6 ms·

This is the Moxie that created Signal.[0] I'm pointing this out because people are acting like he's a bit naive. But Moxie has built a very successful company,

This is the Moxie that created Signal.[0] I'm pointing this out because people are acting like he's a bit naive. But Moxie has built a very successful company, without the need for VCs, and the tech is used by many big tech companies. Several use the signal protocol. It's a successful nonprofit building open source software. If your focus is to make large amounts of money, maybe his isn't the best advice. But if you're trying to make a high quality product, then I think it is good advice. It depends which you prioritize: profits or money. Obviously you can have both, but when push comes to shove, will you sacrifice the product for profits or will you sacrifice profits for the product? Personally, I believe as engineers our focus should be on the product. The profits are the domain of the business people. The contention we have is good, it creates balance. If engineers overly dominate products roll out too slow and only appeal to other engineers. If business people overly dominate we sell broken garbage. Neither situation is great but which side of the spectrum would you like to be on? [0] https://signal.org/ https://signal.org/ [note] sure I know it's popular to hate on Signal but let's be real, this is technical nerdy shit we're arguing over (see the too much engineering side). Not something that's actually broken

NL807 1y ago
why do people hate on signal?
- johschmitz 1y ago
  I never hated on Signal, on the contrary I recommend it too many people but I can say that the energy consumption on Android is in many cases abysmal for multiple years now and related issues in the Github issue tracker are being ignored. This is for me unacceptable for someone claiming to build high quality software and accepting my donations. Related issues: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/13704 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/13704 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/12341 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/12341 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/10336 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/10336 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/9729 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/9729
- guappa 1y ago
  - They claim reproducible builds, but use a binary blob… which invalidates the whole concept. - They claim full open source but for several years they did not release the server. - They claim federation is impossible… yet matrix has it. - They claim openness but are actively hostile to linux distributions and f-droid. - Related, getting signal from an app store is no more secure than getting any random proprietary app. - There's a lot of allegations that they don't need VCs because they have backing from the USA army.
  - conradev 1y ago
    Brian Acton put $100m into Signal and I thought that was the reason that they don’t need funding
    - aleph_minus_one 1y ago
      I rather think the money for Signal comes (or originally came) from the CIA. Evidence: > Signal facing collapse after CIA cuts funding > https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/signal-facing-collapse-after-cia-cuts-funding https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/signal-faci...
      - jajko 1y ago
        If they had good access, why cut the funding? To subvert the security product where they actually have backdoor?
        guappa 1y ago
        [flagged]
        immibis 1y ago
        It makes sense when viewed through the lens that he's a foreign agent.
- XorNot 1y ago
  Signal spends a lot of time doing things it doesn't need to do. For example: Signal doesn't need a cryptocurrency implementation. Signal does need a commercial product offering so they're not just donation funded (there's several obvious, useful applications here - they're doing none of them).
kortilla 1y ago
Signal isn’t good engineering though, it just happens to be a decent chat app, of which there is a long history. I only use it because some friends are on there. None of the builds are actually verifiable so all of the security claims are marketing at best and actively harmful at worst. Safety numbers change and nobody ever bothers to verify them. Random people are added by phone number with no verification (signalgate), etc. Making a messaging app like this is the “make a TODO” of the single user app world. Which ones achieve popularity has zero correlation with engineering skills.
- tuukkah 1y ago
  What is this FUD regarding lack of reproducible builds? The documentation about them is right here: "Signal has supported reproducible builds since Signal Android version 3.15.0, which was first released in March 2016." https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/blob/main/reproducible-builds/README.md https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/blob/main/reprod...
  - kortilla 1y ago
    Those steps assume you can get images pulled off of your Android device that are actually running. This is the problem with all of these ecosystems. Regardless, those instructions are useless for iPhone: https://community.signalusers.org/t/add-reproducible-builds-to-the-ios-app/20516 https://community.signalusers.org/t/add-reproducible-builds-...
  - LtWorf 1y ago
    If you include a binary blob that you can't verify in the steps… what's exactly the point to obtain an identical artifact?
kiba 1y ago
I don't believe that 'profit' are the domain of business people anymore than astronomy is about telescope. You need business skills to run a non-profit as much as you need to run a "for-profit" business or any organization really. Your goal may not to be "to make a profit", but cost control is essential to any organization. Really, it's a balance of priorities.If you focus too much on the $$$, you risk destroying the business and doing a disservice to your customers. You also have a responsibility to your employees who depend on your business for their livelihood, and so forth.
- godelski 1y ago
  I think you might be taking my words a bit to the extreme. Of course you still have to operate a business. I'm not trying to argue that and apologize if it came off that way. Certainly some engineers have to float in the middle too. Bridging engineering and business. Vise versa too! But there is good value in splitting focus between groups (even if those two groups are in the same person). One hat focusing on the product, ensuring that you make the thing that the customer needs, to provide value to the customer. The other hat to focus on making the company not just operational, but as profitable as possible. Together you need to make the company operational. Combined: the engineer constrains the manager to make as profitable while providing maximal value to the customer; the MBA constrains the engineer to not get too lost in technical problems and make profits so that more time can be spent doing those things. I am not arguing for "no business people". That would be a silly argument. Nor am I arguing this need to be a complete dichotomy. Most people will fall somewhere on some spectrum and realistically that location will change over the course of their career. Traditionally that is moving more towards business but hey... the only reason that happens is because we (or rather business people) decide it is that way. There's no reason it has to be. I hope you understand I'd never make the argument that you'd go so far as kill the business because the product isn't perfect. Certainly it can be too bad but that's a different case all together.
kingkongjaffa 1y ago
> Personally, I believe as engineers our focus should be on the product. The profits are the domain of the business people. This is the dumbest idea in tech. Please don’t listen to this advice. If you’re just starting your career I’m begging you not to laser focus on coding widgets better for the sake of it. Care about your customers and what problem they are trying to solve and be involved in figuring out how to make solving those problems a profitable endeavour. All code is throwaway, all code is worthless, solving real needs, wants and pain points for customers is the real source of value.
- yladiz 1y ago
  This is as naive as you’re arguing the parent is. I agree you need to care about customers first, and make sure you’re solving their problem, but you absolutely do need to care about the code and if you treat it as always throwaway you can logically get to a justification for vibe coding. Of course you can get far witn these approaches, but they lead to unmaintainable messes which ultimately make it hard or impossible to actually do the thing you want: to deliver customer value.
  - makeitdouble 1y ago
    I'd argue if you care about your customers, vibe coding will be a no-go. Most of us aren't against it not on principle, but because it's just too risky or too inefficient to bring real value in most applications. If someday it produces messy but actually reliable code my opinion will change, but at this point, it's just too early (not saying it will ever work, but one can hope)
- spjt 1y ago
  Doesn't explain why the biggest, most profitable tech companies also seem to have the most user-hostile products. I guess maybe the whole "The users and the customers are not the same people" thing...
- gchamonlive 1y ago
  You switched the object of focus from profit to customers as if they were interchangeable. You are also using code and product/tech interchangeably, forgetting that there is a lot of effort put into architecture, design and usability. Caring about the customer is caring about the product. Caring solely about profit is what enshitifies products.
detourdog 1y ago
I think you touch on a key point. Many people assume that developing tech involves VCs. My guess is that one can set technical advancement or market share gains. The original SV was focused on technical advancement and the current generation sees the technology as the vehicle to their goals.

