> But think about it. Robin, Ben, and Tom write like managements are > the enemy and untrustworthy. Huh? Ain't this FSB? As Pogo says, "we > have met the enemy, and he is us." I think in this context it's > reasonable to assume that _we_ are productive and _our_ investors > won't have too much difficulty getting straght numbers from us. Hah. I've interviewed too many corporate "C-level" people for business stories to have much faith left. (Ditto top-level government folks, of course). Questions are so routinely ducked and answers are so routinely obfuscated that yes, I assume managements aren't to be trusted until proven otherwise. I believe the business/economic/investment thinking that has dominated the U.S. for the past 20+ years is unhealthy for 90% of the population 90% of the time, and I have severe doubts about the ability of Free Software to fit into a business climate where "venture capital" and "exit strategy" are common phrases. I suspect that healthy, long-term Free Software and Open Source businesses are more likely to be small than large, may be entirely or partially worker-owned, and that most of them probably will not be public companies. Why shouldn't a business's objective be to earn a reasonable, stable return for its founders and outside investors (if it has any), year after year, with allowance for market variations? What is wrong with operating a business that has 5 - 50 employees who perform valuable tasks and are compensated fairly in return -- and feel they are truly part of the company and are willing to put in bursts of energy on its behalf when necessary, in return for which the company will make every possible effort to make sure those employees have permanent jobs and a decent retirement? I am finding a growing crowd of Internet and software businesses that follow this model and earn modest but acceptable profits; where there is little or no divide between management and workers; and little or no time is spent on corporate politics or infighting, but everyone pays full attention to actually producing goods or services. A CEO who is focused on the company's stock price, and spends much -- even most -- of his or her time dealing with investors and investment analysts, is simply not going to be as strong of a leader as one who is focused on the business itself. (I have developed this belief after observing many small and large businesses over the last 30 years. It may not fit in with current large-scale business thinking, but I firmly believe it to be true.) Perhaps Free Software businesses have a greater chance of success if they are not burdened with the overhead -- and it is a *significant* overhead -- of dealing with venture capitalists, putting together IPOs, and the general madness (including regulatory compliance) involved in running a public company. I also believe the old Unix pattern of small programs and scripts that each perform one function well is healthier than the Windows pattern of having huge, monolithic programs whose internal functions are not visible to users and may not even be well-understood by programmers who work for the companies that create those programs. Another question that needs to be asked repeatedly, especially in the Free Software context: "What is success?" Is it necessarily all about money? Are there other things in life that might be more important? Are we, indeed, just little robotic fixtures that exist only to perform statistical functions in defined roles as "consumers" or "investors" or "workers"? Or is there more to life -- and work -- than this? - Robin