8 ms·

His family was wealthy, and he worked at Microsoft for two years, so you have to move out from GitHub? What are you even trying to say?

thesz 8y ago
He is not representative of most developers, first (wealthy and corporate-politics resistant), and tries to present himself as one, second (how he introduced himself). This means Github will be handled by non-developer who tries to pretend to be a developer. This means he lies, conspicuously or not. In both cases I cannot see him as smart enough and self-aware enough. Given that, I think github will be mishandled and I also think I would be better off somewhere else.
- Voloskaya 8y ago
  Nat Friedman is not a developer? Did you do the most basic google research before bashing him? If Nat is not a developer, then not a lot of people are, this has to be one of the stupidest comments I have read.
  - thesz 8y ago
    Yes, I did my research and verified it just now (looked at his github). I was not and am not impressed.
    - Voloskaya 8y ago
      Ah I see. You want a CEO that also has a developer role at the same time. You are one of those that think running a company is a BS job and anyone could actually do it, so in your would it would make sense to take someone that was shipping code during the last sprint and just give him the CEO role of a 1 thousand, 300M$ revenue company. In my world that would be completely stupid and reckless. Nat was coding full-time just a few years ago and move to leadership roles recently, so that's exactly what we need to run GitHub: someone that actually knows how to handle large organisation, and someone who knows what being a developer means so he can make sure GitHub is going in the right direction. I don't even know why I am arguing with you though, you are clearly just doing some level condescending gate keeping, so it's not like anything I say has any impact. Have fun being toxic.

thesz 8y ago

He is not representative of most developers, first (wealthy and corporate-politics resistant), and tries to present himself as one, second (how he introduced himself). This means Github will be handled by non-developer who tries to pretend to be a developer. This means he lies, conspicuously or not. In both cases I cannot see him as smart enough and self-aware enough. Given that, I think github will be mishandled and I also think I would be better off somewhere else.

Voloskaya 8y ago
Nat Friedman is not a developer? Did you do the most basic google research before bashing him? If Nat is not a developer, then not a lot of people are, this has to be one of the stupidest comments I have read.
- thesz 8y ago
  Yes, I did my research and verified it just now (looked at his github). I was not and am not impressed.
  - Voloskaya 8y ago
    Ah I see. You want a CEO that also has a developer role at the same time. You are one of those that think running a company is a BS job and anyone could actually do it, so in your would it would make sense to take someone that was shipping code during the last sprint and just give him the CEO role of a 1 thousand, 300M$ revenue company. In my world that would be completely stupid and reckless. Nat was coding full-time just a few years ago and move to leadership roles recently, so that's exactly what we need to run GitHub: someone that actually knows how to handle large organisation, and someone who knows what being a developer means so he can make sure GitHub is going in the right direction. I don't even know why I am arguing with you though, you are clearly just doing some level condescending gate keeping, so it's not like anything I say has any impact. Have fun being toxic.