I Stayed
zeldman.com
zeldman.com
He created the Web Standards Project, hugely influential in getting browser manufacturers to support standards rather than pee in the pool. And if you think cross-browser support today is rough, at the time you could reliably crash production browsers with valid CSS.
Never mind A List Apart, one of the best early mailing lists on the web, a kind of transitionary form between Usenet and forums/Discord. And A Book Apart, which published lots of high-quality stuff.
If you develop for the web today, every time a browser behaves as the spec describes, thank Jeffrey Zeldman.
Legends indeed.
Informal agreements like this work between people who know each other, not for agreements between strangers. The terms in an open source license are intended to be universally applicable, to make the obligations clear for anyone who reads them. This includes total strangers and companies that didn’t exist when you published the code.
Those strangers shouldn’t be expected to abide by anything not explicitly written down in the license. If the license doesn’t document the obligations you expect of anyone, you used the wrong license.
We should be suspicious of people who try to claim that there are additional unwritten obligations for reusing source code. Open source licenses have very generous terms, maybe too generous. They allow takers. That’s how it works, you can take it.
Contracts -- and law in general -- describe in detail what kinds of actions will allow another to bring legal force into play against you or vice-versa.
But there's all kinds of actions that I can legally take that don't conform to norms that will invite condemnation and reprisal through means other than the legal sphere.
Not every obligation should be given legal force; not every action that's strictly legal will turn out to be socially okay or consequence free.
In turn, that can affect how likely others are to view those companies favorably and/or cooperate with them.
e.g. I favor Prusa 3d printers over other vendors because Prusa provides substantial resources to development of the tooling that we all use. Other vendors are (usually) compliant with the contract, but may not be seen as good citizens by everyone in the community, and this can have consequences even if it doesn't have legal force.
I understand that some people didn't always understand the consequences of their choices, or maybe wrongly thought we all agreed on these unwritten social contracts, but we don't agree at all and I hope the lesson is learned well.
P.S.: This all having been said, while I think that there aren't commonly-shared unwritten rules w.r.t. who may do what with open source software pertaining to its copyright license(s), I don't think there's absolutely no "unwritten rules" in open source. For example, I think the CLA rug-pull pattern is a pretty dirty trick, but that has little to do with open source licenses and more to do with outright deceiving people. And even then, it does beg the question of why you would agree to sign something that explicitly grants that right when there is absolutely no reason to do so.
Even that wasn’t free enough for some. Permissive licensing allows you redistribute software without even disclosing your patches.
These are radically different to regular contracts.
But there's plenty of things people can do with freedom that bring consequences; they just don't bring legal consequences.
They are that less open source software will be created and made available to everyone with permissive licensing. More software will be produced either commercially, or with more restrictive licensing. Less software will be produced overall, because of the overhead costs of enforcing these restrictions. The culture will shift from a norm of "Here, use this thing I made if you want!" towards "You'd better not be using this thing I made without paying me."
This formalisation of norms into explicit contracts backed by legal enforcement would not necessarily be a bad thing overall, and it may be a necessary thing in a "society" where there are too many people for everyone to know everyone else personally and establish trust that way. But it will be different. There will be winners and losers.
If Automattic wants to force companies to pay for Wordpress, it should use a license that encourages/requires that.
There are additional and unwritten obligations in everything, that's just what a culture is. And open source culture has always relied on a general goodwill extended to strangers, it is what keeps it alive. If we only abide by the letter of the law and take as much as we can and give as little as possible open source is just dead, I mean you already see this with large open source contributors moving towards more restrictive licenses.
Saying that the conclusion of this is that licenses were too generous and that we ought to be suspicious of people because they take the underling ethos seriously is... strange to say the least.
There are no consumer protection laws for businesses. There is no cooling off period for certain contracts. Businesses are supposed to have the legal wherewithal to protect their own interests.
You can't project our social norms to businesses.
Companies aren’t people, they are social constructions which can, or not, have positive or negative impact on the society but ultimately live for making money. And I don’t mean this as an insult, it’s just that if you want to work with other people with other goals than making money, a company is just the wrong structure. I think it’s crucial to stop that belief that companies have souls. Companies souls are what is wrote in their status, nothing more, nothing less.
Generally speaking, these constructs are created to solve problems an individual may have trouble with.
The constructs have no agency. They must act through people and are directed by people, but are not people.
Perhaps we should treat corporations like people and jail them, like we do people.
What would that look like?
Freeze all assets for a period of time? Or, since they are essentially shields for those directing them, maybe remove the shield part for X period of time...
This only makes sense in the point of view that every obligation should be enforced by courts. However public opinion can sway people to fulfill non-legal obligations or else have their reputation tarnished. WP Engine reputation is pretty damaged due to their behavior of being a "taker" rather than a "maker".
