hackslash dot org

Microsoft employees recall their early years

Posted: 2025-03-31 20:31:04

Four early Microsoft employees reflect on the company's nascent years, painting a picture of a demanding yet exhilarating environment. They describe long hours fueled by passion and a shared belief in the transformative power of personal computing. From cramped offices to late-night coding sessions, the article highlights the scrappy, collaborative culture that defined early Microsoft, emphasizing the dedication and camaraderie that propelled the company's rapid growth. These firsthand accounts reveal not just the technical challenges overcome, but the personal sacrifices and deep connections forged during Microsoft's formative period.

In a commemorative piece published by the Seattle Times, titled "Microsoft Turns 50: 4 employees recall their early years," four individuals who were instrumental in the nascent stages of Microsoft's meteoric rise share their intimate recollections of the company's formative period. These firsthand accounts offer a glimpse into the unique culture, the relentless work ethic, and the pervasive sense of innovation that permeated the atmosphere of the fledgling tech giant.

Pam Edstrom, employee number eight, reflects upon her experience as Microsoft's initial public relations manager, describing a dynamic environment characterized by rapid growth and a shared sense of purpose. She elaborates on the challenges of building a brand identity for a then-unknown company, highlighting the scrappy, resourceful approach that defined those early days. Her narrative paints a picture of a close-knit team working tirelessly to establish Microsoft's presence in a burgeoning industry.

Joachim Kempin, employee number 17 and a pivotal figure in Microsoft's OEM business, recounts his initial impressions of the company and its unconventional leadership. He details his transition from IBM to the less structured, more entrepreneurial setting of Microsoft, emphasizing the contrasting corporate cultures. Kempin's reminiscences provide insight into the strategic decisions and partnerships that propelled Microsoft's operating system to widespread adoption within the personal computer market.

Mark Zbikowski, an early software developer identified as employee number 394, narrates his journey from being a fresh college graduate to becoming an integral part of the Microsoft development team. He elaborates on the intense coding sessions, the collaborative environment, and the shared excitement of pushing technological boundaries. His account underscores the demanding yet rewarding nature of working on groundbreaking software projects at Microsoft during its period of exponential growth.

Finally, Doug Klunder, employee number 478 and a prominent figure in Microsoft's legal department, offers a unique perspective on the company's early legal battles and the challenges of navigating the complex landscape of intellectual property rights. He provides detailed anecdotes regarding the negotiations and legal strategies employed by Microsoft to secure its position in the rapidly evolving software market, highlighting the importance of legal expertise in the company's ascent.

Collectively, these four narratives woven together by the Seattle Times provide a multifaceted and richly detailed portrayal of Microsoft's nascent years. They illuminate the dedication, the ingenuity, and the collaborative spirit that laid the foundation for the company's transformation into a global technological powerhouse. The article serves as a captivating historical account, offering a valuable window into the genesis of one of the most influential companies of the modern era.

Summary of Comments ( 106 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43539595

HN commenters largely reminisce about their own experiences with early Microsoft products and the company's impact on the tech industry. Several share anecdotes about using early versions of Windows, MS-DOS, and various development tools, recalling both the excitement and frustrations of those early days. Some commenters discuss the company's shift in focus over time, contrasting its earlier, more innovative reputation with its current perception as a more corporate entity. A few highlight the importance of Microsoft's role in popularizing personal computing and its influence on subsequent tech giants. Others express skepticism about the rosy portrayal of the company's history, pointing to its past anti-competitive practices. Overall, the comments reflect a mix of nostalgia, respect, and critical reflection on Microsoft's legacy.

The Hacker News post titled "Microsoft employees recall their early years" (linking to a Seattle Times article) has generated a moderate number of comments, primarily focusing on nostalgia, the changing tech landscape, and reflections on Microsoft's impact.

Several commenters reminisced about their own early experiences with Microsoft products and the company's influence on their careers. One commenter shared a personal anecdote about receiving a Microsoft Mouse as a gift, sparking an interest in computers. Another discussed the impact of early Microsoft software development tools like QuickC and Visual Basic, emphasizing their accessibility and role in democratizing software development. These comments highlighted the personal connection many felt to Microsoft's early products.

A few comments discussed the shift in Microsoft's focus and culture over the years. Some lamented the perceived decline in innovation and the company's increasing emphasis on enterprise products. One commenter specifically mentioned the shift away from a developer-centric focus, contrasting the early days of accessible development tools with the perceived complexity of modern Microsoft development ecosystems.

