Talk:Cisco

More talk

Another source says, "To begin with, Cisco was a garage company run by a married couple. They sold their shares at a relatively early stage, and missed out on billions, although they are still massively well off."

---

Storing the above here, pending verification by GayCommunist who is probably right for all I know. --Ed Poor

---

The story is factual as far as I know. I read about it in Newsweek somewhere, and at one point saw a TV documentary about the company. The couple began making simple WAN routers for university campuses (they were among the first to come up with the idea), and expanded very rapidly. There is a hillarious video tape of them making a sales pitch in their garage, when an earthquake hits. They were forced out of the administration once the company got really large, and sold their shares in disgust. The company continued to grow, so it turns out they lost billions (I think they were left with about one billion dollars). The wife runs a chain of floral shops today. User:GayCommunist

Here's some backing: [1]

Thanks, here's a key excerpt:

Sandra Lerner ... With Leonard Bosack, she founded Cisco Systems (1996 revenues: $5.4 billion), one of Silicon Valley's biggest success stories. They created the first commercially successful router, a device that enables once-incompatible computers in far-off computer networks to communicate. In 1990 they walked away with $170 million after being booted by the professional managers the firm's venture capitalists brought in. [2]

fired?

"In 1990, the company was listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange. Lerner was fired; as a result Bosack quit after receiving $200 million. Most of those profits were given to charities and the two later divorced." - Is the article stating that Lerner was fired because the company was listed on the exchange? Or simply both happened in the same year? Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dead links to Cisco VPN Client

This change removed entire sections on Cisco VPN Clients. It would be great if at least some of the information on the Open Cisco VPN Client could be resurrected, since that is clearly not "advertising". The VPN Template still links to the now missing section. --Drizzd (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I took a stab at the main one. -Avindra talk / contribs 03:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Flip "citation needed"?

Why is there a "citation needed" for the fact that the Flip is a Cisco product? I'm completely baffled by that tag's presence. Zacqary Adam Green (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Mobile

http://www.cisco.com/web/mobile/index.html WhisperToMe (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Dates format in article

There seems to be some concern over the date formatting in this article recently. I wanted to note some article facts from my content search and then we can discuss what the WP:MOSDATE policy recommends from here. I may be off by a few percent, but I believe it is accurate enough for the purpose of this discussion. Anyone is welcome to double check my numbers and correct any errors they see.

Date formats in Cisco Systems

Format	Main article	Footnotes
YYYY-MM-DD	0	131
Month DD, YYYY Month YYYY DD Month YYYY Total w/Month	11 6 1 18	28 5 6 39

From here we see there is clearly a mixture of date formats.

• The first full date added to the article was one on October 30, 2006. It also included a footnote. The date format of that body copy and footnote entry were both Month, DD, YYYY. Before this entry there were a number of Month YYYY entries as well.

• On January 25, 2007, a user took the external reference links already present and entered them into the article as references and used the YYYY-MM-DD format.

I will now switch to comments based on my opinion.

1. The way I read WP:DATERET "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic." I suppose we can argue if the first person to add the full date in Oct 2006 was a major contributor or not, but the first full date in the article for both the body and footnote used Month DD, YYYY.
2. Based on those facts I believe the article started with Month DD, YYY and should retain that format.

§ Music Sorter § (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)