Great Hacker != Great Hire

It's probably worth noting that Eric Sink and PG are in different industries. Eric Sink started a company that sells software. PG started a company that sells a service enabled by software, and invests largely in similar companies.<p>One of the reasons PG suggests building server-based software is that you have more flexibility in language choice, and hence more ability to hire great hackers. But there are other reasons to go for that business model: recurring revenue, fewer distribution hurdles, less chance of incompatibilities, ownership of customer data, network effects, etc.<p>I think there was an article about open-source software and Sun's cash hemorrhage that made it to Hacker News recently - it was either here or Proggit. That's another instance. Google was cited in the article as a company that supports open-source - well, that's because Google's business model is selling services supported by software, and so it behooves them to get the price of software down as low as possible.<p>For that matter - hardware, software, and software services are all complements (in a microeconomic sense), and so each of them has an incentive to commoditize the others. Hence we have Google supporting open-source and buying commodity hardware; Sun and RedHat supporting open-source; Microsoft training lots of developers and providing plenty of tools for them; Apple basing OS X on open UNIX instead of proprietary MacOS 9; and great hackers everywhere supporting open source, because it drives up the value of the service they provide.

Yet another response from someone who missed the whole point of one of pg's articles.<p>In my experience, "great hackers", or stevie's "done, and gets things smart" types, and so on, are <i>exactly</i> the ones who seem to care the most about users.<p>Great hackers don't suffer inefficiency; they correct it. If you want your nasty little problems solved elegantly, expose the great hackers to them. If you want to throw warm bodies at annoyed customers, find someone mediocre and reliable.<p>Great hackers are the ones that cringe in revulsion at a sloppy code structure, not (just) because they're OCD about that kind of thing, but because inconsistency gets in the way of creating beauty.<p>Erik seems to say that pg is suggesting we should hire a bunch of prima donnas who don't do "real" work. What I got out of the GH essay is that, if you can hire Edison, it's madness to put him to work installing light switches. Great hackers are the game changers, and if you're not a game changing institution, you won't get them.<p><i>Hire people who care about users.</i><p>Great hackers do. More than Eric seems to realize.<p><i>Hire people who understand the difference between a job and a hobby.</i><p>The difference seems to be that you enjoy your hobby and not your job. I'm not convinced that's a good thing.<p><i>Hire people who want to contribute in lots of different ways to the success of the product.</i><p>Great hackers turn mediocrity into gold. They make everyone on the team more productive, and add value all over the place.

A great hacker might well be a bad match for the sort of company that calls itself an "ISV." But they seem to be appreciated at ones like Google, and they make good founders.

<i>If Graham is right, a great hacker is someone who believes that his own preferences are more important than doing what is best for the users. Small ISVs don't need people like that.</i><p><i>If Graham is right, a great hacker is someone who is not willing to do any of the un-fun things that need to be done. Small ISVs don't need people like that.</i><p><i>If Graham is right, a great hacker is someone who is not willing to help the people who use the software he creates. Small ISVs don't need people like that.</i><p>I've read "Great Hackers" too but noticed nothing of the sort.

My favorite interpretation of the hacker/painter metaphor is that great things <i>can</i> be done by a team of one.<p>Try as I may, I simply cannot wrap my mind around the concept of "building a team" to create the Mona Lisa or paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.<p>Just look at this for 5 minutes and try to imagine it was designed and built by anything other than a team of one:<p><a href="http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=78386" rel="nofollow">http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=...</a><p>Kinda makes the "Great Hacker != Great Hire" argument kinda moot, huh?

"But the essay causes concern. I worry that lots of small ISVs will read his article and believe that they need to hire great hackers."<p>Why does this rise to the level of concern? If these small ISVs take what the author considers misguided advice, they will be less competitive and his dreary SourceSafe-based business will do even better.

<i>We have learned to value the needs of the users over our own preferences. </i><p>He's missed the main point that PG makes about languages - if you are writing software to run on your own servers and is delivered through HTTP, no-one cares what language you use. In that context, fussiness is fine.

It's official. This site has completely jumped the shark. Even if it is a weekend, which is the opposite of prime time for a site like this, the fact that this link appears in the top ten, it means Hacker News is OVER.<p>Easily one of the stupidest things I've ever read. I've seen better logic on the back of cereal boxes. I seriously, sincerely believe that my dog Kaia who recently passed away (RIP) was smarter than the person who wrote this post.