That was the point I was making with those examples: that technology evolves independently of the stock market. So if it's time to build the Apple I or Altair Basic, do it whether the economy is good or bad.
And that's the lesson for me. All I can control is my immediate situation. The other stuff is just noise best drowned out by hard work at things I enjoy.
You do touch upon this a little bit in your article, where you mention startups that save customers money will succeed more in a bad economy. But I thought the more general assertion wasn't made.
So it depends if you want to be "well off" (Stallman), "obscenely rich" (Torvalds), "shockingly rich" (Jobs), or "embarassingly rich" (Gates).
And I think that most would, given the choice, rather be the BDFL of a project they obviously enjoy (Torvalds), than spend all day in meetings, or managing management, or whatever Gates has done for the last decade. Unless you're a masochist, or a megalomaniac.
And besides that, lightning has to strike the same place 200 times before you make it to the 99.9th percentile.
"I'm trying to make a living; if you're trying to make a killing then you're stuck in the system."
I've heard rumors that Torvalds wishes he had the money Jobs and Gates have. So, yeah, a little unhappy.
>And besides that, lightning has to strike the same place 200 times before you make it to the 99.9th percentile.
That's if you're in a bell-curve. If you're in a zipf-distribution, lightning only has to strike once.