A job you like where ~10% of your colleges leave is a job I would probably enjoy a whole lot less.
The way I read it at least, it was a simple reference and sentiment, not a comparison.
For future readers the article at one point said
>On May 1, 1992, a man who’d been horribly beaten by the L.A. police called for calm in five heartfelt, memorable words: “Can’t we all get along?”
This is a reference to a statement by Rodney King near the end of the riot period.
https://archive.nytimes.com/learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...
> I don't think there was a comparison between WordPress and Rodney King
You did not say it “seemed” like a reference, you explicitly said there was no comparison
There is no comparison. there is a reference. A reference is not a comparison.
You also didnt answer my question. You are claiming there is an inferred comparison. If so, please explain what two things are being compared, and in what way.
If I mention that I have a big idea and then mention how a great man also once stated “I have a dream”, do you think I’m referencing MLK with no inferred comparison to my idea?
Referencing something in light of your previous statement out of nowhere for a public blog post is a comparison. If you think this just happened randomly and was completely divorced from the previous context then I struggle to understand how to communicate with you
He made an inferred comparison between his situation and Rodney King, that’s the comparison.
The favorability of the comparison in a positive or negative note doesn’t matter to me. Comparing staying at a job or not over layoffs, to a momentous civil rights events in our living history is not acceptable in my opinion
Can you fill in the blanks of what you think is being inferred. " I think {staying at my job} is similar to {Rodney king} in {_________} way.
I think you very confused about the objects and and relation being asserted. If you think the relational inference is clear, please, again, tell me.
If you don’t believe it was inferred then agree to disagree
you cant even produce one possible comparison.
>If you don’t believe it was inferred then agree to disagree
You have got to be trolling me. In several posts, you have failed to identify what "it" is. what's the implied comparison being made?
If you need it more clearly than that, than we aren’t capable of communicating ideas to each other with our personal world views
George Washington once was alive, and people are alive today too.
If you agree that there needs to be a stronger connection to establish a connection, then why even mention the situation? Do you think the author did it out of complete randomness?
>“Can’t we all get along?” We couldn’t then, and we aren’t, now.
That doesn't mean they think they are a victim like Rodney King. That doesn't mean they think someone is like the cops.
I think the point is that conflict exists as part of the human experience. You can acknowledge that it exists and move forward. It isn't useful to dwell on what could have been.
Again, what do you think they were using the quote to say. Are they claiming to be a victim like RK? You seem to not like it, but have no clue what you think the implication is, which strikes me as wild. "I dont know what you are saying, but I dont like your meaning"
If he had just said something like “Can’t we all get along” without invoking the history, it would not have brought along the comparison.
To put this into the context of software, and assuming he did not intend the conflating, it would be like he invoked a function that updated state on a specific field that he wanted to change, but the function updated other fields as a side effect.
The most charitable interpretation is that it was an accident and he just reached for the first similar example he could think of, the least charitable is that he actually does think it’s the same.
My opinion is that the situations are so wildly different that it was an inappropriate example to invoke
I don't think any completion occurred because I wasn't confused about the two of them being the same. I don't think you were confused that they were the same either.
I don't think there are people out there that would read the paragraph and walk away thinking the author is just like Rodney King. Therefore I think taking offense for possible conflation on behalf of others is overly cynical.
Calling me overly cynical is an opinion I can’t object to, but don’t try and define my opinion
It's fairly obvious that's what it is.
Or they are being forced to post "I stayed", as nearly everyone that I've come across that works there is posting it. To the point where it doesn't even feel organic.
For anyone else that wants the latest drama: Matt seems to be weaponizing Automattic and CVE's against WP Engine now.
> Automattic's security team has responsibly disclosed a vulnerability in @wp_acf to @wpengine. As is standard, they have 30 days to issue a fix before public disclosure. We have reserved this CVE for the issue: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2024-9529
Basically announcing to the world that there is a CVE in a very widely used ("2MM+ sites") WP plugin, that also can't be patched as they banned the developers accounts from updating said plugin[1].
Literally at this point the only customers this is hurting are standard WordPress users not on WPEngine.
> “The analogy I made is they got Al Capone for taxes,” Mullenweg says. “So, if a company was making half a billion dollars from WordPress and contributing back about $100,000 a year, yes, I would be trying to get them to contribute more.” WP Engine competes directly with the hosting services offered by Automattic and WordPress.com, and Mullenweg argues one of the reasons for its success is the use of “WordPress” across its site. “That’s why we’re using that legal avenue to really, yeah, pressure them. That’s true: we are pressuring them.”
> “I happily provide WordPress.org services to literally every other host,” Mullenweg says. There is “no requirement to give back. WordPress will be open-source forever and ever, and so there will never be any legal requirement to give back.” But WordPress does still “request” that companies contribute something. “It’s better for WordPress if they give back.”
https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/4/24262232/matt-mullenweg-w...
