6 ms·

"It's too bad DJB is so abrasive, because he has some good ideas and nobody will listen to him because of it." This came from someone fairly famous, but I didn

"It's too bad DJB is so abrasive, because he has some good ideas and nobody will listen to him because of it." This came from someone fairly famous, but I didn't ask to quote him so I won't. His name is on a definitive book in his field. Personality is important.

forapurpose 9y ago
> Personality is important. I agree, but I wonder how it factors in. Compare DJB to Linus Torvalds or Theo de Raadt or Steve Jobs or Steve Balmer or Travis Kalanick, as examples with a variety of outcomes (and I'm not trying hard to come up with those names; there are many more out there). Maybe the determining factor is something other than abrasiveness, maybe it's just balanced against demand for your project or other factors, maybe it depends on the market segment you're operating in - or maybe it's circumstance and luck that really matter.
- rtpg 9y ago
  I don't think that's the right way of looking at this. It's hard to deny that Linus would not lose influence by having a modicum of self control and not saying someone should have been aborted because of a bad patch. Sure, maybe DJB won't become uber-famous by being nicer, but at the very least he wouldn't generate these sorts of conversations every time he writes something. There's so many documented cases of people saying they don't want to work with Torvalds or Kalanick. In exchange for what? Being able to be some massive edgelord? If even a single good core Linux developer would otherwise be contributing, Torvald's abrassiveness would be a net negative I think.
  - adamkruszewski 9y ago
    But no one have mentioned licensing issues. Linux or *BSD do have quite liberal licenses comparing to QMail license or at least last time I read it, it was quite years ago. I have maintained my own set of patches with some of my own additions but it was a hurdle and it didn't make exchanging of those easy. My point it, maybe it is not only abrassiveness issue?
    - 4ad 9y ago
      QMail is public domain.
      - adamkruszewski 9y ago
        Oh, I see now that it went public domain in 2007. I had used it prior to the change (migrated to Exim and the Postfix later). Wonder if it would get a better traction and community behind it if it was OSI-compilant from the start?
  - JdeBP 9y ago
    Except that he does not generate these sorts of conversations, given then he has written plenty since qmail and no such conversations have happened. Kids, I speak as one of the few people, possibly the only person, in this discussion who has actually been subject to this. Daniel J. Bernstein is not in the same class of people as the people who call for retroactive abortions of their correspondents or who call people "slimy hypocritical asshole". It is a calumny to put him in that class. And if I, who actually has been subject to this, say this, all of you, who have not, do not have a leg to stand upon.
    - rtpg 9y ago
      Sorry, I might have been overly generalizing here. I'm not aware of djb's behavior in particular, and was working off of the comparison that OP had made. I had cited the abortion example as it's perhaps the most well-known example of Torvald's behavior. I should have made that more clear.
feelin_googley 9y ago
More important than aesthetics, competence and the code itself? What if the user does not care "who" the author is, other than to identify what he has written? For example, I have no idea "who" Arthur Whitney is, but I will not hesitate to spend time learning any software he writes. His work speaks for itself. Same for djb. In the context of how I choose software, personality is irrelevant. I am unlikely to ever interact with these authors. If people in forums and committees put these authors down or criticize their work then that tells me something about the people in forums and committees. I am not sure I understand what bothers them about the few people who have rare ability to "push the envelope" in software and share their work over the internet, but I am aware that it bothers some people.
- tom_mellior 9y ago
  > More important than aesthetics, competence and the code itself? Yes, if that personality results in "sexual harassment, bullying, blackmail, and physical harm" (https://medium.com/@hdevalence/when-hell-kept-on-payroll-somewhere-is-where-you-are-f419d3022d0 https://medium.com/@hdevalence/when-hell-kept-on-payroll-som...), then that personality is more important then "aesthetics". Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13891513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13891513 I wonder if this has gone anywhere in the courts.
  - feelin_googley 9y ago
    Many people use software everyday without being aware of the identity of its author(s) and certainly not the personal life of its author(s). Because I prefer open source software, I may know who are the authors of the software I use, but I have no need to know the personal lives of these authors. At this time there is another item on the HN front page about a Linux distribution called "Void Linux". Several of the comments indicate it uses "runit". Runit is a copy of software called "daemontools", written by djb. I use daemontools. I would like to keep using it. Do I need to cease using it because people in blogs and forums are discussing personal matters involving the author? Is it acceptable to use Void Linux? To list all the popular software/websites that may include/use code/software from this author would be an exhausting exercise. It would probably include many well-known entries, such as major email providers, DuckDuckGo, OpenDNS and WhatsApp. I can easily avoid those popular choices, but I still need to use daemontools, tinydns, clockadd, and other programs by this author. IMHO they have no equal. For clarification, by "aesthetics" I mean software aesthetics. Namely, a preference for small program size, terse syntax, low resource requirements, and numerous other "aesthetic" qualities. These qualities are evident from the code itself and I need not know anything about the life of the author. It may be better that I do not know. Consider an avid reader who grows to love the work of a particular author. Then one day she decides to meet the author. Unfortunately she is severely let down when she learns the author's personality is not what she expected. Does this reduce the quality of his art that she previously enjoyed? One can apply this idea to any form of art. The art itself vs the life of the artist. To me, software is a form of art.
ktRolster 9y ago
It's too bad so many people look at personality instead of focusing on the ideas. I try to watch myself, and if I catch myself focusing on personality, try to switch back to focusing on the ideas.

