> Where's the irony? You'll have to point it out to me.
> The deal was taken to the board, but the collective decision was made that it was better to stick with the known quantity that was CP/M for the in-development Vector 4.
Because, if you find it relevant what the sex of the board members that made that mistake was, how is that any better than the alleged sexism that McGovern had endured? If you think that, you must also think that a board consisting mainly (or fully) of women that makes some mistake has to do with them being women, right?
> Because, if you find it relevant what the sex of the board members that made that mistake was, how is that any better than the alleged sexism that McGovern had endured?
You've done some subtle editorializing here to try and make your point stronger, allow me to correct it:
> ultimately destroyed by men
is not what I wrote, what I wrote is
> ultimately destroyed by the men who overrode her decisions and opted to take the 'safer' route.
They convey two very different ideas. The strawman that you wrote implies that I believe men, by virtue of their sex, are responsible for the companies failure. This is not the case.
What I wrote implies that the board rejected her proposal because they thought they know better. Is it conceivable to you that this belief might have had something to do with the fact that she was a female CEO, formerly a housewife, in an exclusively male industry?
Surely you can concede that identifying sexist behavior and committing sexist behavior are not equivalent.
I don't think the article portrays the decision as disrespectful or disregarding of Lore's opinion, just that they took the wrong bet on the future.
While she says later on that she made a mistake not "forcing" that route following her instinct, I read that as a classic leadership dilemma where your gut says go one way but plenty of data disagrees. She is the visionary in this story, and visionaries often struggle with the hard routes their visions suggest and don't always follow them.
IBM made the opposite bet, against CP/M. This was a bold and risky decision at the time because CP/M was massively dominant in business. It was anything but assured that DOS would win.
> The deal was taken to the board, but the collective decision was made that it was better to stick with the known quantity that was CP/M for the in-development Vector 4.
Because, if you find it relevant what the sex of the board members that made that mistake was, how is that any better than the alleged sexism that McGovern had endured? If you think that, you must also think that a board consisting mainly (or fully) of women that makes some mistake has to do with them being women, right?