What do you think?
Is there is a better chance of SAS offering another VRBP or layoffs more likely? Or maybe they'll just tread water for a while until us old guys get tired of waiting for a package and finally retire?
I'm hoping for a VRBP but realistically I am afraid there is too much downside for SAS to offer it again.
I did the same thing, and I was thinking of myself. I wanted my product to succeed, and it did.
Many of us worked long hours in the early years of SAS.
“Well, I’m an id--t. I spent many, many nights working to make my contributions to SAS”
Yes, you are. You donated your time for free to a billionaire. Think of yourself and your family first.
“Lots of after-hour projects? I don't know how to do that and still have a life."
Well, I’m an id--t. I spent many, many nights working to make my contributions to SAS better than they otherwise would have been thinking I was making myself more valuable to the company by making a better product and creating happy customers.
"But internally developed tools had the same problem as SAS solutions. The wrong people were put in charge, people who knew how to say “yes” but did not know how to build software."
On top of everything said above(which I agree with), there's the heir apparent fuming and walking out of meetings with C level when C level tells him what he does NOT want to hear about his Viya pet. Treating C level that way and expecting them to continue paying renewal fees is not a good plan. Hubris can be costly.
That’s why American tech workers need to also develop strong written/verbal communication, leadership, and systems architecture skills as well as being available for RTO and travel where face-to-face communication is still considered optimal for business.
Developing basic professional/business proficiency in a second language Is an important skill for some jobs and can be the differentiator.
Coding has become commodified, even systems programming and embedded stuff using complex libraries. Just look at the range of authors on Udemy to witness that many are not American born.
For a long time, R&D experts at SAS were advantaged by our proprietary, internal infrastructure, libraries, etc. The learning curve was steep and being in the office, especially at HQ made success easier. In the outside world at least, Open Source has changed all of this. Just go to an international conference related to any of the major open source projects and observe the cultural and ethnic diversity.
“Lots of after-hour projects? I don't know how to do that and still have a life."
People in India, Viet Nam, and The Philippines are happy to do that, for 1/3 of your salary.
It does cut into their lives, but they make that sacrifice.
I like to believe that American tech workers are still superior. But CEOs believe salary is the only difference.
"How do keep your new skills sharp when you spend all day working with "old stuff"? Lots of after-hour projects? I don't know how to do that and still have a life. "
Unfortunately, you'll have to put in your own time to learn new stuff on your own if you're stuck working on old stuff all day long. Yes, it takes away your personal time, but think of it as investment on yourself to learn new tech skills so you can get out of doing the old dead end jobs. Once you have the new skills then you can even leave SAS and not be stuck.
How do keep your new skills sharp when you spend all day working with "old stuff"? Lots of after-hour projects? I don't know how to do that and still have a life.
… even when this includes
I agree that the motivation for keeping one skills current is on the individual employee — when this includes active and effective participation in training offered by the company.
However, the overall technical direction of the company is on the senior leadership of R&D and ultimately corporate executives and the CTO. Not moving forward to industry standards for source management, build technology, systems programming language, etc. is part of the cumulative effect of diminished innovation culture, along with the inability to adjust to new computing paradigm/trends in a reasonable and effective time frame.
This also made it difficult for us to hire top talent, because many already fluent in C++ did not want to come work in C Language atop proprietary (MVA X/W, TK, etc.) platform libraries and also have to learn SAS Build and CVS when they are already well versed in CMAKE and git.
Certainly, SAS would have been better off making a reasonable investment in keeping employee skills up to date. But the responsibility to stay sharp is on the employee. We’re in a free market, and SAS has no obligation to improve us. Likewise, if our peers are in better situations, we’re free to leave SAS and join them.
JHG was not wrong to push for internally developed tools. These might have grown to become new revenue streams. But internally developed tools had the same problem as SAS solutions. The wrong people were put in charge, people who knew how to say “yes” but did not know how to build software.
I think this is why SAS had more toxic managers than other places I worked. Poorly qualified leaders were defensive about their own skills and abusive to employees who questioned them. If you suggested a better way, they did not have the education to understand what you were talking about. So they simply classed you as “argumentative” and put you on their naughty list.
