From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 22867 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2023 00:17:13 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (2600:3c01:e000:146::1) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 13 Aug 2023 00:17:13 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A30340FE2; Sun, 13 Aug 2023 10:17:10 +1000 (AEST) Received: from lists.tip.net.au (pasta.tip.net.au [203.10.76.2]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77E2440FAB for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2023 10:16:50 +1000 (AEST) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (ppp118-208-169-235.cbr-trn-nor-bras39.tpg.internode.on.net [118.208.169.235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailhost.tip.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4RNdPW5bZqz8t6J; Sun, 13 Aug 2023 10:16:47 +1000 (AEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\)) From: Steve Jenkin In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 10:16:45 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <69DE1503-3849-4027-A5C3-3DC34BC664CF@canb.auug.org.au> References: To: scj@yaccman.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21) Message-ID-Hash: HGIKIRZVYPTJLQHZ36LFGNZKXFRZJU7Y X-Message-ID-Hash: HGIKIRZVYPTJLQHZ36LFGNZKXFRZJU7Y X-MailFrom: sjenkin@canb.auug.org.au X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: COFF X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [COFF] Re: Bell Labs vs "East Coast" Management style of AT&T List-Id: Computer Old Farts Forum Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Steve, thanks for the wonderful account of history. you were at the heart of it all, very kind of you to answer my Q. You exactly described the problem at the divested AT&T: monopolists who didn=E2=80=99t understand =E2=80=98marketing=E2=80= =99,=20 especially not of commodity goods,=20 where 90% gross margins kill sales volumes & profits. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D I know I've read a comment about BTL's CSRC being "collegiate" even = "collaborative=E2=80=9D. Was that your experience? In 1971, Jerry Weinberg published a book with =E2=80=9CEgoless = Programming=E2=80=9D. I wouldn=E2=80=99t phrase his concept that way, perhaps =E2=80=9CCode Quality comes First=E2=80=9D not just =E2=80=9Cperformant=E2=80=9D but well designed, well coded, = well documented and easily maintained. I wrote & discarded two additional responses, included =E2=80=98below = the fold=E2=80=99 if anyone wants to rip into them :) cheers steve > On 5 Aug 2023, at 13:35, scj@yaccman.com wrote: >=20 > OK, you asked for it... >=20 > Let me first say that the management style in the Unix Research area = was pragmatic and, in many ways, ideal: > * We were told that the work we were doing this year would probably = take several years before it could be evaluated. =20 > This freed us to take 3 months on a project, and, even if the project = itself failed it often inspired other people to "do it right=E2=80=9D.=20= > The management structure was very static -- organizations would remain = unchanged in mission for several years, with supportive managers up the = line. > For example, the year I wrote Yacc (probably one of my most productive = years) > I got a rather blah review from my manager (his exact words were "Why = would anyone want to do that?"). =20 > The next year I got a massive raise, and the year after my Boss and I = made multiple trips to "sell" Unix to Bell Labs and AT&T organizations = that could make use of it.=E2=80=9D > In the early 1980s, the V7 port of Unix, which I had been working on = for two years, was out and successful. =20 > A new language, C++, was being developed and showed promise. > The Portable C Compiler had been ported to dozens of different = machines, and front ends for FORTRAN and other languages were becoming = available. > And AT&T decided to divest the "thriving" computer company to go out = and change the world. > I could see the technology development that was possible and had = always enjoyed delivering useful things to people who needed them. > So I offered to transfer to the Commercial arm as Department Head of a = group of 30 people, growing over two years to nearly 60. > My supervisors were a great bunch, and when I told them that, I was = sure I could do the job. > However, though, they needed to teach me what was most important and = how to do it right. > They were a little surprised by this, but soon we were technically in = sync. > The debugger was one piece of software that was a kluge, and we = redefined the formats to handle multiple languages and delivered C, = Fortran, Ada, and Pascal compilers. > However, the business was being run by people who had only worked for = a monopoly, and they did not understand the first thing about marketing. = =20 > They didn't know what the languages were, who used them, and what they = did, and, in particular, we had an urgent need for a FORTRAN optimizer = (because DEC's was excellent). =20 > My marketing support was one two-hour meeting every other week. > It was always the last person hired into the marketing group and = frequently had not even heard of the languages we were delivering. > So we would talk about what we were doing in places like Usenix and = Universities. =20 > After four years, we had built all the promised languages except for = the FORTRAN optimizer, which was written and working but was held up for = documentation. > The word had come down that all the documentation was to be written in = a small office in a small Southern state with no technical footprint = whatsoever. > The first draft was worse than you could possibly imagine. > Somehow, they had gotten the idea that an optimizer was a piece of = hardware! > After quite a bit of heated discussion, they set out to fix it. > But I had had it. > I'd done the job I came to do, doubled the size of the department, and = much of the software from that time is still alive and well today. =20 > But a California headhunter made me an offer I couldn't refuse, and I = didn't. >=20 > A couple of years in Silicon Valley taught me a lot about marketing -- = I worked with some superb folks and settled into my post-Bell career. > I also developed a deep interest in the craft of management and am = co-authoring a book on how you turn programmers, doctors, accountants, = etc. into managers. > I have had many mistakes to learn from, as well as many successes. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Source Code, especially when Portable, puts power in the hands of users/ = consumers, taking it away from Vendors exploiting need: - Can be no "Vendor Lock-In", used extensively to 'mine' user = bases for revenue. Economics has the notions of goods being excludable = (owners/vendors control who uses a good) and rivalrous (only one customer can consume the = good, thus preventing others). Source Code is 'non-excludable' - if you've got all the = code for something, an 'owner' can't stop you running it. Neither is it 'rivalrous' - my using the Code doesn't = stop anyone else using it vs I eat an Apple, you can't eat it. - Users can't be coerced into 'upgrades' or 'orphaned' when = products are dropped or a company goes away. Having the source means a vendor never has to say = 'sorry'. maybe. With the invention of Portable Systems and Apps, a whole new layer of = the Computing Industry appeared: ISV's like Oracle (Indep Software Vendors) They got to exploit Customers (denying customers access to own = data), while hardware vendors lost "use us or else" control. I think I've identified three things that Doug Mcilroy's group did / = knew, apart from his 4 part "Unix Philosophy" (of building reusable Tools - allowing not-as-bright ppl like me = to "Stand on the Shoulders of Giants") A: Artefacts: Code, distribution, self-hosting tools & = 'toolchain', basic Unix Userland tools & online documentation B: Process: Collegiate, Collaborate, 2-way Sharing of = ideas/code. "All of Us is better than any one of Us" C: Software Economics: a) Bill Gates Law, =E2=80=9Cit=E2=80=99s = about volume=E2=80=9D: selling '000's of units, cost/unit is v. low, = sell millions: invoicing costs more than code. b) Code developers need = to invent reasonable ways to get paid for their work. Android is given = away, but Google make money on the "Play Store" Sometimes, = there's no obvious substitute to "Pay for Support / License" :( [ the Economics rules are the same for Moore's Law. ] [ Sell lots, drop prices and High Elasticity of Consumer = Products guarantees higher profits ] Points where GNU and Unix differ fundamentally: - for Unix, it's all about working Code: 'show me yours, don't = just criticise', Clean, high quality, 'minimal' code was normalised + = some doco - BTL researchers, mostly, weren't inflating their ego or = looking for power. They collaborated and shared ideas, improved others = work. - BTL understood 'things cost money' and their work was intended = to lead to 'products'. They didn't agree with the 'management' Business Model, = but weren't "Freedom!" Zealots... Cheap & 'everywhere' is good :) - BTL Research chose "Talent" very well, including = "self-starters": Curious intellects able to take Initiative & challenge = norms. - BTL researchers had the luxury of "all the time you need" to = do 'step-wise refinement', rewrites, explore multiple alternatives, = profile & 'tune', and modify core concepts / tools / languages. Iterating = their way to great software. Deadlines and Deliverables are central to Business = Projects - but anathema to Research, where you don't know the Question = even. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Gordon Bell notes that: in 1984 there were 91 computer manufacturers in the USA, in 1990, just four of them were left: IBM, HP, DEC and Data General Within a decade, only IBM & HP were left, with IBM having declared =E2=80=98largest losses in US Corporate history=E2=80=99, twice, 1991 & = 1992. The MOS / CMOS microprocessors were speeding up at 60%/year, multiples faster than ECL & TTL improved. Bell saw this early.=20 Presume one of the reasons he left DEC in 1983. Gordon Moore and his team solved a Profit Maximisation problem with =E2=80=9CMoore=E2=80=99s Law=E2=80=9D. Old School AT&T management didn=E2=80=99t understand either: - they were competing in Commodity markets for hardware & = software - their timing on hardware could not have been worse. The Intel juggernaut & CMOS & RISC vendors were about to over-run =E2=80=99traditional=E2=80=99 = firms Unix, C and the new toolchains created an entirely new class of Systems & Software:=20 Portable Which created the ISV=E2=80=99s (Indep. Software Vendors). Oracle and SAP have done very, very well off the back of your invention :-/ Hardware and Software are Symbiotic: neither thrives without the other. Customers buy Software and what it can do for them. But they have to run it on hardware. Portable code allowed selection of =E2=80=9CBest Option=E2=80=9D. The Open Systems and Portability revolution, begun at Bell Labs, took this to a whole new level. Customers wanted & needed zero barriers to entry (and exit) - their data and systems had to =E2=80=98just run=E2=80=99=E2=80=A6 Which made 1980=E2=80=99s computing competitive in a way it had never been for the previous two decades. Vendors still sought ways to =E2=80=9CLock in=E2=80=9D customers, but it wasn=E2=80=99t hardware anymore. The original AT&T management who thought they=E2=80=99d all get rich of Unix in 1984 can=E2=80=99t be blamed for missing this trend. It was entirely outside their experience. I wonder what the Shareholders thought? =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D -- Steve Jenkin, IT Systems and Design=20 0412 786 915 (+61 412 786 915) PO Box 38, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA mailto:sjenkin@canb.auug.org.au http://members.tip.net.au/~sjenkin