"ethernet will never work" 1974 memo (also at PARC) http://i.techrepublic.com.com/blogs/19740305-xerox-ethernet-memo1.jpg http://i.techrepublic.com.com/blogs/19

"ethernet will never work" 1974 memo (also at PARC) http://i.techrepublic.com.com/blogs/19740305-xerox-ethernet-memo1.jpg http://i.techrepublic.com.com/blogs/19740305-xerox-ethernet-... Interestingly, the criticism turned out to be helpful for Metcalf and Boggs (inventors), as the memo author relates: http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-12847-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=226396&messageID=2506029 http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-12847-0.html?forumID=102&#3... More commentary: http://web.archive.org/web/20070615164202/http://bytecoder.com/2006/09/28/xerox-1974-ethernet-would-be-a-failure/ http://web.archive.org/web/20070615164202/http://bytecoder.c... http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=714 http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=714 The memo strikes me as not just frank - but harsh. Needlessly so. And yet... some of its points were accurate, and turned out to be constructive for its targets. It reminds me of one of my PhD supervisors - an attacking attitude and insightful and helpful. And of some comments I see on Hackernews... I don't think that insightful, helpful criticism needs to be harsh. But the two often seem to do together. Why is that? I don't think I'm imagining the harshness: I have an objective view because it's not directed at me; and the authors choose words with negative connotations, instead of neutral ones. Maybe it's just easier to be honestly critical, if you go on an all-out attack? (as in an adversarial legal system). Or maybe sweet people won't criticise in the first place, so it's only the meanies who'll be honest... brutally. :-) The old lesson: listen for the grain of truth hidden in harsh criticism.