Ok — I admit it. I’ve always disliked Sun ever since my days at DEC. They were the first Google-like wunderkinder that I remember. Sun was cool, when we, at DEC, we old, stodgy, and worries about things like MTBF, reliability, lifetime value (ok — I’ll stop).I’ve purchased my fair share of Sun gear — back in 1999 there really were few other choices. But I’ve also watched with amazement the inexorable decline of Sun. Maybe Clayton Christensen has it right — innovators are incapable of catching the next wave of innovation. The height of their success (maybe 1999 for Sun) is the candle burning brightest just before it goes out.Did we all expect this? Is the decline and fall of companies like DEC, Compaq, Sun, Microsoft a foregone conclusion? Will the new wunderkind Google succumb to the forces of ossification eventually? If you believe Gary Hamel in today’s (4/26/06) Wall Street Journal Op Ed page — the answer is a loud ‘No!’. Google is completely different from all other companies that have come before, and has addressed all of the risk factors that promote ossification of successful companies. I read this and laughed — anyone with any sense of history remembers reading the same kinds of things about Sun, IBM, DEC, Microsoft, etc in years gone by. It seems that even academia is susceptible to massive groupthink around the ‘new new’ thing.One thing is certain — the decline of all of the mentioned companies is related to the founder not stepping aside gracefully (or quickly) enough after the first success. In this sense, Scott McNealy is just the latest in a long line of CEOs/founders that couldn’t move on. Henry Ford, Ken Olsen, and even Bill Gates come to mind. Good luck, Scott — and I hope you find some fun things to do with your time! I would suggest a clean break — move on to other things and let Jonathan try and rescue the company. But that’s just my $0.02. Careers