Some discussion centered on the competitive landscape of the early tech industry. Commenters recalled the rivalry between Microsoft and Apple, and the different approaches each company took. One commenter mentioned the "religious wars" between Mac and PC users, highlighting the passionate user bases each company cultivated. Another reflected on the open nature of early PCs compared to the more closed ecosystem of Apple, suggesting this contributed to the PC's widespread adoption.

A recurring theme was the impact of specific Microsoft products. Several comments mentioned the significance of MS-DOS, Windows 3.1, and early versions of Office in shaping the personal computing landscape. One commenter specifically mentioned the impact of Excel, highlighting its role in bringing spreadsheets to a wider audience.

A few comments touched upon the business practices of early Microsoft, with some discussing the company's aggressive tactics and antitrust issues. However, these comments were less prominent than those focused on nostalgia and product impact.

While the comments didn't present any groundbreaking new information, they provided a collection of personal reflections and perspectives on Microsoft's early years and its enduring legacy in the tech industry. The most compelling comments were those that offered personal anecdotes and insights into the impact of Microsoft products and the cultural shifts within the company and the broader tech landscape.

Take this on-call rotation and shove it

permalink

Posted: 2025-03-27 21:09:28

The author argues against the common practice of on-call rotations, particularly as implemented by many tech companies. They contend that being constantly tethered to work, even when "off," is detrimental to employee well-being and ultimately unproductive. Instead of reactive on-call systems interrupting rest and personal time, the author advocates for a proactive approach: building more robust and resilient systems that minimize failures, investing in thorough automated testing and observability, and fostering a culture of shared responsibility for system health. This shift, they believe, would lead to a healthier, more sustainable work environment and ultimately higher quality software.

In a provocative blog post entitled "Take this on-call rotation and shove it," author Scott Mitelli articulates a profound dissatisfaction with the contemporary practice of on-call rotations, particularly as they are implemented within the software development industry. He posits that the current system, frequently touted as a shared responsibility amongst team members, is, in reality, a deleterious imposition that significantly degrades the quality of life for engineers. He argues that the constant anticipation of potential disruptions, the intrusive nature of alerts, and the requirement to be perpetually available negatively impact mental well-being, disrupt personal time, and ultimately lead to engineer burnout.

Mitelli meticulously deconstructs the purported benefits of on-call rotations, challenging the notion that they foster a sense of ownership and shared understanding of the system. He suggests that the pressure and anxiety associated with being on-call often overshadow any potential learning opportunities, and that the fear of making mistakes under pressure can stifle experimentation and innovation. He further contends that the disruption to sleep patterns, family life, and leisure activities engendered by on-call duties creates a chronic state of stress that is unsustainable in the long term.

The author proceeds to explore alternative approaches to managing system reliability and incident response. He advocates for a more proactive approach that prioritizes building robust and resilient systems from the outset, thereby minimizing the need for constant intervention. He also suggests investing in comprehensive automated monitoring and alerting systems that can effectively filter noise and escalate issues only when genuinely necessary. Furthermore, he champions the concept of dedicated site reliability engineering (SRE) teams as a more specialized and sustainable solution for managing complex systems, arguing that these specialized teams can develop the expertise and dedicated focus necessary to handle incidents effectively without imposing the burden on the entire development team.

In essence, Mitelli's central argument is that the current on-call rotation model is a flawed and outdated practice that should be replaced by more thoughtful and sustainable approaches to system reliability and incident management. He concludes with a call to action, urging companies and engineers to critically evaluate the impact of on-call rotations and to explore alternative models that prioritize the well-being and professional development of their engineering teams. He paints a picture of a future where engineers can focus on building innovative and reliable systems without the constant dread of being summoned to address production issues at any given moment.

Summary of Comments ( 19 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43498213

Hacker News users largely agreed with the author's sentiment about the burden of on-call rotations, particularly poorly implemented ones. Several commenters shared their own horror stories of disruptive and stressful on-call experiences, emphasizing the importance of adequate compensation, proper tooling, and a respectful culture around on-call duties. Some suggested alternative approaches like follow-the-sun models or no on-call at all, advocating for better engineering practices to minimize outages. A few pushed back slightly, noting that some level of on-call is unavoidable in certain industries and that the author's situation seemed particularly egregious. The most compelling comments highlighted the negative impact poorly managed on-call has on mental health and work-life balance, with some arguing it can be a major factor in burnout and attrition.

The Hacker News post titled "Take this on-call rotation and shove it" generated a moderate number of comments discussing various aspects of on-call work and the author's perspective. Several commenters generally agreed with the author's frustrations regarding poorly implemented on-call rotations, particularly the lack of proper compensation and the disruption to personal life.

One compelling comment thread focused on the distinction between being "on-call" and effectively working a second shift. Commenters argued that true on-call work should be compensated appropriately for the inconvenience and disruption, even if no incidents occur. However, if the on-call duty consistently requires active work and prevents personal time, it should be treated as regular work hours and compensated accordingly. This discussion highlighted the importance of clearly defined expectations and fair compensation for on-call responsibilities.

Several users shared their own experiences with dysfunctional on-call rotations, echoing the author's sentiments about the negative impact on well-being and work-life balance. These anecdotes served to validate the author's claims and illustrate the prevalence of this issue in the tech industry.

Another point of discussion revolved around the importance of building resilient systems that minimize the need for constant on-call intervention. Commenters suggested that prioritizing proactive measures, such as thorough testing, robust monitoring, and automated remediation, can significantly reduce the burden on on-call engineers. This preventative approach was presented as a more sustainable solution compared to relying on reactive responses to frequent incidents.

Some comments also touched upon the cultural aspect of on-call work, emphasizing the need for companies to foster a supportive environment that recognizes and values the contributions of on-call engineers. Suggestions included providing adequate training, clear escalation paths, and mechanisms for feedback and improvement.

While there wasn't overwhelming agreement with every point made by the author, many comments reflected a shared understanding of the challenges associated with on-call work and the need for better practices within the industry. The discussion overall provided valuable insights into the complexities of managing on-call rotations effectively and ensuring the well-being of engineers.

The young, inexperienced engineers aiding DOGE

permalink

Posted: 2025-02-02 19:12:13

The article discusses how Elon Musk's ambitious, fast-paced ventures like SpaceX and Tesla, particularly his integration of Dogecoin into these projects, are attracting a wave of young, often inexperienced engineers. While these engineers bring fresh perspectives and a willingness to tackle challenging projects, their lack of experience and the rapid development cycles raise concerns about potential oversight and the long-term stability of these endeavors, particularly regarding Dogecoin's viability as a legitimate currency. The article highlights the potential risks associated with relying on a less experienced workforce driven by a strong belief in Musk's vision, contrasting it with the more traditional, regulated approaches of established institutions.

Wired's article, "The Young, Inexperienced Engineers Aiding DOGE," delves into the intriguing phenomenon of relatively junior engineers holding significant influence within high-stakes technological endeavors, specifically focusing on Elon Musk's ventures and their impact on the cryptocurrency Dogecoin. The article postulates that Musk, renowned for his ambitious and often unconventional approaches, has cultivated a work environment where younger, less experienced engineers are given substantial responsibilities, sometimes to the detriment of established engineering practices and regulatory norms. This empowerment of youth, while potentially fostering innovation and a dynamic work culture, also raises concerns regarding oversight and the potential for unforeseen consequences.

The article highlights the case of Dogecoin, a cryptocurrency initially conceived as a joke, which experienced dramatic price fluctuations driven in large part by Musk's public pronouncements and apparent integration into his various companies. This volatility, the article argues, exemplifies the risks associated with entrusting complex financial instruments to a team heavily reliant on less seasoned engineers, potentially lacking the comprehensive understanding of financial markets and regulatory frameworks necessary to navigate such a volatile landscape. The piece emphasizes the potential for unintended market manipulation and the inherent risks involved in allowing relatively nascent technologies, managed by a relatively inexperienced workforce, to exert such significant influence on the global financial system.

Furthermore, the article explores the broader implications of this trend, extending beyond just cryptocurrency. It examines the potential systemic risks associated with a growing reliance on younger engineers in critical technological fields, particularly when coupled with a disregard for established regulatory frameworks and traditional engineering best practices. While acknowledging the potential benefits of youthful enthusiasm and innovative thinking, the article cautions against the dangers of prioritizing speed and disruption over thoroughness and established protocols, potentially leading to unforeseen technical glitches, security vulnerabilities, and ethical dilemmas. The narrative underscores the importance of balancing the drive for innovation with the need for experienced oversight and adherence to established norms, particularly in fields with significant societal impact, such as finance and technology. Ultimately, the article suggests a need for greater scrutiny and perhaps a recalibration of the balance between youthful exuberance and seasoned expertise in the rapidly evolving technological landscape.

Summary of Comments ( 499 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42910910

Hacker News commenters discuss the Wired article about young engineers working on Dogecoin. Several express skepticism that inexperienced engineers are truly "aiding" Dogecoin, pointing out that its core code is largely based on Bitcoin and hasn't seen significant development. Some argue that Musk's focus on youth and inexperience reflects a broader Silicon Valley trend of undervaluing experience and institutional knowledge. Others suggest that the young engineers are likely working on peripheral projects, not core protocol development, and some defend Musk's approach as promoting innovation and fresh perspectives. A few comments also highlight the speculative and meme-driven nature of Dogecoin, questioning its long-term viability regardless of the engineers' experience levels.

The Hacker News post titled "The young, inexperienced engineers aiding DOGE," linking to a Wired article about Elon Musk's reliance on young engineers, has generated a significant number of comments discussing various aspects of the phenomenon.

Several commenters focus on the perceived inexperience of the engineers involved and its potential consequences. Some express concern over the risks associated with entrusting complex projects to individuals lacking extensive practical experience, highlighting potential pitfalls in decision-making and problem-solving. Others argue that this inexperience might actually be a benefit, suggesting that younger engineers may be more adaptable, less burdened by conventional thinking, and more willing to take risks, leading to innovation. This perspective frames inexperience not as a deficiency but as a potential catalyst for new approaches.

A related thread of discussion revolves around the culture of "hero worship" surrounding figures like Elon Musk. Commenters debate whether this culture contributes to the willingness of young engineers to work long hours under immense pressure, possibly overlooking potential red flags or ethical concerns. Some suggest that the allure of working with a prominent figure can overshadow practical considerations like work-life balance and sustainable engineering practices.

The comments also delve into the specific challenges of working with cryptocurrency like Dogecoin, particularly its volatility and the lack of established regulatory frameworks. Some commenters express skepticism about the long-term viability of Dogecoin and question the wisdom of investing significant resources in it. Others defend Dogecoin, arguing that its community-driven nature and potential for disruption are valuable.

Another recurring theme is the broader trend in the tech industry of prioritizing speed and disruption over careful planning and thorough testing. Commenters discuss the implications of this "move fast and break things" mentality, acknowledging its potential for rapid innovation while also cautioning against the risks of neglecting long-term stability and maintainability.

Finally, some comments offer personal anecdotes and observations about working with inexperienced engineers or within fast-paced, high-pressure tech environments. These anecdotes provide real-world context to the broader discussion, illustrating both the potential benefits and drawbacks of the trends identified in the Wired article.

Overall, the comments on Hacker News present a multifaceted perspective on the topic of young, inexperienced engineers working on projects like Dogecoin. They highlight the potential for both innovation and risk, explore the cultural factors that contribute to this phenomenon, and offer valuable insights into the dynamics of the modern tech industry.

Crushing Jira tickets is a party trick, not a path to impact

permalink

Posted: 2025-01-25 00:06:30

Focusing solely on closing Jira tickets gives a false sense of productivity. True impact comes from solving user problems and delivering valuable outcomes, not just completing tasks. While execution and shipping are important, prioritizing velocity over value leads to busywork and features nobody wants. Real product success requires understanding user needs, strategically choosing what to build, and measuring impact based on outcomes, not output. "Crushing Jira tickets" is a superficial performance that might impress some, but ultimately fails to move the needle on what truly matters.

Sean Goedecke's blog post, "Crushing Jira tickets is a party trick, not a path to impact," argues against prioritizing the sheer volume of completed Jira tickets as a measure of productivity or success for software engineers. He posits that while efficiently working through a large number of tickets might appear impressive on the surface, like a captivating party trick, it often lacks genuine, meaningful impact on the overall success of a product or organization. This superficial focus on quantity over quality can be detrimental in the long run.

Goedecke elaborates on this by highlighting the potential pitfalls of such an approach. He suggests that concentrating solely on closing tickets can lead engineers to prioritize low-hanging fruit – easily resolvable issues that require minimal effort – while neglecting more complex, albeit potentially more impactful, tasks. This can result in a backlog of critical improvements being perpetually deferred, hindering genuine progress and innovation. The analogy used is that of a magician dazzling the audience with sleight of hand while failing to address the real underlying issues.

Furthermore, the post emphasizes the importance of understanding the underlying purpose and desired outcome associated with each ticket. Blindly completing tasks without grasping the larger context, argues Goedecke, can lead to misdirected efforts and ultimately diminish the overall value delivered. He advocates for engineers to adopt a more holistic approach, considering the broader business objectives and user needs before tackling individual tickets. This entails proactively engaging in discussions about the rationale behind the work, questioning assumptions, and suggesting alternative solutions that might better address the core problem.

The author suggests that true impact stems from focusing on delivering value to the end-user, not simply closing tickets. This requires a shift in mindset from task completion to problem-solving and proactive contribution. Instead of viewing Jira tickets as a checklist to be conquered, engineers should see them as opportunities to contribute meaningfully to the product and its users. This involves understanding the 'why' behind each ticket, critically evaluating the proposed solution, and potentially even challenging the existence of the ticket itself if it doesn't align with the overarching goals.

In conclusion, Goedecke advocates for a more nuanced understanding of productivity within software development. He posits that true success lies not in the quantity of completed Jira tickets, but in the quality of the work and its ultimate impact on the product and its users. He urges engineers to move beyond the superficial satisfaction of closing tickets and embrace a more strategic approach, prioritizing meaningful contributions and focusing on solving the right problems effectively. This shift in focus, he argues, will lead to more substantial and lasting positive outcomes for both the product and the organization.

Summary of Comments ( 2 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42818169

HN commenters largely agreed with the article's premise that focusing on closing Jira tickets doesn't necessarily translate to meaningful impact. Several shared anecdotes of experiencing or witnessing this "Jira treadmill" in their own workplaces, leading to busywork and a lack of focus on actual product improvement. Some questioned the framing of Jira as inherently bad, suggesting that the tool itself isn't the problem, but rather how it's used and the metrics derived from it. A few commenters offered alternative metrics and strategies for measuring impact, such as focusing on customer satisfaction, business outcomes, or demonstrable value delivered. There was also discussion around the importance of clear communication and alignment between teams on what constitutes valuable work, and the role of management in setting those expectations.

The Hacker News post "Crushing Jira tickets is a path to impact" generated a lively discussion with various perspectives on the relationship between Jira tickets, productivity, and actual impact.

Several commenters agreed with the sentiment of the title. They argued that focusing solely on closing tickets can lead to a "local optimization" trap where engineers prioritize easy-to-complete tasks over more impactful, but potentially more complex, work. One commenter described this as "checking boxes" instead of genuinely contributing to the product's success. They emphasized the importance of understanding the why behind the tickets and focusing on the overall goals of the project, rather than simply the number of tickets completed. This sentiment was echoed by another commenter who pointed out the risk of becoming a "ticket-closing machine" without considering the bigger picture. They advocated for a more proactive approach, where engineers actively seek out impactful work and contribute beyond the assigned tickets.

Some commenters offered practical advice on how to avoid this trap. One suggestion was to regularly reflect on the impact of the completed work and to prioritize tasks based on their potential contribution to the overall project goals. Another commenter emphasized the importance of communication with product managers and stakeholders to ensure alignment between individual tasks and the overall product strategy.

However, not everyone agreed with the premise of the post. Some argued that Jira tickets, when used correctly, can be a valuable tool for tracking progress and ensuring accountability. They pointed out that in large organizations, a certain level of process and structure is necessary to coordinate work effectively. One commenter argued that the problem isn't with Jira itself, but rather with how it's implemented and managed. They suggested that focusing on well-defined tickets with clear acceptance criteria can actually help engineers deliver value more efficiently.

Another commenter highlighted the importance of context. They noted that in some situations, such as bug fixing or maintenance work, quickly closing tickets is a valuable contribution. They argued that the post overgeneralizes the issue and fails to acknowledge the nuances of different engineering roles and projects.

Finally, some commenters offered alternative perspectives on the definition of "impact." One commenter suggested that impact can be measured in various ways, including improved code quality, reduced technical debt, or enhanced team collaboration. They argued that while closing Jira tickets may not always be directly visible to users, it can still contribute to the overall health and efficiency of the engineering team. Another commenter highlighted the importance of "invisible work," such as mentoring junior engineers or improving internal processes, which may not be reflected in Jira tickets but can have a significant long-term impact.

Stories with Tag Work Culture

Microsoft employees recall their early years

Summary of Comments ( 106 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43539595

Take this on-call rotation and shove it

Summary of Comments ( 19 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43498213

The young, inexperienced engineers aiding DOGE

Summary of Comments ( 499 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42910910

Crushing Jira tickets is a party trick, not a path to impact

Summary of Comments ( 2 ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42818169

Summary of Comments ( 106 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43539595

Summary of Comments ( 19 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43498213

Summary of Comments ( 499 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42910910

Summary of Comments ( 2 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42818169