3 ms·

The World's Most Dangerous Geek

37 points by muriithi 19y ago

hobbs 19y ago
Blech, I hate this style of journalism. I gave up reading while slogging through the guy's entire personal history. I never even got to the meat of the article. (I suppose the style works for bio-centric publications like Rolling Stone, though.) Could anyone post a synopsis of why the guy is supposedly dangerous?
- lvecsey 19y ago
  AOL paid him $100 million for winamp, and he refused to sell out to the point of placing a desktop icon for aol during the install. Version 3.0 became bloated, and so v2.9 was released as a more stream lined version. Some other projects like gnutella were announced but AOL as a corporation dragged their feet and he released the packages on his own, which caused them no end of pain.
  - hobbs 19y ago
    Hmm... gnutella was dangerous, I suppose, but certainly not "most dangerous". Sounds like it must have just been a PR puff piece to promote his latest software. (Not that Rolling Stone would ever become the tool of a press agent.)
hernan7 19y ago
Frankel's latest project: the Reaper multitrack recording software. www.cockos.com
borga 19y ago
2004?
- LukeKrogh 19y ago
  I too am curious why this was posted being that it's 4 years old. "The Most Dangerous Geek in the World" ?!?! Where did they get that from? Free spirited? Sure. But how is he dangerous in the slightest? While I admire his free spirited nature I don't admire his hypocracy. If AOL was that much of an idea crusher/non-innovator why didn't he leave and launch his ideas? Instead he chooses a manner that is disrespectful and possibly illegal.
  - lunk 19y ago
    I couldn't disagree more. He worked for a company that was / is clearly floundering. He told them clearly that they needed to change things. And they ignored him. They labelled him a troublemaker. He tried to help the company, and they declined that help. He tried to push the company, and they ignored that as well. The way I see it, this is the demise of AOL in a nutshell. 4 years old or not, this is a good story.
rglovejoy 19y ago
I think that the guys who were able to hack into cardiac pacemakers would be a lot more dangerous: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/03/13/scipace113.xml http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/...
- cstejerean 19y ago
  yeah, but when I posted that link it only got one vote.

37 points by muriithi 19y ago

hobbs 19y ago

Blech, I hate this style of journalism. I gave up reading while slogging through the guy's entire personal history. I never even got to the meat of the article. (I suppose the style works for bio-centric publications like Rolling Stone, though.) Could anyone post a synopsis of why the guy is supposedly dangerous?

lvecsey 19y ago
AOL paid him $100 million for winamp, and he refused to sell out to the point of placing a desktop icon for aol during the install. Version 3.0 became bloated, and so v2.9 was released as a more stream lined version. Some other projects like gnutella were announced but AOL as a corporation dragged their feet and he released the packages on his own, which caused them no end of pain.
- hobbs 19y ago
  Hmm... gnutella was dangerous, I suppose, but certainly not "most dangerous". Sounds like it must have just been a PR puff piece to promote his latest software. (Not that Rolling Stone would ever become the tool of a press agent.)

hernan7 19y ago

Frankel's latest project: the Reaper multitrack recording software. www.cockos.com

borga 19y ago

2004?

LukeKrogh 19y ago
I too am curious why this was posted being that it's 4 years old. "The Most Dangerous Geek in the World" ?!?! Where did they get that from? Free spirited? Sure. But how is he dangerous in the slightest? While I admire his free spirited nature I don't admire his hypocracy. If AOL was that much of an idea crusher/non-innovator why didn't he leave and launch his ideas? Instead he chooses a manner that is disrespectful and possibly illegal.
- lunk 19y ago
  I couldn't disagree more. He worked for a company that was / is clearly floundering. He told them clearly that they needed to change things. And they ignored him. They labelled him a troublemaker. He tried to help the company, and they declined that help. He tried to push the company, and they ignored that as well. The way I see it, this is the demise of AOL in a nutshell. 4 years old or not, this is a good story.

rglovejoy 19y ago

I think that the guys who were able to hack into cardiac pacemakers would be a lot more dangerous: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/03/13/scipace113.xml http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/...

cstejerean 19y ago
yeah, but when I posted that link it only got one vote.