I conceptually like non-profits, but that seems tangential. Why would I discount my work due to comparison with a hypothetical alternative that is more efficient at doing good.
>especially one that just makes blogs
What's wrong with blogs? I like blogs.
One of the things I liked about selling software is the knowledge that customers do value your software. If they didn't then they wouldn't put their hand in their pocket.
I think people are generally confused by things like insulin, where there are newer and better versions coming out continually, despite it being invented in the 1920s.
At Walmart it is $25 for 1,000 Units of Novolin N [1], with no insurance or prescription. 1000 units is about a month for a lot of people. Novolin N is a third or 4th generation Insulin approved in 1950.
You can get 1000 units of Humalog (Approved in 1996) for $43 at walgreens or most pharmacies (or 19.99 with a Walgreens coupon) [2]
The more recently approved version of Insulin Afrezza, (approved in 2014) costs about $2,000 for a monthly supply.[3]
There has been a fairly consistent march of insulin improvements since the first versions were sold in 1926. [0]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_(medication)#History
https://www.walmart.com/cp/relion-insulin/8418641?action=Sig...
https://www.goodrx.com/insulin-lispro
https://pharmacy.amazon.com/afrezza-180-Cartridge-Pack-Insul...
The sentence is still true regardless of whatever noun you put in it. If the noun itself changes your mind then you should either clarify or reconsider your position
This seems like a pretty big "if". Arguably, Automattic is better than most for-profit companies since they develop a FOSS product, and I think you can make an argument that any sort of FOSS makes the world better.
OTOH, it's not clear to me that making it easier and cheaper to blog or host websites makes the world better. I'm sure there's lots of people using WordPress and similar products for horrible things, like tobacco companies, arms manufacturers, animal ag companies, etc. And that's not to mention the no doubt plenty of personal users who are blogging about conspiracy theories, white supremacy, or Hindu nationalism.
I think the best case for most software is that it's net _neutral_. I work at a database company. Our products are used by many, many different companies, non-profits, and governments. I think some of our customers are horrible, some are great, and most are neither. But that would be the case for me at nearly every software company I might work at.
That said, you are right in that these judgments certainly depends on your mental model of the world. Ex. Are blogs and websites good or bad. A proponent of radical back to the trees movement would probably disagree. I tend to think logs are a good thing for the world
If Billy Bob wants to out himself as a white nationalist, I'd rather he do it out in the open. If it's really a terrible idea then it won't get any traction.
When you censor these people it gives them even more reason to get angry and people start supporting just to fight the perceived injustice. This was a key driver in Jan 6th.
Where in my comment did I call for censorship?
All I said was that it's not clear whether FOSS blog software makes the world a better place. I don't understand how you get from there to censorship.
Being relatively far-left, much of the tech industry is indoctrinated into it.
It seems to them like a not-unintelligent, non-controversial, or even obvious viewpoint because they’ve been swimming in that water their whole lives. It’s a first principle to them and they don’t even know it.
That is fairly left when compared US averages.
You can enjoy your job, and I do too, but I don’t claim to be doing anything extraordinary.
Of course, as stated, "believe in the work" is an imprecise sentiment. Believe what exactly? They probably don't believe it is bad tho, haha
Uhm, that's pretty reductive. Perhaps that's the difference?
And if indie content creation moves to TikTok that's because it's what the next generation wants.
I don't see a reason to exclude those from my earlier comment at all. Yes, they are very much a part of the deal too, whether ecom or whatever business they are in. Having independent "wp shopping carts" replaced by generic Prime dropshipping with both sides at the mercy of a monopolist would also be very sad. If there are people dedicated to improving the standalone alternative software and sustaining those efforts by making money off of it, i view it as a 100% positive.
People routinely make choices that have long term outcomes they don't agree with; and we all know they do and thus the information industry quite explicitly exploits this - the difference between what we "really" want and short term impulses has never been larger due to such intentional exploitation.
Secondly, network effects. The way intellectual property happens to work allows platforms to effectively own networks their user's create. A group of entirely rational users might well each individually choose to join a network since for them doing so is extremely valuable, even in the knowledge that it'd be better for everyone to choose a different alternative if they could manage to do so collectively, especially since IP laws mean it's quite unlikely for any such alternative not to eventually develop similar weaknesses. Business plans work when profiting off content involves controlling it simply because that's how the law pretty much defines it - IP doesn't support creativity directly, it supports monopolies and leaves the support to exploiting that monopoly.
The implied argument sort of infers a cause by default - people are choosing the proverbial tiktok (or whatever other new thing), people are rational, therefore there must be a reason, therefore tiktok is better for people (and we don't need to know why). But each of those steps is quite weak; the overall link is tenuous at best.
This sentiment of 'believing' does really annoy me. There are individuals whose work is their passion (nothing wrong with that) but they judge everyone else, for example a potential job candidate through the same immature lens.
