I'm assuming you're the same anonymous aD employee who's posted the anti-Philip-you-slashdotters-are-a-pathetic-bunch- of-grovelling-no-hopers-stuff-above.
Your vitriol against Philip, and your characterisation of Jin as his 'lackey', adds up to a pretty extreme critique of the team that created the concept, original product, and the brand that pays your cheque every month. I can only assume that they have done something or things pretty unspeakable. But apart from saying that he's a bad manager, you and the other aD posters haven't said exactly what it is that's got you so pissed. There are clearly two sides to this story but all that's coming from your side is anger and spite - no explanation. On the other side, it looks like a case of the founders and majority shareholders being ousted by VCs because of a disagreement over open source. If that's wrong then please post and tell us why. But please don't just sound off that we're pathetic. Some of us have been around the ACS a long time and know a lot about the history of aD and the ACS community.
And I personally know and know of several aD employees, including senior ones, who are very unhappy with the way aD has gone over the last few months and the dispute with PG.
At least, when he posts online, he tells us who he is...
My understanding is that the principle bone of contention between Philip and Allen was over the Open Source nature of the ACS. The management team brought in by the VCs seems set on revenues from closed source modules. Now, either you're an open source company or your not. If it was part of Philip's core vision that aD was OS this was bound to cause tension. I'm sure he's not the most diplomatic guy in the world & I'm sure he's rubbed some people up the wrong way, & maybe he wasn't the best guy to do people management in the company. But the way the external ACS community has been treated over the lasts few months, and the ambivalence about open source, suggests that there's more than just personalities causing the problems here.
As an insider - what's your take on the real issues that have caused the split? And, for context, are you a programmer, manager, salesperson?
Greedy? Not necessarily. More like 'over ambitious' perhaps. The founders of aD always said that they hoped to build a company that was as important in web applications as SAP was in ERD (over 10 years or so). I think they saw a way of accelerating this. PG and the others were always very sceptical of VCs (we don't need VCs, we have revenue they always used to say) but in the heady days of late 99 early 2000 even they got caught up in the hype. Saw a chance to get Big and Important more quickly (while remaining 100% Open Source, and fully committed to all the other stuff, training, pro-bono work etc.), took it, and then I think almost immediately regretted it. I guess they thought they could control the beast as long as they still had a majority shareholding between them. Looks like, at the end of the day, the shareholder agreements they signed may have done for them. Long spoons all round...
Still there is the option that PG, the founders, and all the best programmers could quit, set up aD2 (or whichever venture most gets their juices going) and give the VCs the proverbial finger. Might lose their stock in aD but that's not looking like such a big loss right now, and I'd reckon they'd be on better legal ground this way than by trying to retake control of aD. At least a couple of the big clients would be tempted to go with them. Phil Greenspun == Jerry MacGuire?
Slashdot Mirror
Your vitriol against Philip, and your characterisation of Jin as his 'lackey', adds up to a pretty extreme critique of the team that created the concept, original product, and the brand that pays your cheque every month. I can only assume that they have done something or things pretty unspeakable. But apart from saying that he's a bad manager, you and the other aD posters haven't said exactly what it is that's got you so pissed. There are clearly two sides to this story but all that's coming from your side is anger and spite - no explanation. On the other side, it looks like a case of the founders and majority shareholders being ousted by VCs because of a disagreement over open source. If that's wrong then please post and tell us why. But please don't just sound off that we're pathetic. Some of us have been around the ACS a long time and know a lot about the history of aD and the ACS community. And I personally know and know of several aD employees, including senior ones, who are very unhappy with the way aD has gone over the last few months and the dispute with PG.
My understanding is that the principle bone of contention between Philip and Allen was over the Open Source nature of the ACS. The management team brought in by the VCs seems set on revenues from closed source modules. Now, either you're an open source company or your not. If it was part of Philip's core vision that aD was OS this was bound to cause tension. I'm sure he's not the most diplomatic guy in the world & I'm sure he's rubbed some people up the wrong way, & maybe he wasn't the best guy to do people management in the company. But the way the external ACS community has been treated over the lasts few months, and the ambivalence about open source, suggests that there's more than just personalities causing the problems here.
As an insider - what's your take on the real issues that have caused the split? And, for context, are you a programmer, manager, salesperson?
Greedy? Not necessarily. More like 'over ambitious' perhaps. The founders of aD always said that they hoped to build a company that was as important in web applications as SAP was in ERD (over 10 years or so). I think they saw a way of accelerating this. PG and the others were always very sceptical of VCs (we don't need VCs, we have revenue they always used to say) but in the heady days of late 99 early 2000 even they got caught up in the hype. Saw a chance to get Big and Important more quickly (while remaining 100% Open Source, and fully committed to all the other stuff, training, pro-bono work etc.), took it, and then I think almost immediately regretted it. I guess they thought they could control the beast as long as they still had a majority shareholding between them. Looks like, at the end of the day, the shareholder agreements they signed may have done for them. Long spoons all round ...
Still there is the option that PG, the founders, and all the best programmers could quit, set up aD2 (or whichever venture most gets their juices going) and give the VCs the proverbial finger. Might lose their stock in aD but that's not looking like such a big loss right now, and I'd reckon they'd be on better legal ground this way than by trying to retake control of aD. At least a couple of the big clients would be tempted to go with them. Phil Greenspun == Jerry MacGuire?