FU-K OPENTEXT
25 replies (most recent on top)
@OP Read the thread. Your OP is still the best.
FU-K OPENTEXT!
@q3 They do have a plan. Sell off anything they can. After that, reduce costs everywhere to well below profit margin. Avoid paying off debt. Numbers look better, they keep their ELT gravy train running. Stonks go up. Personal profit.
Incredibly bad long term strategy, but since they only care about the next quarter or two...
@kz What is OT's goal for anything? NOTHING. They have no goal, no plan, nothing.
@gq lol. Truthful summary IS criticism, when the facts is so bad !
@da MF bought HPE to repackage and sell.
What's OT's goal for buying MF?
@da totally agree 100% and those people who have been posting for years that MF ruined OT are embarrassing blind to the fact that OT was failing way before and the acquisition just exposed how bad they actually were.
We are hiring and have returned to growth
@dn , I can relate to that. My mgr protected me from a sensitive mgr from another division who wanted my performance rating downgraded. All because I summarized how their process worked on Teams. No criticism, just a summary.
I don't see this kind of things at HP or MF.
@ba remember when Novell owned WordPerfect? OpenText should have purchased Skype from eBay. We could have done something with that. Now we really offer nothing innovative or tools for the future. Everyone is on the AI bandwagon but only a handful of companies will succeed/survive.
@dk True story of MF vs OTEX:
While at MF (via HPE), I had an issue with some process that was not working, with seemingly eternal delays. I got fed up, and looked up the executive in charge of the particular department (in the UK), and briefly described the problem, and the possible solution. Amazingly, I got a quick response, and the issue was solved almost immediately.
After OTEX acquisition, I was having extreme difficulty with what used to be a routine transaction (to purchase cheap multiyear third party licence essential to our product). I suggested to our manager, that we try to escalate the issue, which had been ongoing for months, and would prevent product shipment. His response was that I would likely be fired if I contacted an executive regarding the issue, because "they were looking for excuses to fire people", and questioning processes was not allowed.
@df 100% agree. OT management didn’t understand or try to preserve a rinse-repeat business model that was highly profitable. They cut and alienated the people who understood these products and now they are left with a tech junkyard. It begs the question what were they thinking in the first place? MF board was driven by rational greed in the final days and it trickled to the shareholders. OT board was grossly negligent to shareholders through sheer incompetence. Surely, not one of Canada’s premier tech companies.
@da Agreed, as non-optimal MF was, they were far better in all ways than OTEX. They made an effort to preserve the "culture" of BUs rather than impose a totally dysfunctional mono-culture from the depraved CEO. As a result BUs like Fortify managed to lead in their sector. OTEX has destroyed this.
Fortify is now a zombie unit that has been renamed (really stupid - brand recognition was strong) lead by the dregs of management. It will slowly die, with improved margins, but no innovation or evolution. The eliminated decades of niche industry knowledge, and replaced it with mostly non-functional COE.
@bj 100% Microfocus (MF) had a profitable business model bleeding out old technology, Made insane profits on COBOL compiler for example. That changed when they gobbled up and choked on the whale HPE. The MF management team was far far more competent than OT, and treated employees well. OT had no chance with MF because it was already hobbled and OT management was grossly incompetent.
@an It was a chuckle. So, from my understanding (from the heavy Kool-Aid drinkers), when OT bought those companies, it was because they had tech for content management that was better than OT but had cr-p ways to get to market, so like Microsoft, they bought the tech wholesale and absorbed it into the OT ecosystem.
With every absorption that led to duplication (building, staff, hr, etc.) As with any business, what do you do when you have 2 people doing the same job? One doesn't have a job anymore or get reassigned if there's something else. That's just business reality.
Because OT did that a lot and corpo streamline blah blah, yea lots got a pink slip.
Now I think the issue is with all the tech that was brought in, the bad procedures and workflows was melded into as well. So now we have tech OT didn't have to internally develop but isn't suited for cloud and all the old workflow for it was melded in because "it's just the way it's done"
@b7 Was. Google it. Interesting history of networking.
@b4 what is Netware?
Novell su-ked every penny out of Netware and Groupwise. Attachmate with terminal emulators, on a on. The business model does not require superstar professionals. Keep the products running until they are no longer profitable. Strategically invest to keep products in growth markets relevant, slow the bleed out.
Friday nights after a long happy hour always end up with the best posts.
Hiring, growth, whatever.
Continue please...
@b1 wait, we're already here
The heart and soul of OpenText will officially die when Paul Duggan leaves for good. After that, send in the clowns.
@ax McSorley good guy but not a leader. OpenText is in the "Zombie" phase making enough cash to make executives money. Milking the base explaining to the investors the gravity of Vendor Lock-In. We can survive in this purgatory for years as long as creditors prefer to extend terms rather than force a messy bankruptcy, allowing us to slowly bleed out rather than snap.
Sounds like the people writing these binding money drip contracts are competent ha ha
We all loved the interim Mc Sor. A guy you would like to get a beer with and talk Hockey
@OP our new company name is “Open Sore.”
@ah Not OP and copypasta, but it entertained me.
OpenText Corp is the massive, bloated corporate graveyard where innovative software goes to get its fu--ing soul crushed by a thousand layers of enterprise bureaucracy.
They spent decades acquiring every piece of legacy horsesh-t they could find just to trap IT directors in a godda-n labyrinth of integration he-l that never ends.
They laid off all of the original talent and replaced it with clueless, a-s-kissing, micro-managed automatons, who only remain because OT has systematically crushed their self-esteem. These pathetic fu--s actually follow the RTO mandates for he-l's sake.
"AI-ready information" is the most pathetic, buzzword-laden rebranding of a fu--ing file cabinet since Microsoft mandated OneDrive on Windows.
They claim to "eliminate silos" while simultaneously charging customers a king's ransom for every single API call that connects their own fractured, sh---y acquisitions, which NEVER work as advertised.
Only a Canadian multinational could make "Content Management" sound like a godda-n war crime while charging people for the privilege of suffering through it.
They talk about "Empowering people" but their primary business model is being the high-priced digital duct tape that holds together the broken dreams of Fortune 500 middle managers and su-ks the souls of OT's 'human resources' as an afterthought.
The only reason they exist in 2026 is that their contracts are harder to escape than a fu--ing maximum-security prison run by dipsh-t accountants with delusions of competence.
I truly admire how they have managed to turn being the absolute most boring company on the planet into a multi-billion dollar machine for extracting money from the clueless and desperate.
They finally shitcanned Mark the Hutt, only to replace the pompous sh------n with... Ayman? C'mon, WTAF are they thinking?!? Why even bother? Leave the acting CEO in charge, at least he is cheaper and has a smaller buyout.
Canada's best employer? Kiss my fu--ing a-s, eh!
@OP, please tell us how you really feel, don't hold back