Slashdot Mirror


Former Valve Hardware Designer Recounts Management Difficulties

DavidGilbert99 writes "Jeri Ellsworth has opened up about her time at games developer Valve and has hit out strongly at the so-called flatpack management structure. She says that despite Valve's claims of a democratic structure, there is a layer of powerful management in place and when she was fired she felt like she had been stabbed in the back. 'If I sound bitter, it's because I am. I am really, really bitter. They promised me the world and then stabbed me in the back.'" Develop Online has a good transcript. In the end, Gabe Newell at least let her team keep the rights to their augmented reality hardware. She also notes that she still loves Valve, but the management and bonus structure resulted in communication breakdowns at Valve's size. It does seem that a flat structure can work: Andy Wingo has been weblogging about working at Igalia and seems pretty positive about the experience.

224 comments

  1. Flat structures never, ever happen by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The standard text is The Tyranny Of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman.

    tl;dr: if a visible hierarchy isn't allowed, an invisible one will form and bite you in the ass.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
    1. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Arrepiadd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I haven't had the time to read the text you post, I'll try to do it later on tonight. So, this may be a bit off, I'm posting this based on your tl;dr.

      W. L. Gore and Associates (the company responsible for Gore-Tex) can be used as a counter-example to what you/Jo say. There are no bosses (everyone is an associate) and people work in small teams. No one bites others in the ass. And the company, while not the biggest in the world or whatever, works fine and people in it seem to be happy.

      One key element seems to be the size of each of its campuses. They limit them to 150 people. More than that and what you mention starts happening. A de facto hierarchy arises and bickering ensues. But below these numbers (and this seems to be corroborated by other sources) people work as in a small community/village and peer pressure keeps everyone working nicely. Above 150 people clustering of people occurs and, while peer pressure still occurs within these groups, the problems still occur in between groups.

      So, perhaps flat structures do happen, but only in small groups because "friends" take care of their friends, but employees don't necessarily take care of other employees (especially when the employee he's supposed to take care of is his nasty boss).

    2. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if a visible hierarchy isn't allowed, an invisible one will form and bite you in the ass.

      ...and it will form around the worst, most manipulative personality types... which also happen to be the worst leaders.

    3. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by readingaccount · · Score: 4, Insightful

      by Jo Freeman

      Thought that was worth highlighting.

    4. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Friends take care of their friends", is the exact secret hierarchy that is being described. I bet everyone here has been in a social situation where a small group of people are so inbred with each other that it gives them power over the whole group. The same way the popular kids at school gain social power. If a group is bigger than 1 then a social hierarchy will form, it doesn't matter if its just "I'm the leader" or a group of assholes with massive egos who think the world revolves around them forms. That is how society works and whenever we try to change that, one of those people steps up to try and ruin it because it has no clear leadership to keep them in check.

    5. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Cenan · · Score: 1

      Why is that relevant?

      --
      ... whatever ...
    6. Re: Flat structures never, ever happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Freeman

    7. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Valve. Freeman. It's like someone working for ID named "Blazkowicz".

    8. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by umghhh · · Score: 1

      What you described is a structured society. How then can it be structureless??? OT:if you had no time then maybe you should wait till you do?

    9. Re: Flat structures never, ever happen by Cenan · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I didn't know that. I only played the original Half Life in multiplayer.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    10. Re: Flat structures never, ever happen by readingaccount · · Score: 5, Funny

      I only played the original Half Life in multiplayer.

      You disgust me.

    11. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by umghhh · · Score: 1
      I disagree slightly with the conclusions of linked article and your later comment but only in 'and bite you in the ass' part because this outcome is not always there.

      Societies or social groups evolve and by nature of things you will always have informal as well as formal structures. Whether they are effective and good for people outside the 'elite' is hugely a function not only of this 'elite' but also of other ones (if groups is big enough to have many) as well as what other people i.e. not member of 'elite' say and do. It also depends on what task at hand there is and how fast you have to act. There are situations where informal control group is good for the rest and some where that is not the case. I admit however that the usual outcome is not very efficient and usually it is quite frustrating if working group is prevented from choosing the official leader etc only to fit it into some nice theory. Reminds me of environment I work - still it is not necessarily what is going to happen. As a side note - such working groups as described and discussed here do not exist on their own - there is usually some upper layer that pays the bills and orders the stuff to be done. If they have brains the may chose to prime the structurless brew with some trigger points so that the informal structures form. This is important if you have bigger group of people to be working together. Waiting for informal structures to form themselves or even actively discouraging them is not very productive.

    12. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It can work, but in my experience, two things determine whether it's possible: Group size and what kind of people you deal with.

      Group size is WAY smaller than 150. IMO, I'd say closer to 6-10 people. Anything bigger and invariably sub-groups will form. And second you need people who want to work in a team, whose focus is the project and not their own agenda.

      Since such people are quite rare, assembling a group of more than 6 to 10 of them is a feat by itself...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      I agree structurelessness is problematic, but there are structures that work which are less hierarchical than traditional boss-and-subordinates tree-styled management structures. A common feature of Scandinavian workplaces, for example, is a set of committees with precisely specified areas of competence. It is relatively non-hierarchical but very structured and transparent: rather than informal cliques taking on different roles, formal committees with procedures take them on. Overall it works pretty well.

    14. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Half Life 3 confirmed!

    15. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by ATMAvatar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That doesn't sound significantly different than traditional hierarchies. Just look at most politicians and CEOs.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    16. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by JDG1980 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      tl;dr: if a visible hierarchy isn't allowed, an invisible one will form and bite you in the ass.

      Wikipedia is a perfect example of this. Officially, there isn't supposed to be any hierarchy of editors. Administrators are supposed to be "janitors", just doing non-controversial maintenance work, and aren't supposed to have more rights than regular editors on articles. In practice, of course, it doesn't work that way, and there is a very clear hierarchy which usually remains unspoken. What you can get away with on Wikipedia depends a *lot* on whether you're an administrator, how long you've been on the site, whether you are an old friend of Jimbo's, and whether you kiss the right butt on IRC.

    17. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by kcitren · · Score: 1

      ...and it will form around the worst, most manipulative personality types... which also happen to be the worst leaders.

      Actually, that's what makes good leaders. Good leaders are able to get a group to do what they want.

    18. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One key element seems to be the size of each of its campuses. They limit them to 150 people. More than that and what you mention starts happening. A de facto hierarchy arises and bickering ensues. But below these numbers (and this seems to be corroborated by other sources) people work as in a small community/village and peer pressure keeps everyone working nicely.

      I'm not so sure that's an accurate description of what happens. Under almost all situations, people will develop a de facto hierarchy. It may be fairly fluid and casual, but even among a group of 5 friends, there will usually be some kind of pecking order. Under 150 people, there's the possibility of that de facto hierarchy being managed well without formalized structures. Over 150 people, the social bonds become thin, and factions will form and compete with each other for power.

      I would tend to agree with the analysis, "if a visible hierarchy isn't allowed, an invisible one will form." It's not certain whether it will bite you in the ass. One of the obvious ways it's likely to bite *someone* in the ass is if that person believes that they're setting themselves up to be "in charge" of this non-hierarchical structure, but that person doesn't have the social power and charisma to maintain their position by informal means. That is to say, if you start a company and create a flat structure without formally putting yourself in the position of being "in charge", then you'd better be popular. Otherwise, someone else might decide to take the reigns, and they might get more support in the ensuing power struggle.

    19. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      ...and it will form around the worst, most manipulative personality types... which also happen to be the worst leaders.

      Actually, that's what makes good leaders. Good leaders are able to get a group to do what they want.

      that doesn't define a good leader. that just says that he's good at leading other people to do what he wants, not that he is a good leader for the group.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    20. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by nanoflower · · Score: 2

      Limiting the size of the company is certainly going to help, but I see another problem with the way Valve was setup that might not impact W.L.Gore & Associates. According to the article Valve gives out bonuses to specific teams that work on hot projects. That sort of thing is bound to lead to infighting since everyone wants to be on the hot project and participate in the money rain when the project ships.

    21. Re: Flat structures never, ever happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HL3 confirmed.

    22. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making other people what you want without having a factual structure that obliges them to do so seems like a pretty good achievement to me. What else do you want in a leader?

    23. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While not directly related several studies have found from studying the brain that humans appear to be wired for social groups of roughly 150 people. With a close subgroup of about 12.

      This has played out through history of hunter gathers as well as even in armies dividing in to smaller tactical units of roughly the same 150 people. The same 150 person limit is often observed in communities such as the Hutterites and Amish.

      So I'd say there is likely something to that limit. According to Wikipedia Valve has ~400 employees, so it would seem they have gone beyond what a typical flat style can manage and have started forming hierarchical groups, maybe even unbeknownst to themselves.

    24. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sea kelp.

    25. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/people/people do/

    26. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 0

      The fast track method for fast-tracking article changes is to let Jimbo flop around on top of you. I can't believe he chose sex over the various rules and committees of deviant personalities.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    27. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, the incumbent has an advantage simply because he is a known quantity. An admin will receive less scrutiny than a regular user, and a regular user receives less scrutiny than an IP. WP however operates on a "constitutional" basis (the five pillars), and if any individual user can demonstrate that they are in the right according to that constitution, to be overridden by an admin simply because he's an admin is cause to have his adminship removed. You do have to take the added step of putting in the request for a review, but admin abuse is taken seriously at WP and most admins know not to cross the line if they value that status.

      At any rate, you are posting this comment at a site where simply being registered puts the visibility of your comment ahead of anonymous contributions. Guess why I support WP's model of governance?

    28. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The standard text is The Tyranny Of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman.

      tl;dr: if a visible hierarchy isn't allowed, an invisible one will form and bite you in the ass.

      Only a group of militant dykes from 1970 could have ever been stupid enough to advocate "structureless groups". Then again, maybe it was a deliberate con. It's a great way to dupe younger, more gullible women and girls into inferior, powerless positions where they could be manipulated into sex or whatever and exploited, all the while believing they were in rad "structureless" groups.

      Oh I forget only men could ever do that, right?

    29. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. If there is no obvious structure then one unofficial one will be formed. Look at the survivor series that so many people loved...

      So until we can suddenly stop being monkeys and have that stuff eliminated at a genetic level all this political "don't hate the play'ah hate the game!" type bs will never ever stop.

    30. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Making people do what needs to be done, in the best interests of the people being lead.

      Anything else is just charisma, necessary but not sufficient, and on its own, very dangerous.

    31. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also you get those 6-10, and you have an unstoppable team.

    32. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      At least until a manager gets wind of it. Then he will want to multiply that team's power by splitting them up and making every single one of them a team leader of a group of people.

