McNealy Created Millions of Jobs? 363
cahiha writes "In his blog, Jonathan Schwartz argues that Scott McNealy is single-handedly responsible for making network computing a reality. His timeline is something like that in 1992, the industry was focused on 'Chicago' (Windows 95), while McNealy bravely went his own way-- 'the network is the computer.' He goes on to claim that 'There is no single individual who has created more jobs around the world than [Scott McNealy]. [...] I'm not talking hundreds or thousands of jobs, I'm talking millions.' I have trouble following his argument: client/server computing and distributed computing were already widely available and widely used in the early 1990s. The defining applications of the emerging Internet were, not Java, but Apache, Netscape, and Perl. Sun's biggest response to Chicago was to attempt to establish Java as the predominant desktop application delivery platform, something they have not succeeded at so far. So, what do you think: is Schwartz right in giving credit to McNealy for creating
'millions' of jobs? Or has Sun been a company on the decline since the mid-1990s, only temporarily buoyed by the Internet bubble?"
i realize it's fashionable to bash mcneally (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask Slashdot ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither ?
These black & white choices are annoying >_<
You can't give all credit to McNealy ... (Score:3, Insightful)
If so, then wouldn't one argue that the Abacuses created billions of jobs? How about the person(s) who invention the wheel -- didn't that create zillions and zillions of jobs?
When well we stop giving needless and total credit to one individual who merely happens to be at the right place at the right time. McNealy would not have been successful if many, and many, and many other individuals didn't do their parts directly or indirectly their part -- they too must be singled out if McNealy is.
-- George
Re:Keeping Java Closed (Score:5, Insightful)
I love comments like this! They indicate what a strange reality some slashdotters live in - it almosts make me believe in parallel universes.
I eagerly await other posts from this other dimension:
"Intel - will it ever take off?"
"Windows - how it lost out to Apple"
"Linux - the ultimate game platform".
Actually I guess the message here is that no matter how much you really, really want something to be be true (Java on the decline) this does not make it true.
Re:Credit for millions of jobs?? (Score:4, Insightful)
If anyone should be thanked, it should be Bill Gates and Microsoft for making computers easier to use for a vast majority of the population.
I think what the blog article, and the original letter, were saying is that McNealy was right. His vision back in the early 90s was of an open network, where the important thing was the network, not the devices connected to it, and that was the world we were moving towards. It's a world built on open standards with all sorts of room for innovation and differentiation. Schwartz is not claiming that McNealy invented the Internet. He was saying that McNealy's vision of the future was the correct one unlike all those other companies who killed their own R&D and fell into the Redmond camp because they had seen the light (from Redmond and Wall Street).
As for Microsoft... if not Microsoft, someone else would have filled their role. Apple perhaps? Digital Research? Who knows. I don't think Microsoft did anything really brilliant or overly original in GUI design. As for "the Network is the Computer", Microsoft had to be dragged kicking and screaming into embracing the Internet and any open standards that they didn't control. The Internet wasn't even on their radar until Sun, Java and Netscape scared them.
Finally, you have to put Schwartz's blog in context. It was written as a tribute to McNealy, his mentor. The original letter, paraphrased from two years ago, was written to cheer up his mentor when Sun's fortunes were sinking and the Wall Street boys were savaging McNealy. I'm willing to give Schwartz a bit of leeway on the hyperbole.
Helped Linux by keeping Unix popular (Score:3, Insightful)
Where credit is due. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Credit for millions of jobs?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems largely retarded to take credit for jobs created indirectly, since there's no logical place to draw boundaries in either space or time.
Riding the Wave (Score:4, Insightful)
It is true that for a long time, Java was one of the all-important buzzwords, but it didn't pan out quite as well as it might have.
Sun was important, but not *that* important. CERN was far more important....
-Rob
Family Guy Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
What was that Family Guy quote? Didn't it go like this:
Lawyer: So, Mr Griffin, is Brian Griffin a sex-crazed dog or an irresponsible alchoholic?
Peter: Ah,ah...
