docker ps -a
SOLOMON HYKES Exited(0) 1 day ago
Sad to see him go, so so grateful for his work!
Au Revoir
151–160 of 305 posts
Re: Au Revoir
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
No way is it a lie. The kind of people who enjoy running a company with a ragtag group of 10 employees in the early days are rarely the kind of people who will be able to effectively run a 10000 employee operation. If you’re growing fast there is no time for on-the-job training as CEO. You need to be effective immediately or else you are only hurting your company’s growth.
Oh my God, the company's growth? Then we MUST axe the CEO. He's just a human, after all. Don't want humans to hurt company's growth. Company's growth. Growth.
When you take outside money then growth or profit become the only metrics that matter. That's how capitalism works.
Re: Au Revoir
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
No way is it a lie. The kind of people who enjoy running a company with a ragtag group of 10 employees in the early days are rarely the kind of people who will be able to effectively run a 10000 employee operation. If you’re growing fast there is no time for on-the-job training as CEO. You need to be effective immediately or else you are only hurting your company’s growth.
Oh my God, the company's growth? Then we MUST axe the CEO. He's just a human, after all. Don't want humans to hurt company's growth. Company's growth. Growth.
Exactly, it’s better to let an inexperienced CEO let the company burn through funds and shut down than to bring in someone experienced with managing large teams and implementing a strategy towards a vision. It’s a learning experiment.
Re: Au Revoir
#154Did anyone else well up at that final image? It's been a long week...
It's a nice image, but I'm trying to figure out what kind of rig that sailboat has.
Re: Au Revoir
#155It always amazes me how you can convince a founder/CEO is not right man for the job, and slowly push him away. Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. It might make feel the companies run smoother for some time, but day-to-day executives are harmful to a company core vision leading to boring companies if they manage to sustain profitability in the long run at all.
I disagree. At a certain point, things get very serious. When companies become successful and deal in billings in the 100's millions or billions, it's time to get a more experienced team.
It's the ethical thing to do; it's a fiduciary duty of leadership to do so.
He may be stepping aside because what's required to lead an enterprise company is not something he's capable of or interested in doing; it's a radically different thing then created a company from nothing.
I think Shykes stepping aside is an extremely professional move and a hallmark of great leadership. Honestly, it's not something you see often in tech; many founders hold on for dear life and companies suffer greatly because of it.
Re: Au Revoir
#156It always amazes me how you can convince a founder/CEO is not right man for the job, and slowly push him away. Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. It might make feel the companies run smoother for some time, but day-to-day executives are harmful to a company core vision leading to boring companies if they manage to sustain profitability in the long run at all.
Disagree. Counter example: Red Hat (disclaimer: I’m at Red Hat since almost 13 years). Founded by realistic visionaries (Bob Young and Mark Ewing). Bob was smart enough to bring in Matthew Szulik, who gave Red Hat structure and growth. And Matthew was smart enough to hand over to Jim Whitehurst. Red Hat is nowadays a smooth running company with 64 quarters of growth, with a portfolio that goes far beyond Linux. Execu…
Bob Young founded Lulu.com, the ebooks and print books company, before Red Hat, IIRC. That was an early pioneering ebook and self-publishing company startup, I think.
Re: Au Revoir
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
No way is it a lie. The kind of people who enjoy running a company with a ragtag group of 10 employees in the early days are rarely the kind of people who will be able to effectively run a 10000 employee operation. If you’re growing fast there is no time for on-the-job training as CEO. You need to be effective immediately or else you are only hurting your company’s growth.
Oh my God, the company's growth? Then we MUST axe the CEO. He's just a human, after all. Don't want humans to hurt company's growth. Company's growth. Growth.
If you're not growing you're dying.
Re: Au Revoir
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Running a company of 10 people is VERY different from running a company of 100, which is VERY VERY different from running a company of 1000 IMO thats a classist lie that keeps people in their place. Any reasonably smart CEO can learn his way from 10 - 10000. Yes, (s)he may not be capable of 10k on day one, but they can grow along the way.
No way is it a lie. The kind of people who enjoy running a company with a ragtag group of 10 employees in the early days are rarely the kind of people who will be able to effectively run a 10000 employee operation. If you’re growing fast there is no time for on-the-job training as CEO. You need to be effective immediately or else you are only hurting your company’s growth.
It's funny, because I absolutely agree with your assessment. But then I started a couple of thought experiments.
How about the reverse case? Would, say, Meg Whitman or Satya Nadella, for example, be able to act as a CEO or co-founder of a small company, say But then I thought about Bill Joy, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and, well, you hopefully get my point.
Which is, even though I agree that most startup founders probably would not be able to head the same company as it grew by multiple orders of magnitude, there are enough famous outliers that we know it can be done and can be done spectacularly well.
There must be a statistical name for this apparent paradox. (Or am I just experiencing confirmation bias?)
EDIT: grammar nits
Re: Au Revoir
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Static site generators are an infinitely better choice for making actual blogs. Wordpress has evolved into a CMS similar to Drupal or Joomla with all the available plugins. You can make it into a store or a wiki or basically anything, but you probably shouldn’t. Wordpress was really cool back in the PHP5 days, but Moveable Type and other “old school” static CMS generators always scaled better. Today with node and the…
Try getting 5+ marketing people to learn git and GitHub sometime and let me know how it goes.
The aforementioned Movable Type has a pretty graphical interface just like WP. It's just that in the background it generates static files.
It's depressing that 17 years later it still seems to lack a decent competitor.
Re: Au Revoir
#160It always amazes me how you can convince a founder/CEO is not right man for the job, and slowly push him away. Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. It might make feel the companies run smoother for some time, but day-to-day executives are harmful to a company core vision leading to boring companies if they manage to sustain profitability in the long run at all.
> Companies that succeed are driven by burning vision, not by day-to-day operation people. What is the evidence for this? We can throw anecdotes like Apple on one side and Unilever on the other, sure, but is there any study saying e.g. "Of these 100 promising companies founded in 1990, x% of the founder-led ones were successful by 2010 whereas y% of the outside-CEO-led ones were?" Making a bold claim like "Companies…
It's also entirely possible that Jobs would have run Apple into the ground in the mid 80s. Apple III and Lisa were expensive, unmitigated failures, and the Mac arrived as Jobs was leaving. Would Jobs have gone along with the high-price/high-margin strategy of Sculley/Gassee?