|
|
|
| Non-WTF Job: 4 Senior C# Developers Needed Now! (Cincinnati, OH) |
| « From Drought to Flood | The Long Road to Uppercase » |
Through the much of the 1980’s and early 1990’s, Cambridge-based Thinking Machines was ahead of its time. As innovators in parallel computing, they developed a massive, 65,536 processor supercomputer known the Connection Machine. Visually, it made Cray’s distinctive look seem like a piece of outdated furniture, and was even stunning enough to star as the “impressive blinky-light server” in Jurassic Park.
Of course, that’s just about all it was good for. The Connection Machine was an AI researcher’s dream that no AI research lab could afford. Its inability to run FORTRAN – and every other programming language aside from a specialized Lisp dialect – made it pretty much useless for business and scientific purposes. Its baffling inability to even do floating-point operations mostly guaranteed that no one would buy it. But, hey – who needs customers when there’s lots of money from daddy!
In this case, “daddy” was DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), and not only provided Thinking Machines with millions of dollars in funding, but brokered and subsidized many of the Connection Machine sales. As more money poured in, even more money poured out. CEO Sheryl Handler – whose background included interior design, landscape architecture, city planning, and third-world resource planning – built a lavish office that included huge open spaces, an enormous marble archway, and even a plush cafeteria staffed with its very own gourmet chef.
While all of this so far is chronicled in Inc. Magazine’s 1995 article, The Rise and Fall of Thinking Machines, reader Andrew Garland wrote in to share his own experience with Thinking Machines. During their heyday, he interviewed for a software engineer position.
I arrived at Thinking Machines at 9:00AM sharp. Having not gotten a detailed scheduled from the HR person, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect, and just assumed that I’d meet with one or two people and then be on my way. I do remember being impressed by their substantial building and the meticulously designed lobby.
The first interviewer that I met with had never seen my résumé before, so I sat patiently as he read about my background. He said that I had great experience, and wondered if I had any sort of experience on massively-parallel, hypercubic-based computers. Seeing that only Thinking Machines programmers would have such a skillset, I said that I hadn’t designed for or programmed such a machine, but certainly was interested in learning more.
On that note, he perked up and talked about the amazing things their computer could do, and detailed the particular project that he was involved in. The project was a bit abstract, so I asked how it could be applied for business computing purposes. He scrunched his nose and scoffed at the very notion that I’d ask such a question.
My second interview of the day was almost identical. I met with a programmer who had never seen my résumé before and was more interested in talking about his current project than my technical skills or knowledge. When 10:50AM rolled around, he walked me over to my third interview, but made a brief pit stop at a Coke machine.
“Ya see this,” he said with great pride, pointing to the magnetic strip bolted to the machine, “we actually hacked the machine to accept employee access cards as payment. It’s pretty elegant; a request is sent via Ethernet to a server, which then verifies it and runs an automatic charge against that employee’s account.” Though I was quite impressed by the creativity, I did wonder where they found the time to do that.
By my third interview, I finally got the hang of things: I quietly sat while the interviewer read my résumé for the first time and then listened to him talk about his exciting computing project. While I can’t remember what his project was, I do remember what his response was to my question about its application in science or business: “errr, I’m not sure; I guess I don’t really understand why you’d ask that.”
My third interview ended at 12:30, and I was asked to stay for lunch at the building’s impressive cafeteria. After that, they’d talk to me again after. I was assigned to an escort who showed me where to go, and he had lunch with me. We briefly chatted about the company some more, and the interview process.
“Five interviews in one day,” I said, “I guess that’s a good sign, eh?”
“Well, yes,” he hesitantly replied, “they usually do this for everyone though.”
“Oh. So what happens after today, if things go well and all?”
“They’ll actually call you later tonight,” he explained, “and invite you back tomorrow for another day of interviewing.”
“Wow! Heh,” I said jokingly, “I hope they don’t have a big unanimous vote or something!”
“Well, err,” another hesitant response, “actually… you will need to be interviewed by all of the development staff. There’s twenty five or so. Then, they’ll meet in the auditorium to discuss you as a possible new member, and any no votes would end your consideration.”
“Oh.”
“Yeah,” he said, “I guess they’ve always hired this way. Even the CEO has to vote you in.”
