11 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 41.2 ms ] thread
I'm always interested in what Kelsey has to say but Solomon was right when he said that Twitter was the wrong medium for this debate. This is a perfect example of the Twitter-is-fucked story that topped HN the other day. It is impossible to carry on a coherent argument in 140 character sputters. When I read Kelsey's questioning the first time, I could not make sense of it...and then realized that Twitter was presenting it in reverse chronological order and I was reading it backwards.

I greatly miss mailing lists as a format for discussions like this. The latency involved encouraged the participants to organize their thoughts carefully before sending them to the world.

"I believe in standards [... that we control]"
a standard without adoption is useless
And universal adoption of a single-vendor "standard" is dangerous.
Which is why RFC 5657 demands two inter-operable implementations must exist to support a draft standard.
Why does Solomon Hykes so frequently gun only for himself and his own interests? Is he really that narcissistic and uninterested in the greater good? When will he realize that by helping others win it will actually help him win the big fight in the long run? I've lost count of the number of times he's engaged this way and disgraced himself (and painted himself into a corner, too).

Knowing Kelsey, he generally just wants to do the thing which will lead to the best outcome for all parties involved. Will gladly follow where he leads.

I very much agree with your comments regarding mailing lists. Unfortunately they aren't good tools for self-promotion and building one's personal brand which I think are often times more important to the author of the tweet than the content. I think thats part of the reason behind the impedance mismatch between subject and the choice of forum.

This ins't meant as knock against Kelsey because I think he's great. I have much praise for him. It was more a comment on the frustration of twitter as a medium.

I remember when Microsoft was on trial for abusing its monopoly, they ran ads with Bill Gates saying they needed to be able to "innovate"—a euphemism for their famous tactic of embrace, extend, and extinguish. Funny to see people using the same language here. I'm guessing I'm not the only one who was writing software in the '90s and still has a bad taste in their mouth from that word.
I was in the same position in the 90's, and I completely agree with you.

Microsoft kept using that word all the time every time they opened their mouths. Its popularity may have been going down somewhat so I wonder if it was being pushed by Ballmer.

A random quote from the first Google result for "ballmer interview":

    "I still think it’s very important to do the right kind of
    innovative integration across Windows and our hardware
    platforms with our cloud services."