forapurpose 9y ago

> Personality is important. I agree, but I wonder how it factors in. Compare DJB to Linus Torvalds or Theo de Raadt or Steve Jobs or Steve Balmer or Travis Kalanick, as examples with a variety of outcomes (and I'm not trying hard to come up with those names; there are many more out there). Maybe the determining factor is something other than abrasiveness, maybe it's just balanced against demand for your project or other factors, maybe it depends on the market segment you're operating in - or maybe it's circumstance and luck that really matter.

rtpg 9y ago
I don't think that's the right way of looking at this. It's hard to deny that Linus would not lose influence by having a modicum of self control and not saying someone should have been aborted because of a bad patch. Sure, maybe DJB won't become uber-famous by being nicer, but at the very least he wouldn't generate these sorts of conversations every time he writes something. There's so many documented cases of people saying they don't want to work with Torvalds or Kalanick. In exchange for what? Being able to be some massive edgelord? If even a single good core Linux developer would otherwise be contributing, Torvald's abrassiveness would be a net negative I think.
- adamkruszewski 9y ago
  But no one have mentioned licensing issues. Linux or *BSD do have quite liberal licenses comparing to QMail license or at least last time I read it, it was quite years ago. I have maintained my own set of patches with some of my own additions but it was a hurdle and it didn't make exchanging of those easy. My point it, maybe it is not only abrassiveness issue?
  - 4ad 9y ago
    QMail is public domain.
    - adamkruszewski 9y ago
      Oh, I see now that it went public domain in 2007. I had used it prior to the change (migrated to Exim and the Postfix later). Wonder if it would get a better traction and community behind it if it was OSI-compilant from the start?
- JdeBP 9y ago
  Except that he does not generate these sorts of conversations, given then he has written plenty since qmail and no such conversations have happened. Kids, I speak as one of the few people, possibly the only person, in this discussion who has actually been subject to this. Daniel J. Bernstein is not in the same class of people as the people who call for retroactive abortions of their correspondents or who call people "slimy hypocritical asshole". It is a calumny to put him in that class. And if I, who actually has been subject to this, say this, all of you, who have not, do not have a leg to stand upon.
  - rtpg 9y ago
    Sorry, I might have been overly generalizing here. I'm not aware of djb's behavior in particular, and was working off of the comparison that OP had made. I had cited the abortion example as it's perhaps the most well-known example of Torvald's behavior. I should have made that more clear.

feelin_googley 9y ago

More important than aesthetics, competence and the code itself? What if the user does not care "who" the author is, other than to identify what he has written? For example, I have no idea "who" Arthur Whitney is, but I will not hesitate to spend time learning any software he writes. His work speaks for itself. Same for djb. In the context of how I choose software, personality is irrelevant. I am unlikely to ever interact with these authors. If people in forums and committees put these authors down or criticize their work then that tells me something about the people in forums and committees. I am not sure I understand what bothers them about the few people who have rare ability to "push the envelope" in software and share their work over the internet, but I am aware that it bothers some people.

tom_mellior 9y ago
> More important than aesthetics, competence and the code itself? Yes, if that personality results in "sexual harassment, bullying, blackmail, and physical harm" (https://medium.com/@hdevalence/when-hell-kept-on-payroll-somewhere-is-where-you-are-f419d3022d0 https://medium.com/@hdevalence/when-hell-kept-on-payroll-som...), then that personality is more important then "aesthetics". Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13891513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13891513 I wonder if this has gone anywhere in the courts.
- feelin_googley 9y ago
  Many people use software everyday without being aware of the identity of its author(s) and certainly not the personal life of its author(s). Because I prefer open source software, I may know who are the authors of the software I use, but I have no need to know the personal lives of these authors. At this time there is another item on the HN front page about a Linux distribution called "Void Linux". Several of the comments indicate it uses "runit". Runit is a copy of software called "daemontools", written by djb. I use daemontools. I would like to keep using it. Do I need to cease using it because people in blogs and forums are discussing personal matters involving the author? Is it acceptable to use Void Linux? To list all the popular software/websites that may include/use code/software from this author would be an exhausting exercise. It would probably include many well-known entries, such as major email providers, DuckDuckGo, OpenDNS and WhatsApp. I can easily avoid those popular choices, but I still need to use daemontools, tinydns, clockadd, and other programs by this author. IMHO they have no equal. For clarification, by "aesthetics" I mean software aesthetics. Namely, a preference for small program size, terse syntax, low resource requirements, and numerous other "aesthetic" qualities. These qualities are evident from the code itself and I need not know anything about the life of the author. It may be better that I do not know. Consider an avid reader who grows to love the work of a particular author. Then one day she decides to meet the author. Unfortunately she is severely let down when she learns the author's personality is not what she expected. Does this reduce the quality of his art that she previously enjoyed? One can apply this idea to any form of art. The art itself vs the life of the artist. To me, software is a form of art.

ktRolster 9y ago

It's too bad so many people look at personality instead of focusing on the ideas. I try to watch myself, and if I catch myself focusing on personality, try to switch back to focusing on the ideas.