After we finished lunch, my escort took me to the fourth interview, which began and ended just the same as the ones before it, and the fifth one after it: lots of talk about their pet project which, to me, did not seem a natural application of the technology or make any business sense at all.
I was done at 4 PM and happy to walk out into the sun and stretch. I didn’t look forward to the next day.
Thankfully, I received a call later in the evening from the HR person. She said that I didn’t seem to be a good fit for Thinking Machines. Reflexively, I asked why.
“Well to be honest, Andrew,” she replied, “the developers didn’t think you were a true believer. We have some really incredible things here, and you just weren’t sufficiently impressed by the technology you could have worked with.”
As it turned out, Andrew wasn’t the only non-believer. Just as DARPA was about to send more barrel-loads of cash to Thinking Machines, The Wall Street Journal rained on their “subsidized sales” parade. That led to an embarrassed Bush I administration, which led towards an end of support from daddy.
With the impressively inept Sheryl Handler at the helm — the CEO who prioritized things like publishing a cookbook with recipes from their cafeteria instead of, say, trying to sell their increasingly useless Connection Machine — Thinking Machines quickly sank and filed for bankruptcy a short two years later.
The fact that the article doesn't give us any of the recipes from the cookbook. |
|
Sounds more like they're running a cult than a computer company.
I've worked at startups where everybody wants to interview everybody, and where there isn't a very good business plan, but when the primary focus of the interview is to impress the candidate with existing products instead of trying to determine if he has useful skills, then something very screwy is obviously going on. Of course, given the fact that the CEO was a paranoid lunatic (and probably in need of psychiatric treatment), this doesn't surprise me much. |
|
I was a system operator at a site that had a Thinking Machines CM-2 followed by a large CM-5.
These systems did not have any interactive login nodes. So, you had to submit jobs to it using HP 9000 HP-UX hosts as a front end. (Neat mice had two wheels under them instead of a ball or laser.) The CM-5 had 896 air-cooled Sparc CPUs inside, partitioned into 4 system images. Each image would run a single job at a time. So the job submitter had to decide whether they needed 64, 256 or 512 CPUs for their MPP program. The heat sinks on each CPU were fanless and cylinder shaped, each fin being a disc above the other. There were large fans at the top of the cabinets. There were 7 cabinets in all, each 7 feet tall, arranged in a zigzag pattern in groups of 4 and 3 with a data bridge connecting them at the top. I would walk between the cabinets with the data center lights off. At the time it felt very ST:NG. The fan hum and thousands of blinken-lights made it a very cool experience. The lights were connected to the system boards and effectively showed activity. They also showed status codes when the system was in diagnostic mode. Mostly, they were there to look cool. The system was owned by a Darpa organization and eventually replaced by a Cray T3E. It stayed busy with a good sized research staff feeding it long running jobs every day. We had 3 full time Thinking Machines engineers on site to keep it running. They performed hardware fixes, software upgrades and provided system support services. After the company folded, the CM-5 engineers became employees of a new company that took over the TMC support contracts. It was a sad day when we finally turned the system off. The floor space remained open for many years, but not in memorium. All of our new, larger Cray systems were liquid cooled and therefore took less space. And hey, what's wrong with Lisp? |
|
The main sin of Thinking Machines was not being an abstract research shop, but was being dishonest about the results of their research. They were pretending that they had an actual product that they were selling, when in fact almost all the sales were government subsidized.