Lawyer: Drunken lunatic or terrible father?
The world is not black and white. These choices on /. are annoying. Sun is a good company, not a great one, but giving an either/or question with disconnected answers is fallacious.
If anyone at Sun ever created a job, it was (Score:4, Insightful)
His early yet elegant productivity enabled a generation to create and communicate.
But really, the heroes are the people who wrote the documentation. Because all the technology in the world is useless if the next guy can't figure out how it works.
McNealy never created any job but his own.
Re: Stallman and GNU/Linux (Score:1, Insightful)
Blame him for IE then. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because of Sun, because of Java, we have IE. (and ActiveX, and VBscript...)
Re:Keeping Java Closed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not really SELF-aggrandizing... (Score:5, Insightful)
What an amazing statement. I take it you don't do any remote banking, your workplace doesn't use one of the Web based CRM or system management apps, etc.
Re:Keeping Java Closed (Score:5, Insightful)
And I would lay claim that they really don't. You can combine all the online forums you like but they don't come near the phenomenal combined volume of stock trading systems, banking systems, airline booking systems etc. We are talking of system which individually handle hundreds of millions or even billions of transactions each day. Consider the combined volume of transactions of all these systems....
And before you mention google - that uses a considerable amount of Java as well.
I didn't say that Java is now unpopular in all domains, that is false. But I think that it will degrade because it will not have the ability to adapt like other languages can. If Sun goes down, methinks it would be all over for Java.
Java is constantly adapting, with regular releases with new features (well, new to Java anyway!): Generics, improved concurrency and higher performance for the GUI in Java 5; scripting language support and web services support and far better client side integration in Java 6. How is this not adapting?
Apart from the wild idea that Sun is going down (their annual losses are trival compared to their net worth, and that worth is not largely dependent on share value), there are companies with far, far bigger investments in Java than Sun, like IBM. They are constantly producing new VMs for internal and external uses.
If Sun did 'go down', Java would certainly continue (in fact, IBM could well buy up the rights and open source it!). That is one of the reasons why I find it such an appealing language - it is not a one-vendor language.
And if you want to chide somebody for wanting to overcome the competition, fine. But don't forget that the origin of all open projects is the desire to build a better product, and it's only because we want to be better that we can achieve that. Wanting something is the root cause for it happening. That's not a guarantee, but it's as close as we can get.
I was not chiding anyone for wanting anything. What I was gently ridiculing is a Slashdot speciality - stating what someone might want (for whatever reasons) as if it has already happened.
I want better products - I would rather that more people adopted MacOS that Windows. I wish I could play more games on Linux. I would prefer Java to be open source. However, we have to face reality.
There is not the slightest sign (at least yet) that Java has stopped growing in terms of its adoption - it is still in the growth phase. This may change in a few years, but to say now that 'Java will remain on the path to obscurity' is ridiculous in many ways - it implies not only that Java is going to be obscure, but it is already on that path, which is obviously false.
Like it or not, Java works, and works very well for a very large number of developers. It would be nice if it were open source, I agree, but it seems to me that its current status has had little impact on its adoption, no matter now much open source supporters may wish otherwise.
Re:Credit for millions of jobs?? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, and I'd like to take that one step further. This is leadership change in a large, influential company. Having talked to some Sun people this last weekend, I get the feeling that they don't have a clear picture of what this means for them and their lives. And that might translate into a lack of trust, or a belief that the senior management is confused.
Schwartz was posting as much for the rank-and-file Sun employee and investor as he was for his mentor. He has to show that he's a team player and that he's not just grabbing the reins from somebody who he thought was an idiot. If the rest of Sun believes that the guy at the top thinks the last X years under McNealy has been a waste, then what does that say about their OWN work and sense of worth?