      Ignoring the fact that these 6-10 people were the ONLY ones that work like this within the 100 miles radius and the fact that people who rely on and thrive in a cooperative environment are crippled when facing teams that go by the German definition of team, i.e. "Toll, Ein Anderer Macht's" (which means "Great, someone else is doing it").

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    33. Re:Flat structures never, ever happen by Tamerlin · · Score: 1

      Maybe making decisions that do NOT lead to steering the ship INTO the iceberg?

  2. Sadly by lesincompetent · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Everytime i read "Valve" my thoughts pavlovianly go to HL3. Still not a single word about it?

    1. Re:Sadly by geirlk · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter.

      But where's L4D3?

    2. Re:Sadly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still not a single word about it?

      No.

    3. Re:Sadly by jones_supa · · Score: 5, Informative

      Everytime i read "Valve" my thoughts pavlovianly go to HL3. Still not a single word about it?

      Lately someone got snooping into Valve's Jira and some conclusions made were that HL3 was either inactive or in developmental infancy. L4D3 was advancing nicely and the Source 2 engine had huge development resources behind it.

      But who knows.

    4. Re:Sadly by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If it's any like L4D2, they can keep it. Seriously, a horror shooter was replaced by yet another splatter shooter. What are they supposed for L4D3? Why not make it a rail shooter where all you do is keep that left mouse button pressed and rack up a few thousand kills?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Sadly by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't hold my breath on HL3 being in Jira meaning anything. There was virtually nothing in the HL3 category, and not even a mailing list for it, where as even the L4D3 category had that much.

    6. Re:Sadly by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that was actually my thought too. It's possible that the HL3 stuff is just a dummy stub without any real plans to make development around it. If those screenshots are real, I guess we can forget getting a new Half-Life at least in the immediate years.

    7. Re:Sadly by mmcxii · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there suppose to be a third installment to HL2 first? It's been a while since I've looked into any of this but that would be a hot item for me to play. I'm pretty much out of the gaming scene but I would like to finish the HL series and would play Thief again if T4 ever came out.

    8. Re:Sadly by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      I can imagine a lack of desire to do HL3 right now. Look at how many zombie games, shows and movies are out these days. By the time you finish such a large project whatever you've done will already seem dated. If I had a large zombie project on hold I'd rather wait it out a few years til it's a bit fresh again. I think people are getting a bit bored with the vampire, werewolf and zombie stuff.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    9. Re:Sadly by lesincompetent · · Score: 1

      They pretty much admitted that the episodic model was a mistake and that they'll go for HL3 directly. IF EVER. BOB SAGET!

    10. Re:Sadly by dstyle5 · · Score: 1

      The Walking Dead is at the height of its popularity right now. The S3 finale had its highest ratings yet.

      http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/walking-dead-season-3-finale-ratings-431948

      World War Z has raked in $366 million so far, so I don't think people are tired of zombies yet.

    11. Re:Sadly by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      So now is a great time to start yet another zombie project and in a year or two interest will be even higher?

      Maybe.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    12. Re:Sadly by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Totally. Here, is coffee nicer than tea? I've been trying to get the official word on that.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    13. Re:Sadly by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      HL3 is about zombies? Confirmed!

      Or did you mean L4D3?

    14. Re:Sadly by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Thief 4 will come out. There are some gameplay videos from E3. I'm more than a little scared that they're going to utterly fuck it up to be honest. And Garrett isn't voiced by Stephen Russell any more.

      People (Eidos in this instance) always come along and think 'yeah we can tweak the formula with this old franchise, it'll be better, more modern etc' and they're always, always fucking wrong.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    15. Re:Sadly by mmcxii · · Score: 1

      I thought the same thing when T3 came out but in the end it was a pretty enjoyable game. Hopefully this will be of at least that quality. I'll have to check out the videos when I get a minute. Thanks for the heads up.

    16. Re:Sadly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Source 2 has to be done before Half Life 3 can be made. Once you start seeing Valve made proof of concept games being made with Source 2, then you can start thinking about Half-Life 3.

    17. Re:Sadly by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Hopefully it'll be decent yeah. Deus Ex was alright.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    18. Re:Sadly by geirlk · · Score: 1

      Your opinion is to me irrelevant, as I thoroughly enjoyed both the first and the second one, and would like to see a third one.

      It's a game I and friends repeatedly return to when we get tired of everything else. We've played some 70 different campaigns, and even on a bad day we enjoy it. Screw scavenge, versus and similar modes. Coop is where it's all at.

  3. Re: Politics ruins everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you hear breathless talk about new paradigms in management social structure it's always people grasping at straws attempting to pin the tail on the contributory factors to their synergy. Good shit comes from selfless people, and selfless people attract parasites and tempt honest people in to taking advantage of the situation when their feelings get hurt.

    Frosty Piss for everyone.

  4. Not much of a sample size. by crioca · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If all it takes is for one laid-off ex employee criticizing the management structure for it to be deemed not to have worked, then there's no such thing as a workable management structure.

    1. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She got paid, got to do what she wanted, didn't get enough resources because the rest didn't believe in it and she couldn't convince them, then she and team got sacked but got to keep the stuff and continue with it.

      Doesn't sound that terrible to me. What other company would have paid her and let her do that?

      Maybe the sacking bit and run-up to it was done badly. But in most other companies you wouldn't even be able to do that project in the first place, much less keep the rights after you got fired.

    2. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article is crap and the editors should now it.

      One disgruntled employee? We know nothing from that.
      Who is she? What happened? How far is it rooted in her personality, misconceptions, inablities she had to go? Was she really fired and or was it nice and she just perceived it as that? What is the history?
      We know nothing, nothing at all.

      Everyone who submitted that and then who put it up and then read it and though "Oh, interesting" should feel stupid.

    3. Re:Not much of a sample size. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well the run up happens in secret in the shadow good buddy organization.
      that's what happens in most hierarchical(on paper) systems as well. it's easier for the buddies because in theory you can't bitch about it through proper channels because there are none!

      but heck, if valve is developing games and hardware with no structure on paper at all.. they're not developing anything and just doing reactive fixing of the steam platform and buying random games to their stable. and well.. fuck, valve as a developer. explosion pause!

      though, the rights were never valves to keep in the first place? what rights are you talking about anyhow? ar? she was just another pretty random hire for valve.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know where you're getting "deemed not to have worked" from.

    5. Re:Not much of a sample size. by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      [......] then there's no such thing as a workable management structure.

      They're certainly very few and far between. There's probably about as much chance of finding one as there is of finding an alien civilization.

    6. Re:Not much of a sample size. by jones_supa · · Score: 2

      Jeri Ellsworth is quite well known in the hardware hacking scene. Check out her Wikipedia page for starters. She has quite interesting stuff up in YouTube, too.

    7. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      She got paid, got to do what she wanted, didn't get enough resources because the rest didn't believe in it and she couldn't convince them

      My observation is that they believed in it enough to hire Michael Abrash, who is working on the very thing that she was working on.

      Looks to me like a possible "old boys club" mentality is going on there, with Abrash being accepted into it because Newell had worked with him before (at Microsoft) and had been trying to get him to join Valve since forever. This isnt to knock Abrash because that man knows his shit, but maybe Ellsworth was considered competition to what Abrash was doing and as such "had to go."

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    8. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Psychotria · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the Wikipedia page you link to clarifies that this "cry baby", "I'm a victim!" attitude of hers is not new. Apparently she didn't fit into formal education, either, because "questioning professors' answers was frowned upon". Now it's happened again. It's "their fault! Nothing to do with me at all." Give me a break. She should just grow up and accept that she's not as special as she thinks she is.

    9. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe the sacking bit and run-up to it was done badly.

      That actually raises an interesting question: AFAIR the handbooks doesn't talk about firing at all, and considering that everybody can hire someone, who decides who gets fired? In a situation like this one would expect that all interested parties meet and discuss options. The result might have been the same, but without hard feelings.

    10. Re:Not much of a sample size. by epiphani · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I actually thought this through... my first reaction was wow, that sucks. Maybe Valve isn't the utopia that people think it is.

      Then I stepped back and remembered what I've heard about Valve. You make your own decisions - and you're accountable for them. They said they had a million dollar lab, but couldn't hire anyone to do the machining. But who decided to build that lab? Did they spend a million dollars on equipment then not use it?

      A flat organizational structure doesn't mean there's no politics. It means politics are MORE important - it's harder for some team to simply burn cash, because everyone's eyes are on you. It's hugely increased freedom - but all of the responsibility that comes with it. Assuming that anyone in Valve could decide to go build a million dollar lab, what do you think would happen if it failed to get utilized?

      This is one side of the story from one person. I'm sure there's more to it than the lab, but the lab example shows a basic misunderstanding of the personal responsibility one has in a flat org structure.

      --
      .
    11. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Ash+Vince · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the Wikipedia page you link to clarifies that this "cry baby", "I'm a victim!" attitude of hers is not new. Apparently she didn't fit into formal education, either, because "questioning professors' answers was frowned upon". Now it's happened again. It's "their fault! Nothing to do with me at all." Give me a break. She should just grow up and accept that she's not as special as she thinks she is.

      Actually she might be very special, but that is utterly irrelevant when you work as part of a team.

      It sounds like she was easily able to drive her own team, and manage those beneath her. But those are the easy part of management, the hard bit is called managing up (In this case it is probably more like managing across).

      What she needed to do was go round every different person in the company she could and get their buy in and input into what her project should do and most importantly why it was a good idea. This probably seemed very strange to her as the boss had given her a task and she wanted to do it. She was probably expected to recruit other people from within the company who liked her idea to spend a bit of time on it. This is why they kept her department under resourced. That means long hours learning what everyone else does, forcing yourself into the existing social scene within the company, talking to people to find people who might be able to help you even though they are not strictly part of your team.

      It sounds what she actually tried to do was hire a microcosm to work for her and just drop in a hierarchical department within a company that has no hierarchy. That was obviously never going to work and the company was never going to allow it to flourish.

      It seems like her biggest problem is that the masses at Valve simply did not get behind her idea, that is why she was allowed to keep her product as they did not hold it in high enough esteem. Maybe they were right, maybe she was, only time will tell.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    12. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of course we all know that professors are fountains of knowledge that are never wrong and should never be questioned.

      Sorry, but that applies to such a minority of professors as to be irrelevant. There really are so many professors that live in a vacuum with no real understanding of how things work in the real world and so forth that it's perfectly valid to question them.

      I had a professor who firmly believed that everything should be written in C and all code tested proven for correctness with mathematical induction. He seemed blissfully unaware of the fact that in the real world there are constraints that make both these things impossible if you ever want to get anything of any reasonable size developed without an infinite budget.

