magicloop

In those days Microsoft had a "curious" business strategy. They wanted Windows to be the dominant standard whilst trying to avoid monopoly litigation. So they'd charge everyone a license fee knowing that standard businesses would pay up, and those that wouldn't or couldn't were allowed to crack the software and use it. That portion of the market, the "piracy" sector wasn't in their view part of their market share numbers (they would say they weren't a monopoly). But having this in place meant it was harder for competitors to sub-divide the market into other Operating Systems and Enterprise productivity software. So it would end up as either Open Source or Windows. This is why they didn't reduce their prices for purchasing power parity purposes (to make it equally affordable in each market). The rich countries could drive their profits, and everyone else had a "free" ride just to shut the door on a competitor.

Of course, the history of Microsoft and Anti-trust litigation is well documented. Things didn't entirely work out for them.

"I never took a day off in my twenties" (Bill Gates) quote is a misnomer because what Bill Gates considers a day-off is something where you are just lying around doing nothing, such as lying on the beach. A two week sojourn into a set of books that interested him were not considered "days off". He did such activities yearly.

Bill Gates wasn't in the office working a 7 day schedule for his entire 20s. So that is not the impression we should get from the quote at all. His productive time away has merit, and I have followed that attitude to reading myself, and recommend it to others.

It would have been better if he had said "I never wasted a day in my twenties" which I think would be more accurate.

I am an author of a self-published book on Amazon. So I understand the process but not the process with respect to using a "publisher". However, I understand the writing process.

I would say that if you can commit to 1 hr per day for 2 years, or some other combination of effort, a book is do-able. In truth, that is too much for those with just a casual desire to write a book. If it is, maybe consider a short form writing format instead, such as a blog.

The most difficult part I found was mastering the documentation system and automation. This is important if you want to deliver to multiple target formats. Your book needs its own Continuous Integration system. The effort here pays for itself many times over. For concrete details, I documented my journey at https://github.com/faisalmemon/ios-crash-dump-analysis-book

The next most difficult (but fun) part of it is the primary research. Most of what you say in a book is known knowledge but just compressed down from upstream reading material into the story you want to convey. The extra piece is your own insight. To have a "solid" book, that piece must be rooted in some primary research (so you know what you are saying is "correct").

The actual "writing" part is the easy part! The main problems are stylistic errors but you can search the internet for tips to avoid the pitfalls. (e.g. avoiding repetition, being concise, avoiding complex words when a simple word fits better, etc.)

For spelling and grammar, I just exported to MS Doc format, and used its in-built checker. For proof reading, I just used the Mac text-to-speech facility to catch mistakes.

I was quite fearful of the response given my amateur approach but experienced quite the opposite. My book was well received. (Amazon 5 stars!).

One major point I noticed everyone was not commenting on was the psychological side as seen through management's eyes.

I've been both sides of the table, so to speak, and can understand the perverse motivations that sometimes come into it. Some people in management actually love being in management because of the hierarchy that comes with having subordinates in one area, and a manager desk that overlooks them. The same desire drives such managers to have all-department meetings which serve little purpose. From their perspective, it reinforces their superior status over the individual contributors. When such managers have remote staff they don't get the same validation. They desire people to come in to get their personal validation with everyone sitting around them. At this point there is some post-rationalisation. The various factual benefits of having people in the office are offered. But they are not the true motivators for this kind of manager.

Obviously not all managers are such ego or status driven as this description. But it is not a caricature at all. I have regularly seen this perspective and attitude amongst managers. It is just easier to spot and understand when you are at C-level and have management or senior staff reporting to you.

I believe this is the true explanation for why there has historically been reluctance to offer a remote-first culture in work environments. Of course, with COVID, public health issues have adjusted the power balance here. When COVID is not such a public health matter in a locality, the return to normal now means return but for 3 days. Why 3? I think it is enough days for management to still feel that they are the boss on enough days of the week. Down to 2 days, managers would not feel boss-like.

Lastly I don't want to malign the true managers and leaders we have. Those that want to achieve great results, and circumstantially need to be a manager, just to realise the journey with team contributors are the best type of manager, in my view.

That phrase "emergency mode" really hits home the underlying mental mode that drives an understanding of the situation.

It only takes a few trigger words or phrases to take us back to past trauma and difficulties, like the tremors before an earthquake.

I have first-hand experience of the "caste" system that can emerge in tech environments. It was my experience that our colleagues in the lower caste told scare stories (and you see the odd firing/letting go early to feel they are real) and you feel distant from the "upper" caste. But actual factual reality in my specific experience was a basically fair system with strong accountability. I was grateful, and benefitted from the experience overall. It is hard in such environments to "be normal" because the primitive part of the brain is in "fear mode". That part of the brain actually makes the most important decisions in your life.

What is the way through? My opinion is to try and make honest real connection at a human level with your colleagues but that is actually hard to do. That is why the part of the story I found most painful was the comment about "bleached cotton". It was a delicate moment where friendship could have started but was cut off.

Lastly, I thought it was an endearing turn of phrase to first introduce the engineer as someone from Harvard. And then later refer to the person as "Harvard" (instead of the engineer's actual name or some pronoun).