[twobitshifter]

>I joined Bell Labs in 1967, following my father, Alistair E. Ritchie, who had a long career there. His most visible public accomplishment was as co-author of The Design of Switching Circuits, with W. Keister and S. Washburn; it was an influential book on switching theory and logic design just before the transistor era.

This and the part about Bell Labs transmogrifying around Richie through the years makes me wonder how many of Richie’s accomplishments were due to Bell and what could he have done outside of Bell on his own path? I’m thinking that living in an attic while accomplishing great CS feats is a delicate balance that might have only happened at Bell with his parents support. But is there another timeline where he sees the weaknesses at Bell and ends up somewhere else in Silicon Valley?

[xarope]

Bell Labs, JPL etc are part of a "lost" era of deep and broad research into CS, just like how NASA's push to the moon led to so many advancements still being used today. I dare say that the timeline of SVs and VC money, with focus on profit, has been the downfall of tech in the last decade or two (how many PhDs does it take to sell ads? There must be a joke about this...)

[OldGuyInTheClub]

A lot of people would stay at Bell Labs because of the culture of frictionless internal collaborations. Don't know about SV, but my senior colleagues and managers all had multiple stories of fending off Universities recruiting their staff. Being reminded them of the freewheeling open-door nature of the place that Universities could not duplicate, a lot of sought-after people stayed put. Not to mention no committee work, grantwriting, or teaching.

But, the company fully expected to lose people to MIT, Berkeley, Caltech, Harvard, and other places. It was a point of pride that they could recruit young people of that caliber. Those who did choose to go usually left on good terms with Bell donating lab equipment and staying in touch for access to future students and postdocs.

Source: Physical sciences postdoc in the early 1990s before it went over the cliff and before SV became what it is today

[rramadass]

The World would be a much better place if current-day companies practiced such a culture.

The way our current "Work Culture" is setup, it is destroying people's lives.

[OldGuyInTheClub]

The Labs were a pressure cooker though. Not everyone was or could be a Ritchie, Thompson, Chu, or Stormer but that was the standard. Freewheeling research was only sustainable a when it had virtually unlimited funding due to the AT&T monopoly. When I got there in late 1990, the breakup had long since taken root and the culture was in flux. The AT&T business units were now being taxed to pay for R&D and they wanted returns on their investment. The VP of Research had also announced his intention to emphasize the software side (including math, CS, etc.) over hardware (physics, chemistry, materials, etc.)

The permanent members of technical staff in the physical sciences were under tremendous pressure to be both world-leading scientists while somehow being applied enough to help AT&T long distance fight off MCI and other competitors who had no R&D arms. There was no guidance on how to do this except "Well, work harder."

I will always be grateful to them for shielding me and the other postdocs from all the turmoil. It would have been very easy for them to say, "You're on your own" and look out for themselves but they always made time to talk to us and give us whatever support we needed. Needless to say, I miss that spirit.

[mwbajor]

Are you saying that these smart Bell Labs guys could be put to better use coming up with SW to more efficiently bombard you with ads? Because right now, that seems like the only thing making SV reliable money and the only thing that could support long term basic research... but doesnt.

[jd3]

Read awhile ago that another well known former Bell Labs CSRC member was the son of a Bell Labs researcher in the acoustics department.

It's fascinating to see how many modern distinguished researchers were fostered and mentored in their early lives through a familial & supportive environment which contributed in their path toward innovation; such a unique privilege shared by a diminishing cadre that were lucky enough to grow up in that vanishing analog world of black ties and a lifelong devotion to your research and work.

[indigodaddy]

Why do we care? I think he is/was a genius and would have developed groundbreaking things anywhere, but why the “negative curiosity” and what-ifs? Why not instead celebrate his life and accomplishments instead of dwelling on what he might or mightn’t have done without certain advantages or luck? Did Bell write C for him? These kinds of comments drive me nuts. Downvote as you wish.