      Frankly you just seem to be clutching at straws to attack her, is this one of those "Valve can do no wrong" fanboy reactions Slashdot suffers so brutally from in the same way that on Slashdot DRM is the most evil thing on earth, unless Valve does it, then it's okay? I swear Valve fanboys are the new Apple fanboys, I've seen none so rabid and quick to attack in so many years as they are.

      It's not like Valve doesn't have a release cycle that's about 5 times as long as that of other studios and whilst their games are good they're not any better than those of many others to justify the absurdly long development times. Team Fortress 2 was originally planned for 1998 and it came out in what, 2007? 9 years and it was redesigned like 5 times during that period. What happened to Half-Life Episode 3? What about Half-Life 3 weren't they on about that too? If there isn't a fair amount of evidence of sloppy management at Valve that has led to numerous product overruns and cancellations and redevelopments then I don't know what is. Valve succeeds in spite of it's piss poor management structure, not because of it.

      Even their two most prominent IPs now that Half-Life seems to have once more fallen into the abyss - Portal and Left 4 Dead were bought in and not developed in house.

      These are the guys who couldn't even keep their flagship engine source code safe from a simple spear phishing attack because for some reason their MD/PR talking head Gabe had full direct access to their company's source code whilst also being dumb enough to execute an executable e-mailed to him from some unknown source.

      I love Valve's games, I appreciate the simplicity of Steam and the ease of which it made it for PC gamers to get games, but those good things don't make everything else about Valve like the fact it was a leader in intrusive DRM and a firm that has managed multiple Duke Nuke Forever scale delays and rewrites magically not true.

      Valve has problems, this girl isn't crying "I'm the victim", even though she apparently is because she seems to be a victim of Valve's flip-flopping on where it's going with hardware, she's complaining because there are legitimate complaints about the way Valve works. It's not like she hasn't bought to market real actual product successes developed by herself, which is more than can be said for Valve in recent years who has just peddled bought in products or other people's wares via Steam.

      Fanboys need to stop giving companies a free pass on everything just because they like one or two of their products.

      Actually scrap that, fanboys just need to fucking die.

    13. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that professors should never be questioned; I used to do it all the time -- in fact it should be encouraged. I didn't blame them, though, if they disagreed with my questioning and certainly didn't drop out of because of a perceived belief "that questioning professors' answers was frowned upon". And it's the same thing here now with her (previous) employment with Valve: "they didn't listen to me and the culture frowned upon me" (paraphrased).

    14. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An excellent post. Agreed on all counts.

    15. Re:Not much of a sample size. by urbanriot · · Score: 1

      Yep... I read this Slashdot entry and wondered, "why is the typical behaviour of a fired employee newsworthy?" Even if you had a large enough sample set, my care meter would probably stall slightly above zeor.

    16. Re:Not much of a sample size. by dabadab · · Score: 1

      She should just grow up and accept that she's not as special as she thinks she is.

      But there's a little problem there: she is.

      --
      Real life is overrated.
    17. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Xest · · Score: 2

      To be fair I'm not sure that argument works, I imagine some unis do have a culture of "untouchable" professors such that if you are the questioning type it's not worth even bothering to continue your education there.

      I never got on at school or college (that's 16 - 18 college, not university) in the UK in IT/Computing because I was already at a level well ahead of what the teachers could teach me and really it was a waste of time me even bothering with those subjects because yes the teacher in college at least would find excuses to give me low grades for seemingly no other reason than a feeling of malice that a pupil 30 years younger than him was already working at a higher level than him. My teacher in school at least recognised that what he was teaching was boring to me and said explicitly at parents evenings and so forth to my parents that I wasn't getting anything out of the national curriculum on the topic for this reason - he was much nicer.

      But fundamentally I might as well have dropped out of college at least because the teacher was a dick who just wouldn't listen. For example, he let me do my final project in C but he only knew Pascal and when I explained to him why my code was correct he wouldn't have it, not because he was right, but because he didn't know C and didn't understand why it was correct.

      I ended up doing my first degree in maths in large part because after that experience at college I knew at least I had a lot to learn in maths so would not get on the wrong side of the teachers by questioning them but it was hit and miss such that I was tempted not to go to uni at all and could just as well have ended up with the same opinion as her as a result.

      But anyway, I digress, as for her time at Valve, I don't think it's the same thing - she was fired from Valve, it's not like she quit and given that it sounds like she didn't do anything wrong, Valve just one minute decided they wanted her project and the next decided they didn't, I think she's probably quite deserving of feeling a bit bitter about that. It does sound of a bit of a case of one half of the company not knowing what the other is doing with her being a victim of nothing more than a slight tip in the balance of power within the company.

      Anyway, I don't think two very loosely related incidents many years apart and with very different circumstances are particularly evidence of someone being a "cry baby" else frankly that description can similarly be attached to just about every single poster on Slashdot and likely every employee Valve has ever had to boot. I think very few people have never quit anything and never been bitter about something.

    18. Re:Not much of a sample size. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > It's not like Valve doesn't have a release cycle that's about 5 times as long as that of other studios and whilst their games are good they're not any better than those of many others to justify the absurdly long development times.

      Valve, Blizzard, etc have already explained their thought process ...

      * If a good game is shipped late no one will remember it was late.
      * If a bad game ships on time no one will remember it was on time.

      You gotta love these self proclaimed armchair "experts" complaining about Company X to make Product Y because obviously these "experts" have mastered the process of game development and how hard it is to a) ship something b) good.

      --
      In ~ 10 years Humans will finally be allowed to know first hand that they are not alone

    19. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To me it seems like she wanted the more of the people in the "structureless" company to devote their time and resources to her project than those people wanted to.

      And in her efforts to do so she likely rubbed too many people the wrong way:

      Ellsworth claimed she was eventually fired for being "being abrasive": "And I probably was [abrasive] but I just couldn't find a way to make a process to actually deliver any hardware inside that company."

      So those blaming it on "old buddy" might be unfair given her own words. In a structureless company you have to win people over. You don't just convince one boss and he assigns all the people and resources you need to your pet project. I'm sure there are buddies there who work together. But if most people in Valve don't want to do hardware and the rest of your stuff, you're going to have to do most of it yourself till you can convince the rest and get them excited about it enough to join you.

      I doubt being a "abrasive" person will win you many team members in a structureless org. Why work on Jeri's team when they can work in someone else's team? Her augmented reality stuff might be cool, but the other projects might be cool and fun too - with less "abrasiveness".

      That's assuming Valve is a structureless company as they claim they are. From her complaints it might actually be one ;).

      Lastly regarding the machinist hiring problems:
      1) I thought she was some hardware hacker genius who'd figure out how to be a machinist. Maybe she isn't as great as she claims.
      2) Couldn't they have contracted out the manufacturing/machining stuff?

    20. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      And the Wikipedia page you link to clarifies that this "cry baby", "I'm a victim!" attitude of hers is not new. Apparently she didn't fit into formal education, either, because "questioning professors' answers was frowned upon".

      We are talking about a person who was a success well before trying formal education. She clearly wasnt there to get the degree. She was clearly there to learn.

      If "questioning the professors" is frowned upon, it is almost certainly because the professors are wrong, and at that point why keep going if you are there to learn instead of get the degree?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    21. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Abrash seems to be working with Virtual Reality at Valve, not Augmented Reality as Ellsworth.

      I actually read something about this about the time she was fired (a while ago actually). Valve seems to have started looking at both AR and VR, but in the end they choose VR (for the moment?). Maybe because Ellsworth, maybe because they considered being more interesting at the time, who knows.

    22. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Are you confusing Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality?

      Looks to me like [...]

      Looks to me like conjecture.

    23. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Company priorities change all the time. Haven't you heard of doing everything right and things still not working out? It doesn't sound like there was bad blood or malice involved, and while she comes off as extremely intelligent and amazing, it does seem like she might be the type who is used to getting her own way so doesn't naturally mesh well in a team she isn't running, which isn't to say there's anything wrong with that, it's just a different type of personality. I think that she's a very rare talent in her own right, and being a field that's so heavily dominated by people who think differently can often make you feel ostracized even when you're not actively being.

    24. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many other companies deliver games that are good (sometimes even better in terms of metacritic ratings, user ratings, and sales figures) and everyone remembers in as much as a third or as little as a ninth of the time it takes Valve/Blizzard which shows what an utter farce their philosophy is.

      You don't need armchair or even real experts to recognise that obvious fact.

      Try another excuse.

    25. Re:Not much of a sample size. by illaqueate · · Score: 1

      Abrash is critical of AR for technical reasons he has shared on his blog. She most likely was fired because they didn't believe in AR as it has significant problems to solve over and above the problems in the way of implementing good VR.

      Further VR follows a fairly obvious path from current games whereas AR requires innovation in game design and input to realize its potential.

    26. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming this isn't a troll, you're not helping Valve's now tarnished Bohemian workplace image. Even if she is in fact a cry baby whiner, she's a cry baby whiner with a lot of cred in circles you might want to hire from someday. Now when real talent considers Valve, they'll think of backbiting, land grabbing, and empire building instead of desk races and free massage Tuesdays. Good luck with that.

    27. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other thing she's well known for is backing out of collaborations with others, taking all their collective work with her and then selling it on to the highest bidder for her exclusive profit.
      Look out for Jeri selling some AR kit soon.

    28. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're in no position to hire or fire anybody you smelly little troll.

    29. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A flat organizational structure doesn't mean there's no politics. It means politics are MORE important - it's harder for some team to simply burn cash, because everyone's eyes are on you.

      First two parts are right - politics aren't just present, they're more important than they would be in a hierarchy.

      I have to disagree on the third part. If you play the politics right, it's easier to burn cash. My former employer died because someone popular got the Agile bug. When their project failed to attract any customers, it was dumped -- but instead of the popular team being fired, they got a bigger budget, to Agile their next project even harder. (I actually heard "Agile didn't fail, we failed Agile!" used without irony in a meeting.)

      When I finally quit in disgust, that next project was also about a year past its ship-by date and has yet to attract a single customer. And the popular team of agilistas had Agiled the rest of management into allocating even more resources to it.

      I'm not bashing agile per se; that just happened to be the thing that the popular/political people were able to latch onto at a time in which the company was dying due to a phase change in its industry. Twenty years ago, it would have been six-sigma or ISO9000 that would have been touted as the savior of a US steel mill or auto manufacturer.

    30. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      No I think we've all seen Valve/Blizzard deliver excellence time and time again, those other metrics are irrelevant to me as a consumer (all of them, especially the bullshit purchased critics) and i'm not going to play armchair investor, because I'm entirely disinterested in if or how any of these companies make profit. I understand they need to, but I don't care if they do, or how they do, that's their problem.