In hindsight, I stayed too long. But I liked most of the work, and most of the people, and the decision to stay was all mine, and seemed best at the time. Like @5hut+1upGNaTN, I was able to keep my skills sharp, although SAS did not often understand or use them.
I left, along with hundreds of others, during the brain drain of 2021-22, when it was easy to find better pay elsewhere. By that time, inflation-adjusted revenues had been declining for eight years. So I believe that SAS wanted us to leave. By that point, attrition was part of the plan, along with layoffs and VRBPs.
I wish good luck to my friends who remain, and I hope that includes a VRBP.
The Java side of SAS R&D was perhaps less impacted by this because they were already using many development tools NOT created at SAS.
Your observation is correct in the general sense. JG certainly did mandate that too many things “written in SAS” — pretty sure for a long time even our corporate internal financial systems were written in SAS.
Should’ve worded my post more carefully — I was thinking more in terms of some of the early proprietary internal tools we built like SDS, the acquisition of Lattice C to provide our own compilers for hosts where they were insufficient at the time, etc, Eventually, we moved away from our own C compilers, but continue using SDS and other homegrown supporting infrastructure that was often very insular for building and shipping our products.
Did not mean to imply any vendetta toward individuals in lower and middle management either. Like the rest of us, they were caught up in the SAS corporate cultural norms of the time. It would’ve taken executive approval all the way to JG’s level to move away from the massive infrastructure (which had evolved over decades) that built, shipped and supported the product.
What is clear as that many of the R&D platform managers were unaware of, or simply too focused on their own areas to learn about and support broader changes in the industry; C++ and git being prime examples. There was plenty of justification about why we should continue going down the road we were on, which contributed to SAS’ ongoing insularity. The Java side of SAS R&D was perhaps less impacted by this because they were already using many development tools that created originally at SAS.
From 2003 until at least 2016, the main R&D priority was shipping incremental SAS9 releases. Any significant changes to the product build/test/deploy infrastructure would upset that. However, there were considerable changes in the customer install process/tools. This was partly motivated by the increasing complexity of the SAS9 stack.
The problem is that I don't think that he was correct. For a long time everything had to be written in SAS, which was frequently a square peg / round hole problem.
There is an apocryphal story about when BJ, then the head of Marketing, went to JG with a requisition for some graphics tool (Harvard Graphics IIRC). JG said to do it with SAS/Graph, at which point BJ pulled out a requisition for a full-time employee and said that he would need an FTE to do the same thing with SAS/Graph. He got the graphics tool.
@6qvf+1upGNaTN “ These conditions did not suppress me. Kept up my skills consistently over decades and rose to a level where I worked with enough of the best people within R&D, high-level customers and partners”
So you are saying you were able to keep your skills current because YOU made the effort to do it.
Seems like we said the same thing.
And JG _was correct_ for a long time (1976 to early 2000s) … However, that “long time” ended by 2009, roughly coinciding with the beginning of SAS’ slow decline.
Hindsight maybe 20/20 now, but there were people within the company pointing these things out in the early 2000s. More money and effort was spent on **wasted initiatives and direction than would’ve been needed for a cloud and open source friendlier modernization path for the tech stack, platform architecture and build/test infrastructure.
** It should be evident that the motivation for such wasted initiatives and miscalculated directly resulted from SAS’ own hubris and failure to seriously address the gigantic paradigm shifts in computing occurring as early as 2006.
Many of us did our best to embrace what was going on in the outside world and integrate effectively it with SAS. IMO these efforts fell short on many fronts, because a larger vision of an evolved, cloud friendly and open source embracing SAS architecture was not understood nor articulated holistically across the company. OS and others did the best they could, yet were limited by many factors already discussed ad nauseam on many threads here.
These conditions did not suppress me. Kept up my skills consistently over decades and rose to a level where I worked with enough of the best people within R&D, high-level customers and partners to know that the things mentioned in @5wfg+1upGNaTN ring true.
JG had the opinion for a long time that "SAS is a software company; why should we buy other people's software?" resulting in terrible internal tools.
@5wfg+1upGNaTN Boohoo. Everybody but you responsible for you.
If only you could have left long ago to a place that didn’t suppress you so badly.
Not having a testing staff _that_ understood
@5ejh+1upGNaT
Your perspective is also mostly correct for R&D.
