not. He was for a time but resigned at least a year ago. http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/bod.html

Saw Ellison Speak

[love2hateMS]

He is worse in person than portrayed here. Arrogant, smug, obnoxious, unrepentant.

Took plenty of digs at Microsoft. One could argue they are both evil, but I suspect Larry is not so much against Bill Gates as jealous of him. Imagine Larry with Bill's monopoly...

If I wasn't an "Oracle Certified Professional" I'd probably badmouth his RDBMS as well... but I need to protect my marketability.

Larry isn't a narcissist

[dmuth]

I'm not a shrink, but I've dealt with a couple of narcissists in my time. The big thing with narcissists is that they go around with this big chip on their shoulder, thinking that they are perfect and better than everyone else. It's so severe that they are unable to form many friendships or do much of ANYTHING, since their personality is so abrasive that it alienates most people who come into contact with them. (Lots of good info on narcissism is available at the Malignant Self Love website)

Like I said, I'm not a shrink, so I don't know what Larry's particular dysfunction may be, but I don't think it's narcissism.

Sorry if I sound like I'm nitpicking. :-)

Re:Larry isn't a narcissist

[Anonymous Coward]

He sounds like a sociopath.

All this talk of Ellison success and MS fixation

[bloxnet]

Everything else aside, especially considering this utter obession with Gates and Microsoft....was anyone else thinking that Oracle should maybe start producing their own Linux distro?

Acquire and back Redhat more? Branch off on their own distro? There are many possible routes.

I mean it seems that the one person who is completely crazed with "beating" Microsoft would be willing to put the kind of money and other resources into Linux that most open source fans cannot even imagine.... just a thought.

Open Source Oracle

[randall_burns]

The real way to handle the Larry Ellison problem is to produce Open Source versions of key Oracle products. Postgresql and MySQL are good steps in that direction. The key though to Open Sourcing the Oracle database engine though is creating enough compatibility that folks that have developed in-house products using Oracle can easily port their products to an open source platform. That means a high level of compatibility in the area of interfaces(i.e. OCI) and SQL language variant.

I personally think that Oracle is much more vulnerable to an Open Source attack than is Microsoft. A lot of pro-Oracle managers justify their support based on benchmarks. As Open Source database offerings surpass Oracle in those key areas, we'll see the case for Oracle dramatically weakened. We have already seen that open source companies like JBOSS are beating Oracle in key markets.

now it all makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Larry Ellison is the YOU FAIL IT guy!

If Ellison is Vader...

[Anonymous Coward]

then Scott McNealy is Captain Ahab - the man who, despite the fact that his company has been hemmoraging for several quarters now, continues selling ridiculously priced hardware, not to mention $300 CD-RW's. Yes, I have respect for Solaris as an OS. But the hardware pricing makes it almost unbearable.

This sounds a lot like PTC

[sharrestom]

I wonder if PTC got its business model from Oracle. Pro/engineer is a great product, but, I don't have any fond recollection of purchasing the product via their sales force.

anonymous Oracle Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

For fear of backlash, I will remain nameless. But, being an Oracle employee, I can totally agree with all of this. I have no sympathy or respect for a multi-multi billionaire that refuses to give his employees raises since the year 2000!

signed,
Ashamed Oracle Employee

Re:anonymous Oracle Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like the money you are being paid, why don't you quit?

Re:anonymous Oracle Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the IT job market sucks in California!

Re:anonymous Oracle Coward

[jahndm]

The flip side of that is that Oracle made a commitment to not layoff people during the recent economy downturn. Now, people were laid off (mostly sales, external/internal support), but hardly any developers.

As an Oracle developer, it is comforting to know that I have job security so instead of updating my resume and looking for another job I can keep working and writing code.

And by raises you're only talking about promotion/salary increases. We've had cost of living increases yearly (maybe they don't cover inflation but at least it helps). We've even had bonuses and promotions -- yes, much less than before but they are still given out.

Oracle has been a great employer as far as I'm concerned.

Re:anonymous Oracle Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry, no one in my org has received any kind of "cost of living" increases or salary increases. As far as layoffs, how do you explain many of the Oracle jobs being outsourced to India? They are moving jobs to India to save Mr. Larry money and putting us hard-working employees out of work!

Re:All this talk of Ellison success and MS fixatio

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Bill and Larry are more close to each other than we think? 'Competition'

ObBeSharps

[sharkey]

Larry habitually compared himself to God.

Bart: "What did you do, screw up like the Beatles and say you were bigger than Jesus?"
Larry: "All the time! It was the title of our 11th RDBMS: *Oracle 11 - Bigger and More Unbreakable Than Jesus*"

Re:ObBeSharps

[kurosawdust]

Jesus was unbreakable? Shit, now my Black Comb religion is going to lose the only two members we have left!

reminds me of an old Kill Crazy "article"....

[Anonymous Coward]

To Live and Suck in Silly Con Valley

Great stuff.

Not the first larry ellison book...