Re:Keeping Java Closed (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? This seems to be a popular opinion on Slashdot, and I'm curious why people need it to be any more open than it is? I mean afaik, the only thing that isn't "open" about it is the spec. If you want to create your own implementation of a JVM you're allowed but it must conform to the spec. This is a very *good* thing IMO. It would really suck if MS had been able to complete its "embrace and extend" manuever on Java (which is what MS has done with the open web standards and browsers) and it would suck even more if there were 5 different JVM's out there and you had to tailor your code to run on each one. You would completely lose the WORA (or you'd have to do all sorts of gimmicky crap to figure out what jvm you were running on -thats a lot of fun with browsers and html, I think it would be even more annoying with code). So I ask again, not rhetorically, but honestly: why open source it? Am I missing something?
say what?? (Score:1, Insightful)
The web has evolved as it should, both the end user machines and the network servers need to be powerful and complete in function, and as the web expands, the distinction betweeen server and client will blur. P2P is already showing the potential there.
Re:stock is up (Score:3, Insightful)
On one level, this sort of short-sighted thinking makes me want to throw things. It's not good for the industry, and it's not good for the country. But the market is what it is. Given the speed at which capital flows these days, I don't see it changing.
Which begs the question of where future R&D is going to come from. Universities increasingly want to lock up and license anything remotely marketable. Government funding is sliding.
Not a good situation, IMHO, and I'm fresh out of brilliant ideas. Support any state initiatives, and organizations such as ACM and USENIX, is about all I can suggest.
Clarification (Score:3, Insightful)
Jonathan Schwartz argues that Scott McNealy is single-handedly responsible for making network computing a reality.
Where in reality, the Schwartz article clearly states:
he talked about network computing in a very strange way - he just assumed the future, he'd already moved his entire mindset, and his lifestyle, to the network.
There is nothing in there about McNealy being the only guy able to bring the network computing vision into reality. But he have the vision early on - us old timers clearly remember Sun at that time, and their vision that was very clearly stated.
Is the posting a little sappy? It's very sappy. But it never says or suggests that McNealy single handedly did anything.
Fair enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I use both online banking and web apps at work. I see your point. Fair enough.
I tend to think of the web essentially as a data store and batch system whereas most of the interactive content creation tools are all still based on the local PC which requires more expensive and capable hardware than the thin-client model says is necessary. Until PCs do almost nothing and next to no data is locally owned, then McNealy's vision of the future still hasn't come true.
Die, Dichotomy, Die! (Score:3, Insightful)
they have lost control (Score:5, Insightful)
If Sun had turned Java into an open standard, every Linux system would be using Java now, for both desktop and server apps, many of Java's technical bugs would be fixed, and C# would have ended up like VisualBasic. Instead, Sun's move allowed Microsoft to take the high ground and make C# an open standard. The open source community has created multiple C# implementations and gone to work innovating and improving the platform, as well as integrating it with the Linux desktop. As a result, some really nifty Linux desktop apps are being written in C#. And, as a bonus, there are also open source
BTW, this is a repeat of the NeWS disaster; that, too, was a nice core idea, the design had some serious flaws, the implementation was mediocre at best, and ultimately the industry rejected it because Sun was waffling on whether to open it or not. Sun apparently doesn't learn from their mistakes.
Microsoft and Knockoffs: Yes and No (Score:3, Insightful)
(I personally suspect that the development of NT and the hiring of VMS programmers was a specific attempt to kill DEC which it ultimately succeeded in doing-- however since the DEC suit was settled, I am not sure that there are any antitrust options available in this case, but IANAL and I don't know the lawsuit well or the settlement. Technologically, NT pales in comparison to VMS.)
BTW, regarding stability of NT, prior to NT4, device drivers ran in ring 1 (I think) on Intel chips. This was changed because it was believed that the context switching of this model intruced some performance penalties, and that the elimination of these penalties was more important than the additional stability that running the drivers with fewer permissions allowed.
Regarding RTF, I don't see it as a TeX ripoff at all. WHile I have not studied the format closely, there seems to be little room for a quick, simple word processor format (RTF) and a typesetting programming language. If it is a TeX ripoff, then it is an abysmal failure on a scale that even Bob pales in comparison to.
