Bigger isn't always better
- From: "Henrick Hellström [StreamSec]" <henrick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:52:01 +0100
This might be an interesting read for everyone here who is worried that the CodeGear staff is too small to be able to compete with Microsoft:
http://www.drizzle.com/~lettvin/2006/11/windows-shutdown-crapfest.html
"So in addition to the above problems with decision-making, each team had no idea what the other team was actually doing until it had been done for weeks.
The end result of all this is what finally shipped: the lowest common denominator, the simplest and least controversial option."
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/24.html
"Every piece of evidence I've heard from developers inside Microsoft supports my theory that the company has become completely tangled up in bureaucracy, layers of management, meetings ad infinitum, and overstaffing. The only way Microsoft has managed to hire so many people has been by lowering their hiring standards significantly. In the early nineties Microsoft looked at IBM, especially the bloated OS/2 team, as a case study of what not to do; somehow in the fifteen year period from 1991 - 2006 they became the bloated monster that takes five years to ship an incoherent upgrade to their flagship product."
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Bigger isn't always better
- From: Nathaniel L. Walker
- Re: Bigger isn't always better
- Prev by Date: Re: Is D7 "abandonware"?
- Next by Date: Re: Is D7 "abandonware"?
- Previous by thread: CodeGears new direction
- Next by thread: Re: Bigger isn't always better
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|