      But I'm not sure that the Valve mentality works well on hardware (high degrees of rigor, lots of labor, and lots of money spent), or that it'd be as easy for someone with her skill-set to have an idea she works on in the background while she contributes to another project which is nearer and clearer. The valve employee manual does mention desks moving around, that all these superstars frequently will simply contribute to other projects. I'm not sure her desk had as many places to go in that environment while she incubates, and possibly her personality didn't include the level of humility required to simply be a contributor, especially if she was feeling resource starved herself.

    31. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      There are workable management structures, taken at instances in time. I don't think there are "workable management philosophies" or an algorithm for creating a management structure that works in on all projects and all conditions with all personalities.

      Everyone tries to copy a formula, but it's not a formula.

    32. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The difference is the perception being promoted by Valve that it does things differently. It has an employee guide that says how things always work, and this firing process didn't follow that guide. Maybe there's a bit too much naivete in thinking that this guide was law and could never be broken. Valve is using this new paradigm of management to recruit people. But the paradigm doesn't work and isn't being applied.

    33. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > those other metrics are irrelevant to me as a consumer

      Oh sorry, we didn't realise you were the one grand consumer and no one else's opinion matters.

      Sorry but greater user ratings and sales are a sign that MORE consumers prefer these alternative offerings than Blizzard/Valves. Take the CoD series, released every year, higher ratings and sales than Blizzard/Valve's game, direct evidence that more people think their games are better and they manage to pull it off year on year. You might not like it, you might write off the fans of as being jocks or whatever else you use to try and justify your Blizzard/Valve fanboy position, but the fact is that more people prefer CoD so by the whims of the general population it can objectively be deemed to be perceived as a better product despite being sold on one year iterations.

      It's pretty obvious that Valve/Blizzard have organisational problems which is why they have delays and why Valve can only release games it buys in. Blizzard even had to tie up with Activision, not exactly the sign of a company healthily able to stand on it's own two feet. Hell, Valve couldn't even have survived as a simple video game developer, it's only because it went into publishing with Steam that it's remained a viable business and with the income of being a publisher it can afford to dick around not doing anything productive and just buying in dev teams with real actual products when it feels the need to actually release something. As a game studio itself though it certainly wouldn't be viable like many other studios are.

      Or in other words, Valve's management experiment only works because it has a highly profitable publishing arm to prop it up but without that isn't financially viable as a game studio.

    34. Re:Not much of a sample size. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The C-One marks the biggest loss in iComp's company history. It was meant to be a C64 replacement, but Jeri Ellsworth - the original designer of the board - never delivered the cores that she had been paid for. Other people took up that job, and individual Computers created add-on boards to put the C-One into usable condition."

      http://wiki.icomp.de/wiki/C-One

      Seems like Ellsworth had an idea with a little implementation but couldn't deliver a final working product. Or maybe Jens Schönfeld is just another wannabe loser jealous of Ellsworth's brilliance? Either way, his company completed the project and shipped the working board but we still give Ellsworth the credit because she demands it. And because if you disagree with her you're a little person that is afraid of genius.

  5. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Social structures exist. This is news how?

    1. Re:Yes by mellyra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe this is not news to you but as far as I can recall the overwhelming reaction after the Valve Handbook became public was unreflected admiration for the structure-less utopia described therein, not "Wait, maybe the lack of official structure means that the actual structure does not cease to exist but only becomes less visible to newcomers and maybe that is not a good thing." If you read the interview transcript you will see that she is in retrospect quite harsh with herself for having drunk the cool-aid and being sorely disappointed as a result. Of course she could have known better from the beginning but she didn't, just as the vast majority of slashdot commenters apparently didn't after they read the Valve handbook for the first time.

      The actually existing elites may have a strong interest in perpetuating the "structureless" myth as their current informal influence may be much larger than what they could reasonably expect as part of any officially acknowledged social structure. So they take recruits that are already attracted by the company's utopian visions, indoctrinate them further to protect their own influence and when at some point the brighter amongst the employees realize the cognitive dissonance between what everyone says and what actually happens and start to lash out in disappointment they get fired to protect the company cult(ure).

    2. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ironically your last sentence describes Microsoft over the last decade (ex-emp here). Bureaucratic management nightmare, less-than-zero vision at the top, subpar product execution/innovation, etc. yet constant promises of pink ponies to the grunts, i.e. the way it used it be in the mid-90's. Ironic because they are the exact opposite of the "structureless" environment yet the concept is right on the mark as they continue to slide into the tech heap of oblivion.

    3. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Wait, maybe the lack of official structure means that the actual structure does not cease to exist but only becomes less visible to newcomers and maybe that is not a good thing."

      Yeah. No. If you don't notice any social structure or fail to assess it at your work, you are socially inept. I think this is more the issue than her being bad at her job, or the project being uninteresting. Lack of management does not equal no structure, and if anyone actually believes that they are not only socially inept, but right out stupid.

      Captcha: Deduct. Fitting.

    4. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I liked this bit from the article:

      "When I complained about this - and this is what I think is hilarious, what I call really drinking the Kool-Aid He said that 'If communication was important at Valve it would have evolved a long time ago.'"

      I would have run off screaming at that point.

      Still, the whole thing just feels like "software company starts hardware division, does not adequately fund or staff it, hardware project fails". Not exactly unheard of.

    5. Re:Yes by mellyra · · Score: 1

      Still, the whole thing just feels like "software company starts hardware division, does not adequately fund or staff it, hardware project fails". Not exactly unheard of.

      I think the problem runs a bit deeper as the machinist example shows.

      Ellsworth might well be right in saying that a machinist simply doesn't fit into the framework Valve has created for its employees:
      you can't just treat the machinist like support staff (cleaners, cooks, accountants, ...) because he/her might well make significant contributions to the project - machinists often do "simple" engineering work (which can be quite sophisticated in practice, incorporating a wealth of practical experience that more theoretically minded engineers might lack) in addition to machining - on the other hand he doesn't have the qualifications to freely move around project teams as other Valve developers are allowed to (he would need a software engineering background or be brilliant enough to start his own projects for that). He would be tied to Ellsworth's hardware team for the foreseeable future, essentially being her minion which is antithetical to the Valve culture.

      Maybe there are some things you just can't do within the structure Valve chose for itself (such as hiring not ridiculously overqualified machinists) and that is imho an insight that warrants further thought and investigation (what are the limits of this structure? is there always a way to work around these limits? could one extend/stretch the culture without killing it? ...)

    6. Re:Yes by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      I think this is exactly the problem. I work at a small silicon start-up, and we have two major factions (predictably): hardware and software. The software guys only want to hire a certain type of personality, the alpha-geek innovator. However, and it is a good practice in general as the groups work closely together, they sit on interview panels for hardware engineers, and 90% of the time pan otherwise good, highly qualified applicants. "Not an innovator, very narrow focus, he's a doer not a thinker", or vice versa "He talks well but I'm not sure he has any skills at doing real work". They even pan software architects "because they can't code!". They've called recognized experts everything from gear turners to garbage men.

      Software is a different creature in terms of what you can get away with culturally. You have people who see the big picture, possibly work directly with customers, but are also writing code. It's very nice to have such dynamic individuals and it does allow some efficiencies we don't see elsewhere. Outside of that, in other forms of engineering this is very unusual (or even highly undesirable, both by employers and employees). People tend to be specialized along the line of their expertise or chosen career path. They may not be entirely one trick ponies, but it's very uncommon to have highly analytic people in highly creative roles and vice versa. But without both, a product will not occur, or (especially in the case of silicon) that multi-million dollar investment will not work.

      This isn't just a problem with Valve, the entire industry in suffering from this type of mentality. Everyone sees their niche, and believes it is a blueprint for the world. I worked for a time at Intel and was shocked at how they treat technicians: contract only, removing them every 1.5 years, bringing in new people to replace them. They had the work, they just didn't want to hire "people like that" as employees (except in a few rare cases). Yet they spent so much time and money continuously training new technicians, being disorganized and unable to "get lab work done", that it was clearly not a financial decision, it was simply a malfunctioning thought process. They truly believed that they weren't going to need that work in the long run, that it was not where they wanted to be. For years, probably over a decade.

  6. What did you espect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to companies may i make your acquaintance and stab you immediately?

    Is this person living in a pink world?

  7. Hardware.. in... by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 1

    a software company. Was always going to be difficult. Seems to me they should perhaps have split into a new division - not kept it under the same roof/structure

    --
    We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
    1. Re:Hardware.. in... by aitikin · · Score: 1

      a software company. Was always going to be difficult.

      Works for Apple...

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    2. Re:Hardware.. in... by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 1

      That the Apple that compartmentalised the hardware under Jobs - so members of the team did not know what they were actually building, for whom, and why?
      That Apple?

      --
      We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
    3. Re:Hardware.. in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple was ALWAYS hardware software, going back to Woz's Apple II. So your statement is actually false. MSFT is a better example and it works HORRIBLY there...

    4. Re:Hardware.. in... by aitikin · · Score: 1

      Apple has often claimed that they were either a hardware company that makes software or a software company that makes hardware. The latest variant thereof via Tim Cook, “...we’re not a hardware company."

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
  8. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you fucking serious?

  9. Re:Anonymous Coward by fastest+fascist · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Stopped thinking at birth", you mean.

  10. C64 DTV designer by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I assume this is the same Jeri Ellisworth that designed the Commodore 64 Direct to TV unit?

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
    1. Re:C64 DTV designer by hamster_nz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I assume this is the same Jeri Ellisworth that designed the Commodore 64 Direct to TV unit?

      Yes, uber-hacker-maker. Has a collection of self-restored electron microscopes.

      Much smarter & more creative than your average person.

    2. Re:C64 DTV designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. She was also the first to recreate the Amiga custom chips in CMOS hardware after several other teams had failed (the Amiga used NMOS like military computers of the time, not CMOS like PCs).

      There's also several OEM projects she's done. When it comes to chip design, I'd put her on a short list with people like Jay Miner (Atari & Amiga) and Seymour Cray. Not too many people can sit down and design entire chips from scratch themselves and build the rest of the machine too. Of course, both of them had been pushed out of companies because they made other people uncomfortable. Imagine getting a PhD and then having somebody outperform you and your entire team over and over again. People hate it and will try to undermine them and force them out.

    3. Re:C64 DTV designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you babbling about? NMOS was just the way things were done in the '70s. Commodore were using it because they were CHEAP, not because the Amiga had something to do with "military computers". Geez, the self-aggrandizing fantasies you people come up with.

    4. Re:C64 DTV designer by Cap'nPedro · · Score: 1

      Could you explain why you think this? I'm genuinely interested.

    5. Re:C64 DTV designer by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You just explained to me something that I was wondering for quite a while. Who'd have thought reading /. would solve a puzzle...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:C64 DTV designer by wbr1 · · Score: 2
      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    7. Re:C64 DTV designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, it's the same Jeri that made a half-working prototype typical of a college project, completed and manufactured by a German dude, who passed things back to her as salesperson. She's spent the next 9 years selling herself as more capable than she is, then whining when people get fed up with her.

      Sophie Wilson she ain't.

    8. Re:C64 DTV designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please mod this up.

    9. Re:C64 DTV designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boy. This is Slashdot. You don't question the species' future of colonizing the universe, and you don't question Jeri Elsworth's credentials. (Or any "geek" woman like Lady Ada)

    10. Re:C64 DTV designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By definition grown-ups are overgrown children.

    11. Re:C64 DTV designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And social skills aren't a very specific area? Difference is, social skills are much more common and are not worth much.

    12. Re:C64 DTV designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's the same Jeri that made a half-working prototype typical of a college project, completed and manufactured by a German dude, who passed things back to her as salesperson. She's spent the next 9 years selling herself as more capable than she is, then whining when people get fed up with her.

      Sophie Wilson she ain't.

      Seeing in on her Wikipedia page that she dropped out due to "culture mismatch". Yup, I've met plenty of such whiners: it's always the fault of someone else when they don't get their way.

    13. Re:C64 DTV designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She was one of the first hobbyists to claim to have made a prototype clone of some of the Amiga custom chips, per Youtube videos showing a random development board and trailing off by pointing out that it'll never work again. This was, of course, an earlier example of a project which she claimed to have got working but thanks to EVERYONE ELSE she had to take her toys and go home.

      Of course, the Minimig and NatAmi Amiga chipset cloning projects also appeared around 2005, and have been developed successfully into working systems. Cultural differences, ya see...

    14. Re:C64 DTV designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A butterfly is an overgrown caterpillar.

    15. Re:C64 DTV designer by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      I sort of doubt her social skills are that bad considering she used to own a hardware retail chain which initially started with only one shop.

    16. Re:C64 DTV designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you the same butthurt Valve employee that posted earlier?

    17. Re:C64 DTV designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hilarious when people go on an attack rant when they obviously didn't (or couldn't) comprehend the post they're responding to.

    18. Re:C64 DTV designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the resentful, anger-filled posts like yours are typical of people who have inflated values of their own intellectual prowess and their tender egos are bruised when someone intellectually "bests" them in the public eye.

      Calm down. It'll be ok. You'll get a little older, a little wiser, and realize that you aren't as smart as you think you are, and that the existence of more intelligent people isn't actually a threat to you.

    19. Re:C64 DTV designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, no, what are you babbling about?
      She hasn't done anything relating to the Amiga.
      You seem to be confused with the C64 clone she started, but had to get someone else to complete it, then stole his work and sold it as her own product.

      Dutch engineer Dennis van Weeren was the first to re-implement the Amiga chip set. No relation to anything Jeri has ever done.
      He made an FPGA based board to host his project, named "Minimig".
      A far more advanced implementation derived from Dennis's work is hosted on the new FPGAArcade Replay board.

      Minimig replicates a 2/4 Mb Amiga 500, with CPU speed up to 56 MHz.
      Replay replicates the later AGA chip set, has 64Mb RAM and a soft CPU, with an optional board containing more RAM Ethernet, USB and a 68060 CPU.

    20. Re:C64 DTV designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, the e-psychologists are coming out.

      My problem is not with people more intelligent than I am - such as the awesome ARM co-creator Sophie Wilson, who I actually mentioned in the post - but with people such as Ellsworth who have an inflated sense of their own abilities and who exhibit this by i) denying the contributions of others to the projects they have worked on; and ii) repeatedly throwing all their toys out of the pram and crawling home. She is LOUD in the hardware hacking scene, and this is the n'th time she's behaved like this. Hell, even before she became well known, she claims a history of dropping out of high school to work on her business, though it was actually car repair in dad's workshop; she dropped out of college, she claims, because her professors didn't like her asking questions; she set up a PC repair business with a friend then abandoned that to set up a competitor; and she appears on the scene claiming to have designed the C-One even though it was merely a half-working prototype before being completed+built by Jens Schönfeld at Individual Computers. If I were back East, I'd say she behaves dishonourably; this being the West, I'll say she's a bit of a dick.

      By contrast, growing up, I knew an engineer who had spent much of his life designing+selling peripherals - up to complete coprocessing units (better than anything offered by the OEM) - at a moderately well known outlet. When he was doing this in the '80s, you would think maybe that he had a little in-house team; by the late '90s, when he was reducing his workload, you'd perhaps assume that he'd outsourced. On the contrary, it was all stuff he'd designed himself. Guy was a quiet genius - and if you asked nicely, he'd sit down with you for an hour and talk about his latest work, explaining how he learnt from others' efforts.

      The establishment owner was a bit disagreeable, but boss+engineer tolerated each other, because boss knew how to conduct sustainable business and engineer appreciated this - indeed, the shop is still there, decades later, when so many similar have had to close. Anyway, this engineer is my model for decent behaviour, because while I'll never be as smart as him, I can strive to be as decent a human.

      So, anyway, I celebrate intelligence within a framework of intellectual honesty. Why don't you?

    21. Re:C64 DTV designer by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I checked out her Youtube page.

      Builds race cars? Check
      Rolls own ICs? Check
      Makes logic gates out of ferro cores? Check
      Visits lava field in Hawaii, and takes own shovel so friends can roast weenies and s'mores? Check
      Built a bass guitar out of a Commodore 64 and plays it on rollerskates? Check

        I think I'm in love.

      --
      It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
    22. Re:C64 DTV designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I'm in love.

      Get to the back of the queue..... :

    23. Re:C64 DTV designer by hamster_nz · · Score: 1

      Only in very specific areas. Someone more gifted in social skills might think she's quite naive and uneducated. I used to be like her, but now I think people like her are overgrown children.

      And we would judge somebody more gifted in social skills as "perfect for management as they can't make sh*t work, but know which ass to lick to get ahead".

      I know who's bookcase I'ld rather spend time reading from.

    24. Re:C64 DTV designer by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      I sort of doubt her social skills are that bad considering she used to own a hardware retail chain which initially started with only one shop.

      Not sure what one has to do with the other. Social skills can be helpful in a retail environment, but they aren't mandatory. In addition, she can trade the novelty of being a female of average of appearance for a dearth of social skills.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  11. Figures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This, is why Half-Life 2: Episode 2 was over 5, nearly 6 years ago with no word on an Episode 3. This is why Left 4 Dead 2 came out a year after the first game, with reduced quality control.

  12. Weblogging by WillKemp · · Score: 1

    Andy Wingo has been weblogging about working at Igalia ......

    Weblogging??? Did i fall into a timewarp and end up back in the 1990s or something?

    1. Re:Weblogging by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Say what? What's wrong with a good descriptive noun, the original in fact.

      Blog? Sounds like something you wipe yourself after.

  13. augmented reality hardware by Zedrick · · Score: 0

    Damnit. I've been thinking+hobbyworking on a thing like this for two years. I KNEW I should have tried to patent the idea.

    My only comfort is that it takes someone as brilliant as Jeri to beat me to it.

  14. Left 4 Dead 3 by selectspec · · Score: 1

    This is no excuse for not releasing a Left 4 Dead 3.

    --

    Someone you trust is one of us.

    1. Re:Left 4 Dead 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone complained about Left 4 Dead 2 coming too fast, and now people are complaining about Left 4 Dead 3 not coming fast enough.

    2. Re:Left 4 Dead 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, there's actually a Steam community group to boycott L4D2 because they thought it was rushed out and not enough to be considered a sequel. Given that all of L4D1 got rolled into 2 eventually and there have been numerous opportunities to get the game for $5, I think they should let it go. But the same people will be boycotting 3 I guess. Must be tiring be so angry about games being released.

    3. Re:Left 4 Dead 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The anger, from what I saw, came from L4D2 getting fixes/new features that L4D desperately needed to be playable online. It was almost like a 'soft' forced obsolescence; you could still try if you wanted to, but it was broken.

    4. Re:Left 4 Dead 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? How was it broken? I had several hundred hours of play, and about half my Steam friend list is people I met playing L4D online. I don't remember having any issues.

  15. Common Sense by wbr1 · · Score: 1
    It makes sense that a hierarchy (hidden or otherwise formed). It is either human nature or so ingrained in our culture that there will always be those that step up and those that submit.

    Regardless, a failure of one within such a proclaimed 'structureless' system is not necessarily a failure of the system, at that or any size.

    The yardstick to measure success or failure by is whether "HL2E3" or "HL3" or "Half Life:Eternal Wait" or whatever it is titled now ever is released.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  16. Happens all the time .. ( irony ) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They promised me the world ( and you beleived them ? ) and then stabbed me in the back. ( Really ? )
    Playing nightly right here in Neurotica. Lesson of the week : Never trust management. Never ever the hell ever.
    And if you are management , don't trust yourself or the rest of it.
     

    1. Re:Happens all the time .. ( irony ) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More appropriately: there is always management. Run away fast if nobody admits to being one.

  17. Re:Artical is way off base... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got a quick summary for those who don't have the time?

  18. Baby crying about her pet project being a failure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And it's impossible to pull those people away for something risky like augmented reality because they only want to work on the sure thing. So that was a frustration, we were starved for resources."

    No shit, welcome to any company ever. The fact that you got a team of 5 people at a game company to work on augmented reality hardware is amazing in itself yet this women bitches and moans that the whole company didn't revolve around her.

    No other company in the world would give her such freedom and I assume she would still be there if it wasn't for the fact that she tried to change the whole company to work around her one project and try forcing people to work on it.

  19. Hippy communes. by ocamsrazor · · Score: 2

    I remember an Adam Curtis documentary that basically described those old 60s communes the same way. Communes were set up as completely power free institutions, places were no one would have power over anyone else and all important decisions could be made communally.

    But of course power did exist, it was just being hidden. Someone owned the land, someone had some important income maybe someone was just too damn charismatic. And so because the power was hidden, it was never confronted or addressed. There were no checks or balances or mechanisms of redress. What was supposed to be a democratic paradise became worse than the institutions it was supposed to replace. And the people who really were in charge just ran roughshod over everyone.

  20. Re:Artical is way off base... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What or who is "artical"?

  21. She's done this before by Psychotria · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't mean to divert attention away from Valve's management structure and handbook, but... well...

    [...] assembling and selling computers. When she and her partner later had a disagreement, Ellsworth opened a separate business in competition.

    [...] she moved to Walla Walla, Washington and attended Walla Walla College, studying circuit design for about a year. She dropped out due to a "cultural mismatch"; Ellsworth said that questioning professors' answers was frowned upon.

    Seems like it's always someone else's fault and never hers. The world is persecuting her!

    1. Re:She's done this before by Nyder · · Score: 2

      I don't mean to divert attention away from Valve's management structure and handbook, but... well...