Our tool chains began stagnating in the early 2000s. We failed to adopt industry standards and honestly, most of this can be placed squarely on the stodgy middle and line management that controlled platform R&D.
Here are some prime examples. The continued use of CVS for another decade+ after git took over most of the source management world. Continued focus on antiquated, homegrown testing infrastructure and methods. The Java build wars. Continuing to use our homegrown SDS build syntax system for C , instead of moving toward CMAKE. Not embracing C++ and instead building considerable TK libraries that do most of what was available in either C++ natively or in the Open Source BOOST libraries.
Not having a testing staff, but understood multi thread servers and how to build testing tools that would exercise the full range of server capabilities at scale on multi-core systems.
Nor developing our own rigorous engineering Academy to reinforce the first principles of computer science, applied math, etc., as well as teaching all of the new technologies necessary to keep SAS current.
It’s hard to say, if all of this could be laid at the feet of JG’s reluctance to things “not invented by SAS” , misplaced investment, priorities, just plain dullness/incompetence, unawareness or indifference on part of executive management. Probably a combination of many of these factors. In any case, the net result also impacted on SAS’ waiting far too long to get involved in any meaningful use of open source software.
"SAS didn’t make you d-mb. SAS didn’t take away your opportunities to constantly learn, improve, stay up to date. If it happened you did it to yourself. Take some responsibility before putting all the blame elsewhere. You are in charge of you.
It is quite possible to be at SAS for decades and keep your skills modern and relevant."
This seems like an R&D Developer perspective. It's a bunch of false machismo cr-p. Your argument is the flip side of the same coin. Since you had a great experience, it must be due to some inherent greatness you possess. And since I didn't have a great experience, it must be due to some inherent shortcoming I have. It's nonsense. Time, roll, situation, and luck play a factor.
Here's a non-sequitor for you -- a couple of weeks ago a few homes were struck by lightning and burned down. Your argument is similar to blaming that homeowner for this. "He didn't install adequate lightning protection, so his house couldn't ground the charge. It's his fault." No, it's bad luck for that family. If your house wasn't struck by lightning, it's good luck for your family.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but there are certain tasks and applications that my peers in industry have ready access to, but you don't have access to at SAS. And you can't get them on your own time or own dime, regardless of how hard you beg and plead. They are corporate-only installations. Ask for those things at SAS and you blocked, shined on with some excuse as to why you can't have what you need to perform your duties competently, and then given the company line about how great this place is. Or given the wholly inadequate homegrown tool to waste your time with. Meanwhile, you play the game the best you can with what you're limited to, while blissfully unaware that your lack of access and experience with those tools is limiting your future.
Then you take a hard look at your peers who lost their jobs after a long career at SAS. Did they bounce right back, snapped up by another company? Some were. In many cases they weren't. They languished for years until the fog of bullsh-t messages and nonsense cleared from their head. They had to start over. They must have been terribly flawed people, too.
But according to folks on this forum, I should just be super grateful for my time at SAS. It lifted me from being a pig rooting for truffles into someone, the envy of all I knew, at least temporarily. No, sorry, I am entitled to my feelings over what transpired and what was lost.
“Management at SAS was allowed, even encouraged, to become toxic.”
I saw plenty of that! and I am just as bitter.
“most of us had a mix of the good and the bad.”
100% agree. Some of the best managers I had — and all of the worst — were at SAS Institute.
It's getting sooooooo tiresome here.
Let's get back to some good ol' gossip
hmm well, those multiple things can be true at once. we can (and should) individually try to keep our skills progressing, sure. whether in engineering or the art department. but the toxic management and dysfunctional organization can sure make everything more difficult. sometimes managers can make it a lot easier, too. getting work done is about the team functioning well, not just about an individual or multiple individuals all working alone. and different people had different experiences. I'd guess most of us had a mix of the good and the bad.
@5qea+1upGNaTN Couldn’t agree more.
And to all the people posting about brain rot and loss of meaningful skills.
Take a look in the mirror and you’ll find the guilty party.
SAS didn’t make you d-mb. SAS didn’t take away your opportunities to constantly learn, improve, stay up to date.
If it happened you did it to yourself. Take some responsibility before putting all the blame elsewhere. You are in charge of you.
It is quite possible to be at SAS for decades and keep your skills modern and relevant.