[MadAnthony02]

There was one a few years ago called "The difference between God and Larry Ellison

The difference, of course, being that God doesn't think he's larry ellison.

Amazon link

NVIDIA = Oracle

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, maybe not. But the culture of arrogance, the false version of "intellectual honesty"--which amounts to "treat everyone like shit, and only speak if it's to bitch and nitpick"--and the atmosphere of unnamed dread that exists there now puts it in the same barrel. Headed over the waterfall.

Thank you, Hallmark.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'm going to be ill.

The Mutant Theory of Leadership

[serutan]

Based on the review, I would say this book illustrates my theory that many people we think of as "great" are actually aberrant personalities, driven by abnormal extremes of ambition, greed, insecurity, resentment, etc. Whether we shower them with riches or hunt them down and kill them depends mostly on whether their behavior happens to produce side effects that we like.
A Larry Ellison and a Saddam Husseins aren't fundamentally very far apart.

Re:The Mutant Theory of Leadership

[27B-6]

I find this to be a rather interesting point. Is it only because he was raised in a society that values money as much (if not more) than power that prevents him from becoming an actual dictator? Is there something innate in American society and/or government that mitigates against such a scenario? Or are have we been (mostly) lucky so far?

Was becoming a billionare businessman an option for Saddam Hussein? If yes, then why not go that route?

Just wondering.

Re:The Mutant Theory of Leadership

[BitchKapoor]

Was becoming a billionare businessman an option for Saddam Hussein? If yes, then why not go that route?

No, not really. Not at all. He was unfortunately outcast since he was a child, especially by his uncle. After getting out of jail, he joined the Ba'ath party as a hired hitman to take out the then-president of Iraq, and took it from there, reveling in and hyping up his brutality. His own military plans have generally been crude and unsuccessful, what has kept him in power is his eager willingness to kill any subordinate who doesn't follow his orders and tow his line.

Re:The Mutant Theory of Leadership

[Doc Ruby]

Some, like Sun Tzu, might say that Hussein was the top businessman in Iraq, trading in that country's currency of death, and staying at the top of his staff at any cost. Other war/biz phrases come to mind, like "only the paranoid survive", "hostile takeover", "live by the sword, die by the sword".

commenting about other people

[Anonymous Coward]

Always funny to read comments based on what you see on tv, read in the press, on what you read in the book based on a one sided (bad experiences only) view.
yet everyone seems to know larry now.
you know what
he is one darned smart person and if he wasn't in control as he is, the company wouldn't be where it is today. He still owns 25% of the entire thing, that gives him a big right to run the shop as he wants it. it seems to work. go larry.

Re:SUCCESS

[Anonymous Coward]

a smahe this was modded off-topic, as it was both on-topic and somewhat clever.

it is a shame as 'trolls'/'off-topics' are significantly more interesting and thought-provoking the typical /. comment chain becomes... usually resulting in "unfair trade, tax China/India/any other country that can do my job as well and cheaper, tech rules though i jumped on the .com bandwagon despite having low skills and little willingness toadapt, i expect it on a plate".

Oracle Pay and Conditions are Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

In five years I haven't had a pay increase or promotion. Forget options: I've heard of them but never seen them. Anyway they are worth nothing really by the time you pay tax (from the few who'll admit to them). A few hundred a year extra is what my calculations come to.

I've trained my replacement in India twice and had to find a new position. I'm training my third at the moment and looking for a place outside of Oracle.

The funny thing is each time you train someone it still takes them 6 to 12 months to really understand the issues.

I've taken it up arse so many times I think I must be gay.

Re:Oracle Pay and Conditions are Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel your pain!!!! At least Larry could be nice enough to give us a reach-around when he screws us all.

What's the difference between God & Larry Elli

[SamuraiiProgrammer]

God doesn't have delusions of being Larry Ellison.

Why do people care?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny reading this thread with people saying this and that about Larry Ellison and Bill Gates.

Neither of these people care about your $10 an hour loser ass at all. Why waste so much energy worrying about how they're perceived? Why spend your HARD EARNED on a book about some asshole billionairre that probably makes more in a week than you'll see in your lifetime. These people should not be idolized, they should be sent to mental homes.

It DOES look like where Darth Vader lives

[Animats]

You haven't seen the two.

Microsoft HQ is a rather bland industrial park.

Oracle HQ is a set of large cylindrical glass towers with "ORACLE" in giant illuminated letters on top. It's located in an open area, with no other large buildings nearby, clearly visible from a major freeway and facing a huge reflecting pool. It looks like the HQ of a Bond villain. By intent.

Re:It DOES look like where Darth Vader lives

[Animats]

Then there's Ellison's new house in Woodside, which is supposedly going to end up costing around $140 million. He's trying to outspend Gates. Building has been going on since 1999, and it's supposed to be finished Real Soon Now.

no..

[Anonymous Coward]

A strong leader can stand to be wrong

more reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

This site has more reviews for this book.