They cooked their books, pure and simple. Also, the paranoia and the insistence on a corporate mono culture are both negatives that in the end discourage creativity and innovation in my mind. You need some dissent to be a healthy organization, you need different kinds of people. Just look at the way Ab Initio has failed to capture the ETL market space even though they started with an immense lead over their competition. The one time I tried o buy Ab initio was a combination of a legal engagement on the order of the OJ Simpson trial and applying for a Top Secret security clearance. I think they would have polygraphed me if they could have. |
|
I actually worked at Thinking Machines Corporation (TMC) and I have a few comments. To the best of my recollection:
The communication topologies of the Connection Machines evolved. The CM-1 used a grid, the CM-2 used a hypercube, and the CM-5 used a fat tree. We didn't, of course, provide full CM-5s for the set of Jurassic Park; we just provided a few CM-5 front covers. The lights could be programmed to blink in several different patterns. The most widely used pattern was the one produced when the lights were set to "random-and-pleasing mode". The only mode that reflected any aspect of the machine's internal operation was the mode used during boot-up. If an error condition occurred the lights could be used for diagnostics. For all modes except boot-up the lights were controlled by a single cheap dedicated microprocessor that had no connection whatsoever with the rest of the machine, so it was easy to provide Spielberg's crew with stand-alone blinking lights. We provided compilers for parallel versions of Lisp, C, Fortran, and PARIS (Parallel Instruction Set). PARIS supported low-level parallel primitives. The initial "vision" may have been to someday (in the very distant future) produce a "thinking machine", but our focus wasn't on AI. Our machines were used mainly for scientific computing. The NSA bought several of them too (presumably for code-breaking). I'm not sure where the author of the post came up with the notion that CMs were "pretty much useless for business and scientific purposes" and that they couldn't do floating point calculations. We used dedicated floating point coprocessors to crunched numbers. Sheryl Handler went on to found Ab Initio Software Corporation, where she is still the CEO. (Quite an accomplishement for someone referred to as "impressively inept" in the post.) Several thunkos (former TMC employees) joined her in the founding of the company. Sheryl made sure everything we did was aesthetically pleasing and our machines and literature were works of art. Danny Hillis was in charge of the technical aspects of our products. Yes, our office was magnificent and yes, a gourmet chef and her entourage came in every day to cook our lunch. The meals were awesome. I had six full days of interviews and I thoroughly enjoyed them (and no, I'm not a masochist). If a single person had "black balled" me I wouldn't have been hired. The company we just looking for a certain type of person and they were very careful about who they hired. I just happened to fit right in and I enjoyed every minute of the five years I spent there. Hey, the coke machine was cool! It was way ahead of its time. Only in the last few years have companies started to try to sell us toasters, refrigerators, and coffee makers that are hooked up to the internet. Uh, I hardly think the downfall of TMC can be attributed to a Wall Street journal article and an embarrassed Bush administration. During the same period of time I also did research at MIT and United Technologies Research Center (UTRC) and they were also hit very hard by the end of the cold war. UTRC's staff shrunk from 1,500 to 500 in a year or two and everyone was told only to focus on projects that could make a profit in two years or less instead of working of strategic projects that looked five or ten years into the future. TMC also made some very bad business decisions. |
|
After seeing the comments, I can add some more info to the story. As usual in stories, things are changed and interpreted somewhat in the retelling.
I had a background in mathematics, business applications, and large-system software development. I understood that Thinking Machines was interested in interviewing me because I might bring some business experience and some practical insights. Clearly, I couldn't bring experience in programming massively parallel computers. My interviews were with project managers who were working on applying the Connection Machine to various business areas. I didn't meet a manager who was applying the machine to mathematical areas. Each one described the business application that he was working on, or wanted to work on. Of course, I would ask about various parts of what they were doing. I thought this would show understanding and insight. It seemed to me (an unexpressed thought) that massively-parallel was not a good fit for many business areas, because order processing and inventory control didn't seem to need it, given the expense. On the other hand, some types of optimization and search might fit. There was also the problem of how businesses that used COBOL (shudder)would program it. My mind was open, and I wanted to understand how they saw this technology being applied. They were in the business, and I was new to it. Along with saying "Yes, that would be great", I asked in each case about what I saw as the possible problems in the "business plan" that came through the description. I expected to be told how the machine actually worked well for the problem area. Instead, I got the cold feeling that this didn't show enough enthusiasm. As people have noted, I wasn't so much interested in applying cool technology as in applying a technology well and in a profitable way. The coke machine was a cool application, but to me it showed a lot of free time and a search for something interesting to do. That is not a good sign for a company. It is unfortunate that, then and now, companies try to compensate for bad interviewing technique by assigning more interviewers. If everyone in the development staff, or the entire company (!), "likes" the candidate, then at least no one is blamed if the candidate doesn't work out so well. I think that Thinking Machines wanted enthusiasm above all, not someone who would gladly simplify a project in order to make it useful or profitable. |
| « From Drought to Flood | The Long Road to Uppercase » |