Personally, I often find myself going back to old programs (like xfig and LaTeX) to get a lot of work done because they are often better thought out and more mature than more modern ways of approaching the same problem. I also use newer improved clones of older programs (VIM, for example, which I maintain is the world's best text editor combining many of the strengths of vi and Esc-Meta-Alt-Ctrl-Shift).
Clones of old software are not always the worst things in the world. Often you can be more productive on them once you put in a little bit of time into learning how to do stiff.
Re:i realize it's fashionable to bash mcneally (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:they have lost control (Score:3, Insightful)
It was the Debain distributors who descided not to distribute Java (in opposite like other Linux distros did) and not Suns license restriicting them.
After all there is no practical difference (in most situations) anyway wether I download Java via apt-get after I installed a basic system or if I get it on a CD.
In my opinion Java always was and still is (a more than C#/.NET) open standard.
Sun was waffling on whether to open it or not. Sun apparently doesn't learn from their mistakes.
Yeah, perhaps, perhaps not. Who can really say that? From "opening" in the sense of "giving" away you cant pay your employees. so if you know how to open somethign and still have a) the money to develop it at first and b) the revenue to develop something further after you have "opened it", please share your thoughts.
angel'o'sphere
Re:Credit for millions of jobs?? (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't say they were impossible, especially Win95. Virtually all OSes have the potential for failure in OS level memory protection. It is called a freaking Bug.
You are missing the bigger point, as the prior post acts like Windows included very little or NO memory protection. When in fact it did, especially NT which was developed in over 15 years ago. Want to find a company that didn't put memory protection in until 2000, go look up Apple. This is NOT one area where Microsoft sucked. PERIOD.
IAs for the NT Kernel, it's so suspiciously similar to the VMS and RSX-11 kernels there was almost a lawsuit over it. Of course, this shouldn't be surprising because the primary designer (Dave Cutler) was the same guy for all three!
I actually though you might have looked some of this up, but here is where you start to lose all credibility.
The VMS kernel is a monolithic kernel that supports modules, it is not a hybrid (client/server) kernel like you will find in NT. If any Kernel architecture influenced the NT kernel it was the MACH concept for small low level portability, but certainly not VMS.
As for the lawsuit, this claim I find astounding, as Digital (Owner of VMS and where Cutler also worked) were very CLOSE partners with Microsoft, in fact they showcased their new Alpha CPU at the 1992 Comdex running an unreleased WindowsNT. (I was actually there, so quote me on this.)
If Digital had any intention of bringing litigation to Microsoft over the design of NT, there is no record of and actually record to the contrary.
VMS was a very simplistic OS technology, especially at the time NT was written.
Are you just trying to blow smoke, and if so up what? Or do you assume that all of us here are 15yr olds and were NOT around during the 80s and 90s?
Selecting a word and changing the font? Have you conveniently forgotten the Macintosh?!
Here is where you lost all credibility, what are you a child?
MS Word was RUNNING on the Macintosh when the select and modify concepts were written by Microsoft and adapted by other applications on the Mac in the subsequent years.
Are you the only person in the world that doesn't realize that MS Word was more popular on the Mac than on the PC, until like 1993/1994 when the success of Windows 3.1 was becoming substantial?
(Here is a Hint when looking up the Mac history, office based applications like MS Word, MS Excel, Adobe PageMaker where the key APPLICATIONS that gave the Mac credibility in Office and business environments.)
Yes, Apple (1978-1983 with the Lisa) and MIT (1984 with X-Windows) both copied the modern GUI from Xerox. Of course, their development efforts were simultaneous and independent. Microsoft (1985 with Windows), however, is in a bit of a different time scope.
Again you think we are children. Gates announced Windows for the IBM PC and started development on it almost at the exact same time Apple started working on the GUI for Lisa. (Go look up history, here is another search tip, look up Comdex Windows Lisa Apple)
Apple's big lawsuit against Microsoft was based on a few specific items that were not common to Xerox. Apple was using 'copyright' law because the success of Windows hurt their sales, especially in people that bought Mac to run MS Word and MS Excel which they could now but a Windows PC and run.
