[clue-talk] The reason MS is winning against Linux?

[Nate Duehr]

Sean LeBlanc wrote:
> On 01-09 19:32, Nate Duehr wrote:
>> Sean LeBlanc wrote:
>>
>>> I'd say this article reads like PR FUD. It's good to consider all your
>>> options, but this article seems pretty lean on actual data and how they 
>>> came
>>> up with those numbers. And notice who they talked to - the chairman of the
>>> board? I bet you could really snow someone in that position when it comes 
>>> to
>>> technology.
>> Sorry, I'm going to head off into the OT ditch here for a moment, 
>> because I think you bypassed a major point there.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Regardless of whether Google provides a counter-example to how things
> typically are, I agree with your points. In fact, that's why I mentioned it.
> I agree with how leadership *should* be defined. All too often, that's not
> how it works, and that's why I pointed out who they talked to in this
> article. :)

Understood.  It's just a pet peeve of mine... and easy to get me on the 
soap-box.

Slum-lord shareholders who own stocks but don't participate in setting 
the tone of what they expect from so-called "leadership" -- especially 
when that leadership is clueless -- drive me nuts.  Mutual funds are the 
financial equivalent of being a renter instead of a property owner.

It's even more dangerous nowadays where all "leaders" are smart enough 
to write in golden-parachute clauses in their contracts.

Lead a company *badly* but not quite badly enough to completely destroy 
it for an average of 3 years, and you're almost *guaranteed* a 
multi-million dollar payoff if you're playing at that level.  Just to 
get you to go away.  Something's wrong with that.

Carly Fiorina, as one example.

And shareholders should be screaming bloody murder about it, and 
demanding the heads of the Board members who signed the contract for 
that CEO/CXX.

Nate
_______________________________________________
CLUE-talk mailing list
CLUE-talk at cluedenver.org
http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk