"The dot coms I have known were all doomed. Almost all of them were the classic two-founder startups going after a niche in the market. All of them needed outside money to achieve their goals, and in every case the outside money wrecked the company. Uncontrolled hiring wiped out the competence and the culture of these places within months. Executives who came in with the outside money were out of their depth and resorted to arbitrary decision-making and tyranny, and sometimes deliberately failed at their fiduciary responsibilities. "
I worked for a company matching that description precisely, and can attest to the fact that it really sucked, a lot. The strange thing for me was that it was a subtle shift from "wow, this is so exciting" to "I can't believe how much this sucks". I can't even pinpoint exactly when it happened.
In the beginning it was exciting. Lot's of money floating around, everyone assuming things would be wildly successful and we'd all be rich. Reality was a hard pill to swallow (I was the fifth employee of a company that grew to just over 100 then contracted to around 25). That said, I'm not really tempted to go to the corporate world. I can't just unplug my ambition and accept being a small cog in a giant machine. I would much rather take all the lessons I've learned on "what not to do" and channel that into a new (and hopefully better) startup.
I've worked at the two extremes he describes. I've worked for Fortune 250 and 500 companies with cubicle farms and bureaucracy and I've worked for a 2-founder startup with an office overlooking the beach and all glass furniture. Each had its ups and downs. Working for the "Man" meant I was just a cog in an amorphous machine that always made money no matter what I did. Working at a frathouse masquerading as a business, I learned a lot and got free beer every Friday.
Now I'm working for a company in the middle. It was a hip startup in 1998 but has now grown up to be profitable. The older guys are still here, but there is fresh energy too. The company expanded way beyond its original purpose (remember when Amazon only sold books? We're like that), and each vertical feels like a small startup sharing space with other startups. I think it's a good fit for me, but I can't help but think that if I create a startup now, in 10 years I could be the one running a place like this.
Completely off topic, but this is the sort of place I'm looking for now. I've sat in the start up, older dot com, and now in the ginormous corporation but I'm looking for a middle ground. I'd be curious to find out where you work, but I won't pry. Of course, I've been told I should set up shop for myself more than once. I'm just not sure its time yet.
No, there are some things that happen in startups which absolutely don't happen in established businesses in North America. I've seen fraud, overt sexism, early-stage employees fired the week before they vest, and tyrannical abuse of underlings.
That said, the author of the post works only in the LA area, so I think all his experience has been with media-oriented startups. I have a feeling there's a higher degree of frat boy douchiness in that world. San Francisco startups tend to have a more placid, nerdy, bike-rack-in-the-lobby atmosphere, although they can ultimately be just as cruel.
+1 - I dunno how many times I can say "the plural of anecdotes is not data". This guy either had bad luck or was really terrible at vetting the startups for product quality/traction and founder quality (or both).
This sounds suspiciously like what one tells oneself to avoid considering that startups might have different and more severe risks than big companies. If those terrible risks weren't there, why would startups have this mythical "upside"?
Also, while there are shitty bigco's out there, you can switch bigco's with less career friction than you can switch startups. You have lots of choices, and a lot more information about company culture with bigco's; the founders of a startup probably can't reliably tell you what the culture's going to be like next year.
You've missed the main point of the article, which is that startups can become pathological work environments in ways that are not an option for large companies.
The honest truth is that it's often unsettling for people to work at startups. They are chaotic and messy.
It's not right for everyone.
The best people we hired into our startup were often refugees from the cubicle world looking for a little adventure and ok with making less money. In the interview we would try to paint a picture of daily life in a startup, the true odds of success, or even survival, and how different a work experience this was going to be for them.
And what an adventure we gave them. Some stayed, others ran back to cubicle farms. Some had been at such bad places that in our worst moment they still said "this isn't that bad.. I've been in worse jobs!".
I've been taking a 'break' from the startup world at a large gaming company and I totally understand the appeal of an established company.
There are times in your life when you don't want work to be an adventure.
I have a little speech I give candidates about how bad life is going to be at our little company. When you find someone you want to hire, especially if you've been looking for a long time, your brain switches to a mode that says "don't screw this up!" Which is bad, because the thing that's worse than not managing to hire an excellent candidate is hiring an otherwise-excellent candidate who can't handle the company you're running.
It's actually worse to hire someone who is awesome and a deal-breaker culture mismatch than it is to hire someone incompetent. The incompetent you can send on their way. With a real talent, there's hard feelings and reputation hit.
Yea, it's funny---I was reading the blog entry and found myself agreeing that most of what he said was often true about the startups I've worked for or had acquaintance with. The difference is that's how I like it. Chaos is fun. Of course, there are certain undesirable consequences of disorder you want to try to minimize in order to maximize the chances of success.
You know, I think the real insight in the piece is about the two startup founders where no one is really in charge. I think it's a good kick to remind founders that there needs to be a process for decision-making so you don't end up in stalemates.
I've found there doesn't necessarily have to be one founder who's in charge, just that founders have to be able to cooperate. If the founders can't work together, it's not likely to solve the problem to designate one as the boss.
Nor is the problem limited to groups of 2 founders. You can have groups of 2 that work together well and groups of 3 that bicker. I'm guessing the author just had a limited sample size.
I have experienced working for startups and large businesses. In my experience I have preferred working for large businesses. For me, I actually find a lot of the "perks" of startups to overall be worse for the environment. Sure, I can show up whenever I want and dress how I like, but overall is this really a good thing? Or does it just trend toward laziness and lack of personal responsibility? What's so bad about a little structure -- I grew up in a structured educational environment and learned to thrive in it.
Beyond this though, what I really like about larger companies is the expertise at my fingertips. I think I'm a pretty good programmer, but I can't do everything, and I don't have the experience to be good at everything.
At Corporation A, adding a new feature requires the following process: marketing identifies a need, project manager creates a plan, software architect decides how it should be implemented, programmer implements the feature, designer spruces it up, QA ensures that it is correct, and sales creates a pitch. Money rolls in.
At Startup B, it works like this: Investor X identifies a need, Investor Y disagrees on implementation, 95% of time is spent discussing exact wording instead of the usefulness of said feature. Programmer implements it, no one remembers what it was for, it gets dropped at the next redesign.
People say they don't want to just be a "cog in a wheel", but I see nothing wrong with being a cog in well-oiled, efficient machine. I find it very satisfying to be a small but significant part of something larger than I could ever create on my own.
I work at a start up now after working at the largest software corporation for about two years, and I guess I see the complete opposite. Sure, at the start up, we can dress how we like, show up when we want, etc.. but honestly, people dress the same as they did at the corporation, and people show up at roughly the same time. And I feel (and see) more of a trend of personal responsibility at the start up. With 20 engineers, there's no one to pass the buck to: if something breaks from your area, you fix it. Especially dealing with a live site with millions of customers, versus a two year release cycle at my previous job.
I'm going to have to disagree on the point of expertise too. At my corporate job, I tried bringing up functional programming at a happy hour and got a lot of blank stares. Anything programming related that was not directly related to the job, my coworkers didn't seem to care about. At the start up, people learn different languages for fun and try to stay up with new technology.
I know that all I've done is provide more anecdotal evidence, but my experience has been so 180 degree opposite from yours, Markus, that I felt compelled to comment. I guess the big difference I see is that of passion: corporate programmers are rarely super excited about what they work on, and start up programmers almost have to be. I'm not saying passion means a better product or success, but I'd choose working with passionate people any day of the week.
Sure, I can show up whenever I want and dress how I like, but overall is this really a good thing?
I'm going with "yes". I fail to see how it's an improvement to have to wear less comfortable clothes than you'd like, and have to be there when your body really doesn't want to be. My company went back to a minimal dress code after a year of "business casual", yet somehow we still do our jobs and as a result I'm much more inclined to stay longer when it's needed. And we've always had flexible hours; if I had to be in at 9 I'd be useless for the morning and would be gone before my most productive time in the evening.
At Startup B, it works like this: Investor X identifies a need, Investor Y disagrees on implementation, 95% of time is spent discussing exact wording instead of the usefulness of said feature. Programmer implements it, no one remembers what it was for, it gets dropped at the next redesign.
Look into Bugzilla or FogBugz. You don't need 6 layers of bureaucracy to handle new features.
Perhaps the OP would be happier again working for an organically grown startup (rather than a "well" funded one). In such companies "Real money is being made and lost" - and a lot more directly than in a huge company (with all its inefficiencies). What each employee does matters, and stupidity is punished.
As someone bootstrapping a company that has no chance of getting funded by doing consulting - and having started from next to nothing in savings + high living expenses inherited from salaried days - I couldn't agree more.
I've found I was most happiest in a startup environment. Even a couple of hundred people feels too big for me.
I think it comes down to where your interests lie. I love wearing multiple hats, and working on a million different things, and the excitement of that type of environment.
I'm definitely happier in startups too. Being in the middle of a startup with traction [1] keeps you sharp. I tell myself that it also makes me more valuable in either a bigco or another startup.
At some point though you need to seperate the emotional from the rational. And building up career qualifications in challenging startups stops meaning that much when you lose sight of any ways to deploy those qualifications down the road.
To paraphrase: you'll be happier working for The Man than working for The Boys.
I think the point here is he's talking about being an employee, not a founder or a partner. The great benefit of running a startup is doing things your way. Unless employees believe in and are able to contribute to the startups direction, they're just as powerless as they'd be at BigCo with none of the upside that stablity brings.
Most start-ups are usually founded by close friends who hire more close friends and so on... So one can hardly avoid nepotism in start-up sphere, at least this is my experience.
There is a corollary to this which almost runs counter to the author's argument. In my experience, if you work for a startup where you enjoy your work, and the startup gets acquired, chances are your work will start sucking within the year.
This is both because the culture will change very fast (except in rare cases) and almost always the type of people who enjoy working for startups find it very hard to enjoy working for BigCos.
I know its hard for us at HN to believe to someone is actually happier working for the man. It's a personal choice. He likes the structure of cooperate life to the adhoc environment in the previous startups he worked for. I can appreciate his sentiments.
Having worked both, I can say I too definitely prefer working in a startup environment. I give this guy in the article a few months before he changes his tune. Working for a large company, I often felt like slamming my head against my desk. If you enjoy bureaucy and make that work for you, then you'll probably do well otherwise try a startup. Personally, I enjoy consulting now but in a down economy it can be tough yet BS free. Work is work at the end of the day, you have to do it. Nose to the grind stone.
I wouldn't be so sure he'll change his tune. At my corporate job, the majority of the people were very happy there. They were mostly older, with families, kids, mortgages, etc.. just happy to be doing a job and being compensated well for it. I was the only squeaky wheel (mostly because I was younger and didn't want that other stuff yet), and I left as soon as I could.
Working as an employee at a startup is a gamble. A startup employee needs to be willing to look out for himself or herself. Employees need to be willing to pick up and leave if they're consistently treated poorly.
Unpaid, un-comped overtime? Leave.
Political bullshit? Leave.
Illegal activities? Leave.
The other mistake I see commonly made is employees assuming their options will be worth something. Unless there's a market where the stock's value is known (and the stock can be sold), it's a gamble with crappy odds.
Not all startups suck, but only fools stay at the ones that do. This guy (girl?) left, and it was the right call. In fact, being willing to leave means this person was exactly right for a startup.
Given the start-ups he described, he's wrong for the job. Ok, I'll go along with your proposition. Out of curiosity, What kind of person would be right for the job?
Do you mean to imply that people who have consistent negative experiences are startups are somehow constitutionally different from people who have good experiences?
Because to me, it just looks like luck of the draw.
Startups make bad day-jobs. They make good "doing important stuff" vehicles. BigCo is great when you just want to not care, and sometimes, that's perfectly valid. (e.g. when I was doing most of my open source work and needed something to pay the bills)
This post reminds me of the seminal "EA Spouse" post (http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/274.html). Together the two posts bookend the pitfalls of both startup and big company high tech employment.
He compares some aspects of the bubble lifestyle to a typical corporate job. He's right that even typical corporate jobs are often far better than big bubble blowouts.
In the kind of startup he describes, a large amount of outside money is injected into the company. Predictably, this makes all kinds of things go wrong. You'll notice that one of the nice things he says about the big corporation is essentially that there's some sanity there. Again, when compared to a bubble company, that's very true in some ways.
I worked in a large successful tech company right after school. One of the best periods of my life. I learned a lot, worked on really cool technology, and I was treated well. I left for reasons unconnected to them, with much regret.
There exist great start-ups, great big companies, lousy start-ups and lousy big companies. And within great companies, big or small, there exist lousy situations. Your immediate boss and your colleagues have more to do with your happiness than almost anything else.
This sounds just like my last start-up. It went to hell. We had a perfectly great (SaaS) product and a great team (5 employees - 1 founder, 1 programmer & myself, 1 salesperson/marketing, 1 human resources/finance.).
Things were great until after the second round of funding: The board basically took over:
- They forced us to increase to about 20 employees (within a few months).
- We hired former "big time" CEO/Presidents/Vice Presidents as our EVP's to help us grow fast.
- We were basically working 12 - 16 hours a day. I slept many times at work during data migration (which took for ever)
- We were taking more customers than we could handle which resulted in lawsuits because we could not deliver on time (even after postponement).
Finally (after 2 years) the board fired the founder, brought in a new CEO from "big time" company.
Needless to say employee moral died and I and the original employees were forced to resign (I was personally already on my way out).
Two months later at the collapse of the financial system, unable to get more funding, they filled for chapter 11 . Everybody got fired and also lost their shares, health insurance etc.
I now run my personal consulting firm and I am loving it. I actually get to see my son everyday.
This is rosy if that's what you want to accomplish in your life, but you're ignoring the upside potential. Maybe you just saddled up with the wrong founders?
What upside potential? The notion that a startup is going to make you a millionaire (or even --- what you're telling yourself right now --- a hundredthousandaire) is one of the most misleading things about startup culture.
You will make more money plugging away diligently at a career in the Fortune 500 than you will spending the same 30 years in startups. I use the word "will" here in the same same sense as you "will" win with KK facing 72 unsuited. Anybody here capable of starting a company is equally capable of walking in the door at six figures in a big company.
The reason this "upside" notion is so pernicious is that it's fed by powerful biases. We read about the successes. Even the failures we hear about, we're reading about them by and large because they were "successful". The overwhelming majority of startups won't get fundng, won't get significant customer traction, won't feed their founders 2 years out, and won't get enough press attention for us ever to hear about. Their stories are also boring.
As for what you accomplish with your life, remember this: over 10-20 years at a big company, you will build things that people will use. Over the same years at a startup, you're inevitably going to pour your heart and soul into code that nobody will ever see. If you're unfortunate enough to "score" any funding, even after the company dies, you're probably not going to get to do anything with that code.
Announcement - everybody in cubicles 1000-1999 are fired.
We just merged with a competitor or had a management consultant report/market survey that said this business unit is no longer a core competency.
So you're all out, doesn't matter how good you are - the shareholders have decided.
[+] [-] ironkeith|16 years ago|reply
I worked for a company matching that description precisely, and can attest to the fact that it really sucked, a lot. The strange thing for me was that it was a subtle shift from "wow, this is so exciting" to "I can't believe how much this sucks". I can't even pinpoint exactly when it happened.
In the beginning it was exciting. Lot's of money floating around, everyone assuming things would be wildly successful and we'd all be rich. Reality was a hard pill to swallow (I was the fifth employee of a company that grew to just over 100 then contracted to around 25). That said, I'm not really tempted to go to the corporate world. I can't just unplug my ambition and accept being a small cog in a giant machine. I would much rather take all the lessons I've learned on "what not to do" and channel that into a new (and hopefully better) startup.
[+] [-] byoung2|16 years ago|reply
Now I'm working for a company in the middle. It was a hip startup in 1998 but has now grown up to be profitable. The older guys are still here, but there is fresh energy too. The company expanded way beyond its original purpose (remember when Amazon only sold books? We're like that), and each vertical feels like a small startup sharing space with other startups. I think it's a good fit for me, but I can't help but think that if I create a startup now, in 10 years I could be the one running a place like this.
[+] [-] abyssknight|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swombat|16 years ago|reply
There are shitty, corrupt, nepotistic, lying corporations and there are also sterling start-ups. The world's not black and white.
[+] [-] neilk|16 years ago|reply
That said, the author of the post works only in the LA area, so I think all his experience has been with media-oriented startups. I have a feeling there's a higher degree of frat boy douchiness in that world. San Francisco startups tend to have a more placid, nerdy, bike-rack-in-the-lobby atmosphere, although they can ultimately be just as cruel.
[+] [-] webwright|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|16 years ago|reply
Also, while there are shitty bigco's out there, you can switch bigco's with less career friction than you can switch startups. You have lots of choices, and a lot more information about company culture with bigco's; the founders of a startup probably can't reliably tell you what the culture's going to be like next year.
[+] [-] idlewords|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmos|16 years ago|reply
It's not right for everyone.
The best people we hired into our startup were often refugees from the cubicle world looking for a little adventure and ok with making less money. In the interview we would try to paint a picture of daily life in a startup, the true odds of success, or even survival, and how different a work experience this was going to be for them.
And what an adventure we gave them. Some stayed, others ran back to cubicle farms. Some had been at such bad places that in our worst moment they still said "this isn't that bad.. I've been in worse jobs!".
I've been taking a 'break' from the startup world at a large gaming company and I totally understand the appeal of an established company.
There are times in your life when you don't want work to be an adventure.
[+] [-] tptacek|16 years ago|reply
It's actually worse to hire someone who is awesome and a deal-breaker culture mismatch than it is to hire someone incompetent. The incompetent you can send on their way. With a real talent, there's hard feelings and reputation hit.
[+] [-] joecode|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sachinag|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pg|16 years ago|reply
Nor is the problem limited to groups of 2 founders. You can have groups of 2 that work together well and groups of 3 that bicker. I'm guessing the author just had a limited sample size.
[+] [-] Markus|16 years ago|reply
I have experienced working for startups and large businesses. In my experience I have preferred working for large businesses. For me, I actually find a lot of the "perks" of startups to overall be worse for the environment. Sure, I can show up whenever I want and dress how I like, but overall is this really a good thing? Or does it just trend toward laziness and lack of personal responsibility? What's so bad about a little structure -- I grew up in a structured educational environment and learned to thrive in it.
Beyond this though, what I really like about larger companies is the expertise at my fingertips. I think I'm a pretty good programmer, but I can't do everything, and I don't have the experience to be good at everything.
At Corporation A, adding a new feature requires the following process: marketing identifies a need, project manager creates a plan, software architect decides how it should be implemented, programmer implements the feature, designer spruces it up, QA ensures that it is correct, and sales creates a pitch. Money rolls in.
At Startup B, it works like this: Investor X identifies a need, Investor Y disagrees on implementation, 95% of time is spent discussing exact wording instead of the usefulness of said feature. Programmer implements it, no one remembers what it was for, it gets dropped at the next redesign.
People say they don't want to just be a "cog in a wheel", but I see nothing wrong with being a cog in well-oiled, efficient machine. I find it very satisfying to be a small but significant part of something larger than I could ever create on my own.
[+] [-] derwiki|16 years ago|reply
I'm going to have to disagree on the point of expertise too. At my corporate job, I tried bringing up functional programming at a happy hour and got a lot of blank stares. Anything programming related that was not directly related to the job, my coworkers didn't seem to care about. At the start up, people learn different languages for fun and try to stay up with new technology.
I know that all I've done is provide more anecdotal evidence, but my experience has been so 180 degree opposite from yours, Markus, that I felt compelled to comment. I guess the big difference I see is that of passion: corporate programmers are rarely super excited about what they work on, and start up programmers almost have to be. I'm not saying passion means a better product or success, but I'd choose working with passionate people any day of the week.
[+] [-] orangecat|16 years ago|reply
I'm going with "yes". I fail to see how it's an improvement to have to wear less comfortable clothes than you'd like, and have to be there when your body really doesn't want to be. My company went back to a minimal dress code after a year of "business casual", yet somehow we still do our jobs and as a result I'm much more inclined to stay longer when it's needed. And we've always had flexible hours; if I had to be in at 9 I'd be useless for the morning and would be gone before my most productive time in the evening.
At Startup B, it works like this: Investor X identifies a need, Investor Y disagrees on implementation, 95% of time is spent discussing exact wording instead of the usefulness of said feature. Programmer implements it, no one remembers what it was for, it gets dropped at the next redesign.
Look into Bugzilla or FogBugz. You don't need 6 layers of bureaucracy to handle new features.
[+] [-] jsankey|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abalashov|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timcederman|16 years ago|reply
I think it comes down to where your interests lie. I love wearing multiple hats, and working on a million different things, and the excitement of that type of environment.
[+] [-] tptacek|16 years ago|reply
At some point though you need to seperate the emotional from the rational. And building up career qualifications in challenging startups stops meaning that much when you lose sight of any ways to deploy those qualifications down the road.
[1] Important qualifier.
[+] [-] tjmc|16 years ago|reply
I think the point here is he's talking about being an employee, not a founder or a partner. The great benefit of running a startup is doing things your way. Unless employees believe in and are able to contribute to the startups direction, they're just as powerless as they'd be at BigCo with none of the upside that stablity brings.
[+] [-] robotron|16 years ago|reply
My only "sucks" advice other than that: when looking at startups avoid family run businesses where there is even a hint of nepotism like the plague.
[+] [-] borism|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajju|16 years ago|reply
This is both because the culture will change very fast (except in rare cases) and almost always the type of people who enjoy working for startups find it very hard to enjoy working for BigCos.
[+] [-] budu3|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dustineichler|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] derwiki|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sama|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kogir|16 years ago|reply
Unpaid, un-comped overtime? Leave. Political bullshit? Leave. Illegal activities? Leave.
The other mistake I see commonly made is employees assuming their options will be worth something. Unless there's a market where the stock's value is known (and the stock can be sold), it's a gamble with crappy odds.
Not all startups suck, but only fools stay at the ones that do. This guy (girl?) left, and it was the right call. In fact, being willing to leave means this person was exactly right for a startup.
[+] [-] raganwald|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|16 years ago|reply
Because to me, it just looks like luck of the draw.
[+] [-] wheels|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sutro|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnnybgoode|16 years ago|reply
In the kind of startup he describes, a large amount of outside money is injected into the company. Predictably, this makes all kinds of things go wrong. You'll notice that one of the nice things he says about the big corporation is essentially that there's some sanity there. Again, when compared to a bubble company, that's very true in some ways.
[+] [-] startingup|16 years ago|reply
There exist great start-ups, great big companies, lousy start-ups and lousy big companies. And within great companies, big or small, there exist lousy situations. Your immediate boss and your colleagues have more to do with your happiness than almost anything else.
[+] [-] binarycheese|16 years ago|reply
Things were great until after the second round of funding: The board basically took over: - They forced us to increase to about 20 employees (within a few months). - We hired former "big time" CEO/Presidents/Vice Presidents as our EVP's to help us grow fast. - We were basically working 12 - 16 hours a day. I slept many times at work during data migration (which took for ever) - We were taking more customers than we could handle which resulted in lawsuits because we could not deliver on time (even after postponement).
Finally (after 2 years) the board fired the founder, brought in a new CEO from "big time" company. Needless to say employee moral died and I and the original employees were forced to resign (I was personally already on my way out). Two months later at the collapse of the financial system, unable to get more funding, they filled for chapter 11 . Everybody got fired and also lost their shares, health insurance etc.
I now run my personal consulting firm and I am loving it. I actually get to see my son everyday.
[+] [-] pmichaud|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|16 years ago|reply
You will make more money plugging away diligently at a career in the Fortune 500 than you will spending the same 30 years in startups. I use the word "will" here in the same same sense as you "will" win with KK facing 72 unsuited. Anybody here capable of starting a company is equally capable of walking in the door at six figures in a big company.
The reason this "upside" notion is so pernicious is that it's fed by powerful biases. We read about the successes. Even the failures we hear about, we're reading about them by and large because they were "successful". The overwhelming majority of startups won't get fundng, won't get significant customer traction, won't feed their founders 2 years out, and won't get enough press attention for us ever to hear about. Their stories are also boring.
As for what you accomplish with your life, remember this: over 10-20 years at a big company, you will build things that people will use. Over the same years at a startup, you're inevitably going to pour your heart and soul into code that nobody will ever see. If you're unfortunate enough to "score" any funding, even after the company dies, you're probably not going to get to do anything with that code.
[+] [-] uighbuiybv|16 years ago|reply
Announcement - everybody in cubicles 1000-1999 are fired. We just merged with a competitor or had a management consultant report/market survey that said this business unit is no longer a core competency. So you're all out, doesn't matter how good you are - the shareholders have decided.