      [...] assembling and selling computers. When she and her partner later had a disagreement, Ellsworth opened a separate business in competition.

      [...] she moved to Walla Walla, Washington and attended Walla Walla College, studying circuit design for about a year. She dropped out due to a "cultural mismatch"; Ellsworth said that questioning professors' answers was frowned upon.

      Seems like it's always someone else's fault and never hers. The world is persecuting her!

      tbh, Walla Walla really sucks as a town. I couldn't imagine the college being any better. I figured all they did was trained people for the Walla Walla State Prison.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    2. Re:She's done this before by Xest · · Score: 1

      Hmm, this is your second post repeating this viewpoint with the most pathetic of evidence.

      Why do you seem so desperate to try and character assassinate her?

    3. Re:She's done this before by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [...] assembling and selling computers. When she and her partner later had a disagreement, Ellsworth opened a separate business in competition.

      I have notice how you have failed to quote the part about how that separate competing business that she started turned out to be quite successful. So it was her partners fault, after all.

      [...] she moved to Walla Walla, Washington and attended Walla Walla College, studying circuit design for about a year. She dropped out due to a "cultural mismatch"; Ellsworth said that questioning professors' answers was frowned upon.

      I have noticed how you have failed to quote the part about her being a success prior to attending this college, or how much bigger of a success she became after leaving college.

      This is a girl that forges ahead to success, not a failure like you claim. Starting to think that you are that original business partner. A person that completely missed the boat, and it was your own fault.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  22. Valve's Management System is NOT successful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you look at "income", Valve is successful. Very, indeed. But money is not the only metric. It all tells us Valve got lucky developing two games aaages ago and the being the first to set up a working Digital Distribution System. That they combined it with their second (and last!) successful game was a masterstroke, but only pure luck.
    Had Half-Life 2 not been such a success (say a title in the 80s/100), Steam would not have been taken off like it did.

    If you use the metric "releases successful products" for success, Valve is working mediocre at best.

    They shovelled in a lot of cash with Half-Life and Half-Life 2 until Steam was running with full steam ahead... and that digital distribution platform is carrying them since then. After the initial phase it was a self-sustaining thing that you just need to maintain without screwing up too much. That is basically what Vale has been doing since Half-Life 2 and I ask you: What other successful projects do they have to show that we can use as proof for their successful system? You say "not much" and I agree.

    Valve seems to me very similar to 3DRealms. Both had a major success which gave them money and on that they kept running. Load words once in a while, punching their own chests how successful they are, both claim(ed) to offer a "free and creative" environment without "administrative overhead!!!1" - but both totally lack in coming up with more or better products than companies with "classical" structures. In fact, those classical structures are much more successful at chewing out successful and often high quality products.
    The difference is that Valve has Steam, a product that keeps generating revenue with Other People's Successful Games if you manage to maintain it (which is no problem with the money Valve has, it is not really requireing a lot of insight or creativity), so they can afford to be totally incompetent at creating own games (which they are).

    All Valve achieved lies in the past. And with "past" we need are quickly approaching "a decade and since then the existing stuff just has been maintained".

    They have as truly notable things
    Half Life (1998) + AddOns (1999, 2001)
    Half Life 2 (2004) + Nice AddOns that basically are TechDemos for the Engine
    Portal 2 (see below)

    That is it.
    Portal and Left4Dead they bought in (good call, but more a Publisher-Decision than actual a Develeopment-Success). Buying the right stuff requires money and one or three managers who make the right call, it's no sign your Development Hierarchy works.

    1. Re:Valve's Management System is NOT successful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Had Half-Life 2 not been such a success (say a title in the 80s/100), Steam would not have been taken off like it did."

      Wrong. If Half Life had not been such a success, HL2's exclusivity to Steam only would not have made Steam take off like it did.

      HL2 was a graphical improvement, but soundly criticised for being shorter, simpler and less of an escapade from the original, despite some lovely (for the time) graphics. However, HL's graphics were lovely (for the time). It's just that these age much more quickly in a FPS.

      If HL2 had not been a Steam Exclusive, Steam would not have taken off.

      If HL had not been so great, the anticipation for HL2 would not have made people jump to Steam to get it if it were forced down their throat.

    2. Re:Valve's Management System is NOT successful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look at "income", Valve is successful. Very, indeed. But money is not the only metric.

      Yeah. Besides making tons of cash , there's also critical reception, reputation, popularity, technical achievement, and all sorts of other areas in which Valve performs extremely well.

    3. Re:Valve's Management System is NOT successful by hibiki_r · · Score: 2

      There's this game called Team Fortress 2, that has sold more than the Half Life series.
      Also, I'd not say that they bought portal and left 4 dead. They mostly bought the talent. Yes, that's how valve works: A whole lot of senior hires, very few entry level hires. Experienced hires tend to bring their game ideas with them. Just look at the hiring of IceFrog: Here, see a tech demo of your warcraft mod, made by our own developers. How about you make the game stand alone, and stop having to muck around with the limitations of WC3, which was never built around your game in the first place?

    4. Re:Valve's Management System is NOT successful by crashcy · · Score: 2

      I feel like you are measuring success by very strict terms of achieving what you want them to achieve. Yes, we'd all like to see HL3, but you're being rather flippant about the success of Portal 1 and 2, Left4Dead and L4D2, as well as Team Fortress, DOTA2, and Steam as more than just a digital distribution service. I've been on Steam since HL2, so I've watched it develop from something I hated and merely endured in order to play HL2 to something that I have on all the time. Aside from my games library, it is my main form of social media and where I get 90% of my gaming news. Greenlight, Early Access, and Big Picture are all new developments that have great potential.
      If you're defining Valve strictly as a Half-Life sequel developer, I agree, they have failed in recent years. But that's a pretty narrow view of what goes on there.

    5. Re:Valve's Management System is NOT successful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel like you are measuring success by very strict terms

      Not so. Successful = whatever I deem successful and furthers my argument. Very simple and open.

    6. Re:Valve's Management System is NOT successful by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Team Fortress is not a Valve creation, it's just something they bought out, like DOTA and Left 4 Dead.

    7. Re:Valve's Management System is NOT successful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Team fortress, as it stands now, is nothing like the team fortress of old. Team fortress of old was a minor modification to the quake engine, as you can see in TFC if you wanted to play that. If you count portal 2, you should count TF2, as the game has been redesigned, absolutely reimagined as an entire story, and sells so damn well, they can give it away and still make money many years later.

      See also - counterstrike.

    8. Re:Valve's Management System is NOT successful by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      For a larger company though they can't continue with the idea that everyone is fully equal and that there are no managers. It just can't work. It is also unrealistic to expect people to learn and buy into a "culture". A larger company has to succeed even if someone doesn't fit in with the cool kids and even if someone isn't chatty with all the other workers and doesn't know all the politics. That's why you need management.

    9. Re:Valve's Management System is NOT successful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Team Fortress 2 is not though. In fact, it's very different from the original game and you'd know that if you'd ever played both the original Team Fortress and Team Fortress 2.

    10. Re:Valve's Management System is NOT successful by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Yes, we'd all like to see HL3, but you're being rather flippant about the success of Portal 1 and 2, Left4Dead and L4D2, as well as Team Fortress, DOTA2

      Not really, since he covered Valve buying out games or game ideas from other people. There's also Counter-Strike.

      Hmm. Maybe a group of fans should get together and start making a Half-Life 3, so Valve can buy them out and stop procrastinating on their core franchise.

  23. Boo Hoo by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 0, Troll

    Baby crying because she couldn't run the show the way she wanted. I lost all respect for her back when she heckled some poor fellow on Twitter, accusing him of trying to steal from people and calling in her boys to join the taunting, despite knowing that this guy had just severely underestimated the scope of his project.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Boo Hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "run the show the way you want" is ENTIRELY what "structureless management" means, retard.

    2. Re:Boo Hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol and everyone else ran their show the way they wanted. Just because they didn't want to run their show the way Jeri wanted (and devote resources to her project) doesn't mean the system was that broken.

      It's just wasn't working the way she wanted. Boohoo.

      She should have started her own company in the first place then it could all revolve around her and her projects.

    3. Re:Boo Hoo by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 1

      It wasn't so that they pulled the rug from under her feet and changed everything after she started working there just to get at her. There was a framework for employment and operation in place before and during her poor performance as an employee, and she agreed to this framework and other terms when she accepted employment.

      She's a big-headed cry-baby, and you should feel bad for defending her.

      --
      Signature intentionally left blank.
    4. Re:Boo Hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only cry babies here are you and psychotria, whining and bitching on slashdot. "Oh boo hoo, Jeri keeps getting attention in the news and I've got nothing! WAAAAA!"

    5. Re:Boo Hoo by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 1

      If I wanted attention I wouldn't look for it on Slashdot, I'd throw a hissy-fit to get on the news like Jeri Ellsworth. Are you commenting on the topic at all, or are you just bitching on other people's comments? How ironic.

      --
      Signature intentionally left blank.
  24. so did steve jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and a bunch of other people. holy fuck.

  25. Attempted communism, obviously failed. by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Troll

    Well, those who are not aware of history are bound to repeat it.

    Quote:

    equity
    The theory in Igalia is that we pay everyone the same. Everyone should be working with approximately the same effort, and everyone should be working on something that is valuable to the business (whether in the short-, medium-, or long-term), and so everyone should share in the income to an equal extent.

    end quote.

    Looks to me that the people involved should have studied history, real history, real economics and real politics. They would have immediately understood that they were trying to implement a communist experiment on a smaller scale and it was obviously going to fail, you don't need to try it to realise it. They could have learned this from history of American pilgrims that tried this with disastrous consequences, and every other attempt at this failed before and since that time. Obviously people have written about this extensively. Again, not paying attention to history ends up biting you in the ass.

    1. Re:Attempted communism, obviously failed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you and APK /.'s only regular kooks? I kinda laugh whenever I spot your demented rambling, but I worry you're a basement-dwelling fantasist with a serious mental health condition.

    2. Re:Attempted communism, obviously failed. by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you and APK /.'s only regular kooks?

      /. has a rich and varied collection of kooks, grown organically from the fertile ground of the internet. Your attention is fertilizer.

    3. Re:Attempted communism, obviously failed. by fascismforthepeople · · Score: 1

      Well, those who are not aware of history are bound to repeat it.

      That is a strange statement from someone who knows as little about history as you, roman.

      Looks to me that the people involved should have studied history, real history, real economics and real politics.

      You would really do well to take your own advice.