"In exchange, you are asked to remain static, d-mb, and dependent while the owner reaps the rewards."
Why so bitter? I imagine you never had to grow up in a blue-collar family who struggled to put food on the table. The vast majority of the world isn't working for Apple or Google getting RSUs and fat salaries.
SAS provided a very stable work environment with interesting projects for many years. We got individual offices, great cafes, on-site health care and were paid a very decent wage (compared to 98% of the rest of the world).
You go ahead and be bitter. I'm thankful and grateful to Dr. Goodnight.
While I don't disagree with your observations, I think you're missing the point. Management at SAS was allowed, even encouraged, to become toxic. The skills and abilities of employees were allowed to decay because their value to the company was as producers of a specific unit of work, not general purpose problem solvers with subject matter expertise. Senior management (up to The Man himself) was allowed to set development priorities with no input from employees.
The culture at an employee-owned company is very different. When everyone is responsible for the share price at the end of the day, d-mb sh-t like that isn't tolerated, and it isn't rewarded. Sure, there's some a--hole behavior and incompetence anywhere you go, but there's less because the company isn't as interested in an a-s in a seat as it is a contributor to everyone's bottom line.
@5qie+1upGNaTN You present your beliefs like a condescending ja----s. Snap out of it!
Why would employees want to buy shares of this company? Is it due to some perverse nostalgia for the "the good ole' days", or the myth that this was some "great place to work?" I don't get it. Buying shares would be throwing good money after bad, with no upside potential.
Snap out of it!
Realize that you were sold the myth of "the gentle plantation". The plantation where the work is light and meaningful, and the overseer doesn't whip you. In exchange, you are asked to remain static, d-mb, and dependent while the owner reaps the rewards. Everyone here has their place, and yours is right where you started, in perpetuity.
Meanwhile, those on the other plantations were exposed to greater variety and greater opportunities. They developed transferable skills. They had the opportunity for upward and lateral mobility. The owners shared in the plenty. Yes, the work was harder, and the beatings a bit more severe, but nothing you couldn't handle.
Snap out of this nostalgic nonsense for a fairy tale that didn't exist.
Gen X here but would totally read your FBB memoir book. Hope to “make it” to “Cary rich” lol but not by working for SAS for 35 years. It’s hard out here in the real world, too, though. The ageism and layoffs are a widespread disease.
"if this place had an ESPP or ESOP, it would be ending like Enron. no thanks."
remember Midway Airlines? ....no thanks.
if this place had an ESPP or ESOP, it would be ending like Enron. no thanks.
Today I announce release of my upcoming memoirs “FBB”:
“Feisty Bourgeois Boomer — How I retired Cary-rich from SAS with a few Million US$ after 35 years of helping the owner amass Billions”.
No worries, this impressive literary work gives proper credit to the labors of many other long-term SAS loyalists as well!
If Goodnight had decided to turn SAS into an ESOP, I would have bought shares. I thought this would be a great way to "dispose" of the company, provide equity to both former and current employees, and breathe new life into SAS. Sadly, Dr. G didn't ask me what I thought he should do with his company.
“Your comment about having created the company and the revenue stream is probably true in R&D.”
“It is not universally true across the company. It's becoming very obvious that this page is primarily populated by people from R&D, which always has and always will exist separately from the rest of the company.”
“I give up. Nothing is going to change here. It's too late now. Ancient people holding on for a payout will help drive this ship straight to the bottom of the ocean faster than it would get there on its own.”
“Continue rearranging the deck chairs to your liking. You win.”
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if you aren’t a developer in R&D, or a member of the SAS.com team, you’re sc--wed.
“ I would advise anyone who is holding out hope…”
I would advise anyone who is holding out hope or not holding out hope to not take advise from anonymous people on thelayoff.com
It would be so much better for employees to step up and buy SAS instead of continuing to have uncertainty about a sale.
I'm willing to lead this and will set up a GoFundMe page to collect the needed funds.
I agree, if we do not see one this year, we probably wont see another VRBP. Open enrollment is a great time to do this before everyone signs up for insurance, etc. Next year we probably see more aggressive involuntary staffing cuts as they try and make the books look good before the sale. Those may still come with a decent severance. And after the sale, all bets are off.
Comments about the Art Department, which is safe, were never intended to be funny.