NL807 1y ago

why do people hate on signal?

johschmitz 1y ago
I never hated on Signal, on the contrary I recommend it too many people but I can say that the energy consumption on Android is in many cases abysmal for multiple years now and related issues in the Github issue tracker are being ignored. This is for me unacceptable for someone claiming to build high quality software and accepting my donations. Related issues: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/13704 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/13704 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/12341 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/12341 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/10336 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/10336 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/9729 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/9729
guappa 1y ago
- They claim reproducible builds, but use a binary blob… which invalidates the whole concept. - They claim full open source but for several years they did not release the server. - They claim federation is impossible… yet matrix has it. - They claim openness but are actively hostile to linux distributions and f-droid. - Related, getting signal from an app store is no more secure than getting any random proprietary app. - There's a lot of allegations that they don't need VCs because they have backing from the USA army.
- conradev 1y ago
  Brian Acton put $100m into Signal and I thought that was the reason that they don’t need funding
  - aleph_minus_one 1y ago
    I rather think the money for Signal comes (or originally came) from the CIA. Evidence: > Signal facing collapse after CIA cuts funding > https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/signal-facing-collapse-after-cia-cuts-funding https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/signal-faci...
    - jajko 1y ago
      If they had good access, why cut the funding? To subvert the security product where they actually have backdoor?
      - guappa 1y ago
        [flagged]
        immibis 1y ago
        It makes sense when viewed through the lens that he's a foreign agent.
XorNot 1y ago
Signal spends a lot of time doing things it doesn't need to do. For example: Signal doesn't need a cryptocurrency implementation. Signal does need a commercial product offering so they're not just donation funded (there's several obvious, useful applications here - they're doing none of them).