      They would have immediately understood that they were trying to implement a communist experiment

      Where did you actually grow up? You claim to have lived in the soviet union yet you know essentially nothing about communism. Granted, the USSR leaders up to Gorbachev weren't following anything close to communist ideals - and neither was anyone since Stalin - but you should have at least heard enough from the party to have known what communism wanted to accomplish.

      on a smaller scale and it was obviously going to fail

      Actually, anyone who knows anything about communism knows that it only works on a small scale. Companies, up to very small states, can implement it successfully. Otherwise it falls apart due to the power vacuum that it creates that will draw in someone to take over the system.

      not paying attention to history ends up biting you in the ass.

      That is probably the most truthful statement you have ever made. Unfortunately you are willingly ignorant of much of human history and encouraging people to subscribe only to your favorite theology without regards for history. Many other religious movements have told their followers the same and ended up in the same dust bin you are headed towards.

  26. Re:Artical is way off base... by sal_park · · Score: 1

    Jeri pissed ( understandably ) , asks and gets given tech she was working on, moves on to form startup.

  27. What are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The poster says nothing about Amiga having "something to do with 'military computers'" but with the fact that NMOS was used in the Amiga and also used in military computers.

    Being used in the military budget may mean it is cheaper because of economies of scale.

    But nowhere do they say Amiga had something to do with military computers. Only the chip tech being used in Amigas being used there too.

    1. Re:What are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another AC here. The poster implied that NMOS was something special and wonderful because OMG MILITARY. No. It wasn't. It was just a popular logic family in the 1970s and 1980s, used in countless commercial and military chips. In fact, that poster was dead wrong about CMOS in PCs -- the 8086 and 8088 were NMOS. Probably most of the rest of the chips in the original IBM PC were too. And that poster was also wrong to imply that redesigning 1970s/1980s NMOS chips in CMOS represents an extra difficulty level.

      Perhaps it would help to give a brief primer to illustrate why.

      PMOS logic: uses P-channel MOS transistors, which are capable of pulling an output up to the more positive voltage supply rail (usually considered logic "1". You combine a P-channel MOSFET with a pulldown resistor to get both logic levels. If the transistor is in the off state (non-conducting), the output gets pulled down to the negative supply rail (logic "0") by the resistor. If the transistor is on, it pulls the output up.

      NMOS logic: uses N-channel MOS transistors, capable of pulling an output down to the more negative supply rail. Same stuff, except this time you use a pullup resistor and rely on the transistor to pull the output down when it should be 0.

      CMOS logic: uses both P- and N-channel transistors for complementary (that's the "C" in CMOS) drive. Logic gate outputs are driven by two transistors, one P and one N. Ideally, only one is turned on at a time, actively driving the output to logic 0 (N on, P off) or logic 1 (N off, P on). The advantage of CMOS in the 1980s was power: NMOS/PMOS gates consumed more of it because half the time their output stages are fighting against that pullup or pulldown resistor. CMOS gates only consumed power during the state transitions. But CMOS had disadvantages. NMOS logic was faster, because the P-type transistors used in both PMOS and CMOS logic were significantly slower to change state than N-type. CMOS also cost more than either PMOS or NMOS because it required extra process steps to fabricate both kinds of transistor on one chip.

      In all three cases you build more complicated logic gates out of collections of transistors, and those gates (e.g. AND, OR, NAND, XOR, etc.) are the fundamental building blocks which digital logic designers actually think about, for the most part. NMOS, PMOS, and CMOS are merely three different conventions for how to build gates -- two with only one type of transistor, the third using both.

      In the modern context, we've gone up another level of abstraction from that. Most of us now write Verilog or VHDL code (quasi C-like and extremely Ada-like syntax, respectively), and let tools synthesize that code to gates for us. Hardware description languages and modern EDA software are huge force multipliers for digital design engineers. We are probably hundreds of times more productive than the original teams were -- it's now trivial to for one person to do in their spare time what it used to take a large team a year or more to accomplish.

      So, it's not a complex problem to translate old NMOS logic to something else. The real challenge is reverse engineering the original design, documenting its corner cases, and so forth. After that's done, the job of generating an equivalent design using modern tools is relatively straightforward.

  28. Re:Artical is way off base... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's an article. Who or what is "artical"?

  29. Vavle Culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I interviewed for a hardware engineer position at valve. Everyone I met was very arrogant. Not a big surprise in the northwest. The biggest turn-off for me at valve: all the employees have contrived "creative" names on their linkedin pages. Example "coding dragon wizard". During the interview they asked me what my "alternate" title would be. I wanted to puke. Never went back. Cultures of arrogance and passive-aggressive competition are not for me.

    1. Re:Vavle Culture by tibman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, nobody uses an online pseudonym.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  30. They caught her trying to make Half-Life 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's Valve policy to never make that game.

  31. 1992 was TWENTY-ONE YEARS ago by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    augmented reality?!! weren't we all going to be gleaning the cube and having cyber-sex soon after the 90's? that's like millenia in computer years. hell, this is so stale the relevant patents have probably expired by now.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  32. Spent $x million on what? by csumpi · · Score: 1

    I don't know how many millions this project cost, but come on, we have rapid prototyping tools so it could've at least been made looking better than a high school science fair project.

    Add to that the fact that people refuse to wear their 3d tv glasses. Or glasses in general.

    Points to this being a smart executive decision to cut losses and move on.

    1. Re:Spent $x million on what? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      where did you get that it was millions? at any rate, the frames for it are 3d printed(you can see from the surface of the plastic).

      practicality problems might hamper the project. maybe folks at valve weren't really into tabletop ar games. star wars chess gets old pretty quick.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Spent $x million on what? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Personally I would be more inclined to use AR rather than VR glasses. VR glasses try to replace your entire field of vision and they often lag enough that it causes motion sickness. AR does not have these issues to nearly the same degree. Any prototype is going to look like that since many forms of miniaturization are lousy to use during the experimentation phase and some are indeed only doable on large scale manufacturing plants. One example is surface mounted technology.

      Yes any glasses are annoying to use. Especially if you already need to use a set of prescription glasses of your own.

    3. Re:Spent $x million on what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dick Johnson?!
      Who thought that was a good name?! That's one I use on online petitions to legalize marijuana at We the People.

    4. Re:Spent $x million on what? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Abrash told them that AR wasnt ready for prime time, but that VR (always his favorite thing) was ready. He is probably right, however technology is advancing at an ever faster rate. Google seems to think AR is worth investing in, after all.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    5. Re:Spent $x million on what? by csumpi · · Score: 2

      25 person team. $100k per person salary, just to keep it on the cheap side. Salary, per year is $2.5million, plus 25-40% benefits.

      Add to that material and equipment cost.

      Add to that rent, electricity, toilet paper.

      This project, per year, $5 million sinkhole, easily.

    6. Re:Spent $x million on what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I would be more inclined to use AR rather than VR glasses. VR glasses try to replace your entire field of vision and they often lag enough that it causes motion sickness. AR does not have these issues to nearly the same degree.

      Say what? The issues are worse, because the system has to attempt to keep the augmented overlays in sync with reality or your brain will really hate you. It's more tolerant of the entire world lagging a little bit than selected bits of the scene lagging by the same amount.

    7. Re:Spent $x million on what? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Experience with HUDs in fighter aircraft disproves this.

  33. You can't fire me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I quit!

  34. Re: Politics ruins everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Good shit comes from selfless people, and selfless people attract parasites and tempt honest people in to taking advantage of the situation when their feelings get hurt."

    Beauty.

  35. Re: Politics ruins everything by nine-times · · Score: 2

    When you hear breathless talk about new paradigms in management social structure it's always people grasping at straws attempting to pin the tail on the contributory factors to their synergy. Good shit comes from selfless people...

    I kind of agree. I think part of the problem is that people are searching for a magical formula. Bad managers like to think in terms of, "If I just do [x], then every one will work hard, there will be no conflicts, and I will get rich." They just want to know what "x" is. The problem is, "x" actually includes all of the following (plus more):

    • make good decisions
    • adapt to the situation as it changes
    • surround yourself with good people
    • be good at reading people and motivating people
    • do a good job
    • be lucky

    Sorry. There's no magic.

  36. Oh Valve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As time goes on and on Vale's shit starts to stink more and more.

    While I'm saddened by this I will enjoy this downfall, however slow and minor it is.

    What was that quote? "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain"

  37. Bad example by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    It does seem that a flat structure can work

    Uh, it can work at Valve. Because Valve has a LUDICROUS amount of cash. They're getting money for nothing because they have Steam. They managed to seduce the users with easy digital downloads and seduced the content owners with a promise of DRM. It's simply a better way of doing things. This is really bloody obvious, but getting that sweetspot of wooing both sides into letting you be their middleman was tight landing spot. Valve did it. And now they dominate digital distribution of gaming. Making Valve a game distribution company rather than a game developer who can't count to three.

    This let's them have a profit per employee which is simply ludicrous... and I wish I could find that number... damn. Anyway, they're flush with cash with no end in sight.

    Of course a flat structure can work when money isn't an issue. If, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if you're productive or not, yeah, all sorts of crazy management structures can work. The "Let everyone eat cake all day" structure can work as long as you have Steam printing money for you.

    And I say this as a strong believer in alternative management structures. That co-op tomato plant down in Florida where there is no management? Fantastic. I've worked at places where the management has been good, where it's been missing in action, and where it actively worked against the people getting things done. Democracy is horribly inefficient and committees are grueling, but I think it's a better choice than having a few people on top. But Valve is not a good example of the possibilities of alternative management, simply because they have too much money.

  38. Explains a few things by Zalbik · · Score: 1

    Pretty good, if short read.

    Kinda explains why "Big Picture" is such an unholy mess. I tried using this as a replacement for my XBox. I really did.

    But every single game (including Valve one's) seemed to have a different mechanism for configuring the controller. Sometimes it was in game, sometimes it was by editting .properties files. Sometimes, I couldn't get the controller to work at all, despite steam indicating that the game had controller support.

    Even in the Big Picture interface, the menu's were messy and non-intuitive. And even their, sometimes the controller would not function and I'd have to reach for my keyboard / trackpad.

    The annoying thing is that when it worked, it worked well. But as it is, I have very low expectations for the steam box.

  39. s/seduce/create a great product for/ by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 1

    What you call "seduction," I call "good business." The market had a need. Valve met that need and was rewarded.

    --
    Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
    1. Re:s/seduce/create a great product for/ by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      And if Steam would let me play my fucking games whenever I left the house or a storm took out our connection, I'd call it good too. As it is, the DRM is just a bit too much for me. Which is why I moved onto good old games.