"Client/server kernel technology, not monolithic or microkernel"? Do you have any idea what you're saying? I'm guessing you haven't taken an introductory class in operating system design. Please take a few minutes to view Wikipedia's informative article on the subject. In short, there was and still is plenty like it.
Actually I do know a little bit about kernel technology, but you seem to be able to only recant words from wik
Re:What about... (Score:4, Insightful)
As a result both sides are going to feel like Slashdot is full of members of "the other side".
I get a sense that the normal course of events is that you usually have a high concentration of one side or the other. Those in the majority commiserate among themselves and only a few braver members of 'the minority' pipe up from time to time. Thus the normal political experience is "we are the natural majority and their side doesn't make much sense" but there are pockets of 'the other side' where you can't really speak your mind.
Slashdot is that oddity where both sides get a good raking over the coals (in part, I think, because of a reasonably strong foreign contingent who often think that they're both off the wall.
Re:Microsoft and Knockoffs: Yes and No (Score:3, Insightful)
The DEC Microsoft lawsuit is quite distorted, as it was more about the hiring of the DEC employees and 'fear' that the VMS technologies would be used by Microsoft. NOT that they were used.
Basically DEC was afraid that Cutler or his team had brought over technology from a project called Mica which was the new version of VMS they were working on at DEC. However, DEC had dropped the Mica project, which is why Cutler was so willing to leave DEC, they were canning his project and stifling his ability to do new things.
This lawsuit ended well for both DEC and Microsoft, as Microsoft got the people they wanted and DEC got money and development help and support for the Alpha CPU.
This lawsuit pre-dates the direction of the NT Kernel, let alone the implementation of the NT Kernel. Although the settlement did leave the door open for Cutler to be more free in using his ideas, as you can witness in some of the upper level constructs of NT.
There are a lot of people that like to claim NT is a just a new version of VMS, and this 'could' have been possible, but NT went a completely different direction.
When Cutler came to MS, they were given an open slate to work from, MS even held Xenix in case they wanted to implement the new OS based on a *nix path.
During the NT development process, the direction and goals for NT changed frequently and dramatically. It initially was to have more of an OS/2 framework, and the only concept that was even left from this was HPFS, which NTFS borrows ideas from, but ultimately was a rewritten FS.
There are also the rumors of the similarities between NT and VMS, and some of this has credibility, as Cutler was the architect of both, so why would people expect him to abandon his design style from one project to the next?
What people see as 'copies' from VMS are more of Cutler's touches to the direction of the NT project, but are not VMS copies. The DEC lawsuit did NOT allow for Microsoft using VMS code.
People should also note that the VMS Kernel and the NT Kernel are from two different worlds completely. VMS was not a MACH derivative, it was a monolithic kernel, far from the NT Kernel, although it did have support for modules, which would be more like the current OSX kernel. VMS had no concepts of a subsystem model which is a hallmark of the non-bound API Kernel (Client/Server) in Windows NT.
It would be more accurate to call VMS and NT brothers because they have the same father, but that doesn't mean one brother is a copy of the other whatsoever.
Think of this logically. Working at DEC, Cutlers work with Mica had to adhere to the VMS model and DEC's requirements. When Cutler went to Microsoft, he no longer had these constraints, and he was able to take what their team saw as the best OS theories of the time and implement them.
Basically it was a dream project of getting to start an OS from scratch using the best ideas of the day. With this in mind why would Cutler even want to try to emulate or recreate older VMS technologies for a new OS concept? He had a blank check of available technologies to work from, and even they were able to take current things that only existed in theory and implement them.
DEC and Microsoft ended up parting friends from this, and like I mentioned in my other post DEC was a strong supporter of NT, not only from the lawsuit, but partnered with Microsoft with NT and Alpha beyond the requirements of the lawsuit.
As for Microsoft destroying DEC, that is a far stretch. NT on Alpha helped the success of the Alpha CPU, bringing it to the desktop and server markets, which VMS could not have done.