kortilla 1y ago

Signal isn’t good engineering though, it just happens to be a decent chat app, of which there is a long history. I only use it because some friends are on there. None of the builds are actually verifiable so all of the security claims are marketing at best and actively harmful at worst. Safety numbers change and nobody ever bothers to verify them. Random people are added by phone number with no verification (signalgate), etc. Making a messaging app like this is the “make a TODO” of the single user app world. Which ones achieve popularity has zero correlation with engineering skills.

tuukkah 1y ago
What is this FUD regarding lack of reproducible builds? The documentation about them is right here: "Signal has supported reproducible builds since Signal Android version 3.15.0, which was first released in March 2016." https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/blob/main/reproducible-builds/README.md https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/blob/main/reprod...
- kortilla 1y ago
  Those steps assume you can get images pulled off of your Android device that are actually running. This is the problem with all of these ecosystems. Regardless, those instructions are useless for iPhone: https://community.signalusers.org/t/add-reproducible-builds-to-the-ios-app/20516 https://community.signalusers.org/t/add-reproducible-builds-...
- LtWorf 1y ago
  If you include a binary blob that you can't verify in the steps… what's exactly the point to obtain an identical artifact?

kiba 1y ago

I don't believe that 'profit' are the domain of business people anymore than astronomy is about telescope. You need business skills to run a non-profit as much as you need to run a "for-profit" business or any organization really. Your goal may not to be "to make a profit", but cost control is essential to any organization. Really, it's a balance of priorities.If you focus too much on the $$$, you risk destroying the business and doing a disservice to your customers. You also have a responsibility to your employees who depend on your business for their livelihood, and so forth.

godelski 1y ago
I think you might be taking my words a bit to the extreme. Of course you still have to operate a business. I'm not trying to argue that and apologize if it came off that way. Certainly some engineers have to float in the middle too. Bridging engineering and business. Vise versa too! But there is good value in splitting focus between groups (even if those two groups are in the same person). One hat focusing on the product, ensuring that you make the thing that the customer needs, to provide value to the customer. The other hat to focus on making the company not just operational, but as profitable as possible. Together you need to make the company operational. Combined: the engineer constrains the manager to make as profitable while providing maximal value to the customer; the MBA constrains the engineer to not get too lost in technical problems and make profits so that more time can be spent doing those things. I am not arguing for "no business people". That would be a silly argument. Nor am I arguing this need to be a complete dichotomy. Most people will fall somewhere on some spectrum and realistically that location will change over the course of their career. Traditionally that is moving more towards business but hey... the only reason that happens is because we (or rather business people) decide it is that way. There's no reason it has to be. I hope you understand I'd never make the argument that you'd go so far as kill the business because the product isn't perfect. Certainly it can be too bad but that's a different case all together.

kingkongjaffa 1y ago

> Personally, I believe as engineers our focus should be on the product. The profits are the domain of the business people. This is the dumbest idea in tech. Please don’t listen to this advice. If you’re just starting your career I’m begging you not to laser focus on coding widgets better for the sake of it. Care about your customers and what problem they are trying to solve and be involved in figuring out how to make solving those problems a profitable endeavour. All code is throwaway, all code is worthless, solving real needs, wants and pain points for customers is the real source of value.

yladiz 1y ago
This is as naive as you’re arguing the parent is. I agree you need to care about customers first, and make sure you’re solving their problem, but you absolutely do need to care about the code and if you treat it as always throwaway you can logically get to a justification for vibe coding. Of course you can get far witn these approaches, but they lead to unmaintainable messes which ultimately make it hard or impossible to actually do the thing you want: to deliver customer value.
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  I'd argue if you care about your customers, vibe coding will be a no-go. Most of us aren't against it not on principle, but because it's just too risky or too inefficient to bring real value in most applications. If someday it produces messy but actually reliable code my opinion will change, but at this point, it's just too early (not saying it will ever work, but one can hope)
spjt 1y ago
Doesn't explain why the biggest, most profitable tech companies also seem to have the most user-hostile products. I guess maybe the whole "The users and the customers are not the same people" thing...
gchamonlive 1y ago
You switched the object of focus from profit to customers as if they were interchangeable. You are also using code and product/tech interchangeably, forgetting that there is a lot of effort put into architecture, design and usability. Caring about the customer is caring about the product. Caring solely about profit is what enshitifies products.

detourdog 1y ago

I think you touch on a key point. Many people assume that developing tech involves VCs. My guess is that one can set technical advancement or market share gains. The original SV was focused on technical advancement and the current generation sees the technology as the vehicle to their goals.