Slashdot Mirror
The Comedy of Scott McNealy
Rob writes "News that Sun co-founder and long-serving CEO, Scott McNealy is stepping aside, heaps a
load of pressure on incoming CEO Jonathan Schwartz - he will have to get working on his
anti-Microsoft gags quick-sharp. Aside from Sun's strategy and his execution of it,
McNealy's tenure as CEO will be remembered for his constant Microsoft sniping. CBR
remembers some of his favourite quotes."
maybe he should have spent less time thinking up of MS jokes and more time running his company, last time I checked, MS is getting bigger and bigger while Sun is heading towards of black hole.
While the constant MS bashing was interesting, I think it worked against Sun, and not for it. It sent the message "Buy Sun if you hate Microsoft." Like it or not, hating MSFT isn't a great way to run a billion dollar business.
Do I get more rich and more happy just because I hate MSFT? No. I get more rich and more happy by making better choices that ingore (or include) MSFT as warrented.
Red Hat gets this. McNealy should have sent the message "Buy Sun to solve problems X and Y and Z. That will put more money in your pocket and make you happier." Unless the Schwartz gets this, Sun will continue it's relative decline.
New definition of 'open source', accidental leak, or does the person not have a clue what they are talking about?
Why exactly are we fondly remembering this guy? Everyone seems to be forgetting that one of his more notorious quotes was, "Privacy is dead; get over it." Rather than try to fix privacy problems, McNealy argued that we should just accept it, move on, and embrace the new privacy-less future (especially if it involves systems powered by Sun hardware).
Don't forget that in the wake of September 11th, both him and Ellison were ponying up to offer their company's services in helping to create a national ID. He even calls lining up at airport security an "efficiency tax" that biometric IDs would somehow maaaaagically fix.
I say good riddance.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Whether it is Microsoft or even the Devil himself, spending the majority of your speeches and company focus on fighting another company instead of bolstering your own company and strenghtening your own products is a bad business model.
You don't see Burger King announce a new burger and tell you that it is ok and the best feature it didn't come from McDonalds...
Maybe if he would have had the same obsession for this company that he did Microsoft, Sun might be stronger on the desktop and not losing server marketshare.
Your points are valid and would carry a lot more weight if you didn't start out with a stupendously dumb statement like, "There is no money in Java".
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
You state that hardware is more reliable than software because hardware is non-algorithmic and synchronous. This does not seem to be correct.
Hardware is typically more reliable than software for the following reasons:
1) Patching hardware is very difficult and expensive, so they get it right the first time. Patching software is cheap and easy, so they don't worry as much.
2) Harwdare does have errors, have you ever looked at the errata sheets for CPU's?
3) Hardware typically has a more limited set of functions than software, software combines those limited functions into increasingly large sequences resulting in a much larger state space, which in turn requires more testing.
You state that the brain is reliable because it is signal based and synchronous. This is not the reason the brain is reliable (the brain is asynchronous, not synchronous). The brain is reliable because it employs a mathematical model that matches input to closest previous match from experience. It will always choose an output, although the output will only be as good as experience and training.
It was difficult on that page to see a concrete argument showing how a UBM improves reliability, other than the stated analogies. If I have missed a key point as to why a UBM has advantages, I would be interested in knowing what those reasons are.
Of course it hasn't been put into practice. If it had, been he might have realized by now that it's all BS. The entire idea is based on an unsound premise.
It is every bit as easy to write buggy hardware as it is to write buggy software. We don't notice it as much because hardware companies do a better job of testing their products before shipping because (a) it is a lot harder to fix them after the fact and (b) it is far easier to return faulty hardware to the store than buggy software, so they are more likely to lose money if they release a product that has not been thouroughly tested.
The solution to developing software that has less bugs in it is not any new, revolutionary way of developing software, but rather to raise the expectations of consumers regarding software performance, and thus the willingness of companies that write software to make sure it gets done right. Unfortunately, I think it may be too late for that battle to be won.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?