    2. Re:s/seduce/create a great product for/ by tibman · · Score: 1

      It has never stopped me from playing games? It just pops up a box and says that my saves won't go into the steamcloud. If the game had DRM on top of it then THAT would stop me.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  40. Re:Anonymous Coward by prelelat · · Score: 1

    I'm hoping you are a troll but you probably don't even know who Jeri Ellsworth is. It is worth noting SHE is very very smart and quite brilliant and quite well known in the hardware hacker community. Jeri was working on some interesting hardware over at valve but I think with the way that the Oculus Rift was advancing Gabe was most likely looking to head in another direction from her tech. I think it was pretty awesome that he signed off on Jeri taking the hardware she was working on with her when she left I don't know of many companies that would knowingly do that. It also indicates that the hardware she was working on was of no interest to Valve any longer and was most likely the reason she was let go.

  41. Re:Baby crying about her pet project being a failu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You view that as "bitching and moaning"? Someone here is a petulant baby, and it's not her... Oh, and are you the guy that has posted numerous times in this thread calling her a crying baby, or do you just fall for the group-think easily?

  42. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm guessing this mere woman is doing better at life than you. Enjoy the bitterness.

  43. Very, very true by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    These days, Valve,s money comes from Steam. Their profits on that are stupid, like tens of millions per employee. Basically they just get to sit back and sell other people's stuff, and take a nice cut (30ish percent). As anyone who's ever had trouble with something will tell you, they have a minimal support staff, there's no phone number to call or anything, and responses take forever. Also when you really look at Steam it isn't that great. It isn't bad, but it is not some masterpiece of software engineering. Rather it was the first DD service to do a reasonable job, and thus it is what everyone started using and is in a nice positive feedback loop. Gamers buy on it because it has all the game and publishers sell on it because it has all the gamers.

    Those massive profits let them do whatever the fuck they want in the rest of the company. They can goof off as much as they like, spend as much time as they like, release every game for free if they like, Steam makes WAY more money than they need.

    That is also why Valve is so worried about the MS store in Windows. Supposing MS does a competent job of it (which at this point seems very unlikely), it could take away their golden goose. If people decided to start buying from the Windows store instead, because it came with the system and was integrated (like the Play Store on Android or the like) they could see their sales market evaporate and that would leave them in a rather uncomfortable situation. Hence the look at expanding Steam to other platforms, and the Steambox. They didn't just suddenly decide this was a good idea, they decided it when it looked like there might be a threat to Steam. Now given the utter hash MS is making of things, I don't think they need to worry, but that is the reason.

    Also going back to the start of Steam, again you are correct. People seem to forget that Steam was hated, maligned, when it came out. The reason people used it was because they wanted to play Halflife 2, and that required Steam. They weren't pleased with it, but they wanted HL2. In that way, Valve got Steam to a large market. From there they worked on improving it, offering more games, etc, etc until eventually it is the juggernaut we see today.

    1. Re:Very, very true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. I signed up for steam back in 2004 and it was a total piece of dog shit. I hated it. But I had to have it because I was a counterstrike junkie.

      Steam has improved a lot since then and I like it now, but it's still sort of a piece of crap, software-wise. It hangs up at odd times, updates oddly, crashes randomly. No where near what it used to, but it seems like they just work on it a little whenever they feel like it.

    2. Re:Very, very true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is also why Valve is so worried about the MS store in Windows. Supposing MS does a competent job of it (which at this point seems very unlikely), it could take away their golden goose. If people decided to start buying from the Windows store instead, because it came with the system and was integrated (like the Play Store on Android or the like) they could see their sales market evaporate and that would leave them in a rather uncomfortable situation. Hence the look at expanding Steam to other platforms, and the Steambox. They didn't just suddenly decide this was a good idea, they decided it when it looked like there might be a threat to Steam. Now given the utter hash MS is making of things, I don't think they need to worry, but that is the reason.

      We call that tunnel vision, or "not seeing the forest because there are too many trees in the way".

      The MS store is a threat to Steam, yes, but the MS store is also a threat to the PC as a platform as a whole. PCs are open, that is what makes them special compared to iPhones and consoles, anyone can make and sell stuff on it without permission from anyone. The MS store is the first thunderclap of a storm that is trying to close the platform down and install Microsoft as the 30% gatekeeper ala Apple.

  44. Re: Politics ruins everything by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    Also, in line with the "Peter Principle," when some people are "promoted" into management they think that their job is to bark orders or to make proclamations to be followed without questions and that their title of manager makes all of their decisions right. These people enjoy the arbitrary power they think they have. I hold that a leader (manager) is a servant who's job it is to keep things out of the way of their team. It is also a leader's job to identify what motivates each team member and use those factors to get work done while making people happy to come to work. Profit.

    The people who bark orders and use people to do the things they don't want to do just create an environment that makes people averse to work and causes them to focus only on themselves as a defense mechanism. Liability.

    As a manager I let people do what they like to do and gain their respect. If they get out of line and I have to confront them it is a lot easier if they like their job and respect me. When the "order barkers" confront someone it is probably because they caused the issue and the person responds by gathering up evidence against them to present to HR. I wish they put this stuff in textbooks.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  45. flat-pack? matrix? by whitroth · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of organizations with little heirarchy that work well... they're called co-ops.

    I have never heard of flat-pack, and the quick google I did found me (in addition to plenty of flat-pack kitchen stuff, and flat (apartment) management), was pure academic bs. Without some structure, trying to get anything done is like walking through mud, at best.

    From Ms. Ellsworth's post, it reminds me very much of what, in the early nineties, was called matrix management - which also sounded good, but meant, in reality, we weren't sure *who* our managers were, and we were told that we had to act like "internal consultants", and find our own charges. Which, of course, was pure bs, and let the managers rate, and get that salary, and not have to actually do the work of managing those folks who they supposedly had budgetary authority over.

    Every anarchy I've belonged to had management. What, you think *you* never belonged to an anarchy? "an-archy" means "no rulers", not chaotic lack of organization. This, of course, means that any club you've ever been a member of is an anarchy - you're a voluntary member, and the worst they can do is kick you out. BUT every one has a democratic management....

                    mark

  46. So you played it twice? by drainbramage · · Score: 1

    To (two) give yourself a Full Life?

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  47. DUURRRRRRRRR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What she needed to do was go round every different person in the company she could and get their buy in and input into what her project should do and most importantly why it was a good idea. blah blah blah blah"
    If you have to do that, what the hell is the advantage of being part of that company again? If I wanted to be faced with haggling over minutae and managing every tiny facet of a thing, then I would just do everything from my garage and home, marketing and retailing over the net.

    Jeez.

  48. Simpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like that Simpson's episode where all the Mensa members take over leading the town and drive it into the ground. As much as most of us hate the corporate hierarchy (and I think most do), it's in place because it's what allows business to operate effectively. Or as effectively as possible until something better comes along.

    There's a company near Madison, WI that has been running a flat structure for years. The CEO changes monthly I think and never makes much more then the employees? I forgot the name of it but point is it's a manufacturing company. I seriously doubt with all the warped personality types of IT this would ever work well in our industry. I'm five feet away from a socially awkward co-worker that has refused to acknowledge me whenever I join a conversation... FOR THE LAST THREE MONTHS. These personality types don't do well unless there is boot to ass. Because on the days when the manager's are out he works a 3 hour day with a 3 hour lunch in the middle (salary positions). I don't see utopia happening in IT with our odd cast of characters. Some people, sadly even as adults, still need a mommy and daddy telling them what to do. Why do you think so many managers call their role babysitting? It is!

  49. Ouculs Rift by blueskytech.me · · Score: 0

    My hope is that they scrapped her project because of the Oculus Rift. Valve has been active in porting Half Life 2 and Team Fortress 2 to the Oculus Rift and hopefully they scrapped her department because of the superior product outside their company. I have high hopes for augmented reality wherever it gets developed.

  50. Re: Politics ruins everything by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Of course people should have seen this coming. It just takes a little bit of experience in the real world to realize that there's no such thing as magic pixie dust.
    There are things in that paradigm that just isn't going to work for a larger company or for a company where not every employee is doing work of equal importance.

  51. What, no Joel on Software post? by kriston · · Score: 1

    What, no Joel on Software post?
    Quoting a Joel on Software post is like violating Godwin's Law.

    --

    Kriston

  52. Person we like. Company we like. Conflict. News. by billstewart · · Score: 1

    It's one thing if Anonymous Coward gets fired from $BORING_INC and whines about it. But this is a story about a really cool well-known hardware geek getting fired by a really cool well-known games company because their believed-to-be-interesting culture is a mess and doesn't have a clue about hardware. That's news.

    And it wasn't all that long ago that the tech news was excited that Valve had hired Jeri, because they wanted to do something with hardware that would obviously be amazingly cool since they were willing to start a whole new hardware group to do it and obviously must have some kind of vision about it, and also because our friend had gotten hired by a really fun company.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  53. What do you expect by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    Considering how mouthy Gabe is publicly, I never expected that Valve truly has a flat management structure, just a hidden one. There is no way that a company can operate by having every employee equally weigh in on corporate decisions, and I am pretty sure Gabe is not going to allow that in general. I mean, isn't that why "design by committee" is used in negative connotations?

    In a flat structure probably works if the company is small and new. But you are eventually going to get a mix new and old employees that eventually feel entitled to weigh in heavier on decisions because they have been their longer. You're not going to get some new junior developer that is fresh out of school having equal weight on corporate decisions over an employee that has been there from the start, or the actual owner? Bullshit.

    And also lets not forget the fact that it takes 5+ years for Valve to release anything. Where is HL3? One of the most popular game franchises and not even a hint it's in production and they dropped making episodes for HL2 pretty quickly. Even the SteamBox has turned into vaporware, E3 just passed, didn't hear much about it. Suddenly Valve is in talks to do a bunch of movies based on their games? Obviously flat structure is NOT optimal if the goal is to actually produce a product, or at least stay on track as a game company and not turn into a movie studio on a whim.

    I wish Valve (and Gabe) would end their bullshit about corporate philosophy and instead focus on actually running a more efficient and effective company instead of telling other companies they are doing everything wrong. Valve's lack of corporate structure seems to be failing on many many levels. I mean Gabe had the audacity to accuse Sony of being unfocused about the PS3, yet as a company Valve has no focus. Are you a game company? Game publisher? Game Retailer?, Console maker? Movie studio? I mean you can be all if that is your choice, but you have to produce at all levels, not dangle products and ideas around for years and then never deliver.

    It's disappointing because when Valve does something right it's usually awesome, but I think they are stretching themselves too thin. Time for a real leader to emerge and bring focus back to the company. You can't have 100 people wanting to do 100 things and expect to excel at all of them.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  54. breathless by RatanGharami · · Score: 1

    When you hear breathless talk about new paradigms in management social structure it's always people grasping at straws attempting to pin the tail on the contributory factors to their synergy. Good shit comes from selfless people, and selfless people attract parasites and tempt honest people in to taking advantage of the situation when their feelings get hurt.http://computersbds.blogspot.com/">please visit it Frosty Piss for everyone. Reply to This Share