Also, imagine other open source projects doing this. Should Linux maintainers complain about every company using Linux Servers without contributing to the kernel? Or would offering Linux hosting be the better analogy? What percentage of Linux hosting providers has written a single kernel patch and contributed it?
A startup raised $25M squarely off his open source work and they've donated to him a grand total of $250, i.e. 0.001% of the value. He was pissed.
And paying people to leave if they don't agree with what the company is doing seems like a win-win.
WP Engine also acquired and maintains Advanced Custom Fields [1] and Local [2] from their subsidiary Flywheel [3].
[1] https://deliciousbrains.com/wp-engine-acquisition/
[2] https://wpengine.com/blog/better-together-wp-engine-and-flyw...
[3] https://wpengine.com/blog/wp-engine-to-acquire-flywheel/
I wouldn't say that's what people are saying. I've been a vocal critic of Matt's actions in these threads, and my perspective is basically this:
WP Engine may be exactly as bad as Matt says it is. They may be contributing too little and taking too much. I've seen enough of corporations to believe that that can happen.
None of that matters any more after Matt's actions in September. WP Engine has put forward convincing evidence that Matt attempted to extort them into paying tens of millions per year to Matt's for profit under threat of launching a smear campaign. Matt then demonstrated that the boundaries between Automattic (the for profit) and the open source project don't exist by locking millions of WordPress users out of the plugin ecosystem over this dispute with the for profit.
That plugin ecosystem is the WordPress project. By messing about with that ecosystem Matt showed that he is both able and willing to singlehandedly screw over anyone who uses WordPress because he has a dispute with their hosting provider.
That's the issue now. I don't see WP Engine as white knights fighting a villain, but Matt turned what could have been a united effort to improve the WordPress ecosystem into a battle between greedy corporations and it's Matt who showed that he doesn't care who gets caught in the crossfire. The issue isn't that Automattic is the unambiguous bad guy in this suit, it's that Matt has demonstrated he has more power than he can be trusted with.
That said, it seems a modest trademark dispute has gotten way out of hand.
We host mirrors of NPM for many reasons, but fear that Microsoft will one day bar AWS customers from using the main registry isn't one of them.
Matt doesn't get to use that button and stay a trusted component of anyone's supply chain.
I think it was Automattic that put forth that evidence? The literally posted the extortion letter on their blog, aiming to prove it wasn’t extortion at all.
I'm referring to the cease and desist [0] and the subsequent complaint. They have texts from Matt all the way up until he's about to step on stage that appear to show him threatening to launch an enormous smear campaign against them starting with his speech if they don't agree. Just two examples:
> I have 14 slides so far, working title for the talk: "How Private Equity can Hollow out and Destroy Open Source Communities, a Story in 4 Parts."
> I've got quotes from current and former employees, some may even stand up and speak as well.
And then, with a photo of the audience taken from on stage:
> I'm literally waiting for them to finish the raffle so my talk can start, I can make it just a Q&A about WordPress very easily
Matt's gone very public (some have suggested too public) with this lawsuit, but he hasn't provided any context that would make these texts look any better.
[0] https://wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Cease-and-De...
> WP Engine may be exactly as bad as Matt says it is.
> None of that matters any more after Matt's actions in September.
I'm ambivalent towards WP Engine. IF Matt's claims are true, there are better ways to do it than extortion, breaking the core freedoms of the GPL, ignoring open source principles, and generally being a destructive, toxic force.
Even the kind of leverage/threats he was making aren't abnormal. What's threating to defame or emphasize looked at from one side is offering to sign a non-disclosure or non-disparagement from the other.
The content of these threats may be less tolerable than other negotiating tactics, but they are entirely normal in negotiations we don't label extortion. He's not donating horse heads.
As to pulling access to plugins - if at its heart this is about freeloading, then that action seems proportionate in principle as it's one of the few possible leverage points - it did not block existing installations, merely new ones - but the effect was likely poorly thought out as it relates to updates. Then again, WP engine had a workaround in pretty much no time, so even the update issue is not a big one; i.e. that power you state that Matt has does not appear to actually exist.
The whole saga seems very much in the eye of the beholder. Whether the end result will end up achieving Matt's apparent aims is of course another.
I doubt current wordpress sites will suffer much long-term harm in the crossfire, but they will perhaps have a short-term mess. But the power balance shift may well harm the overall ecosystem severely. The loss of trust alone is problematic; and if this takes down the de-factor maintainers of the wordpress core, which seems possible right now, that would be bad. Or worse, if it convinces them to go semi-closed source, and they then drag out their decline in a way that makes a finding momentum for a replacement hard.
No, this isn't a matter of perspective, it's a matter of law, and it's specifically part of the complaint brought against him [0]:
> WPE has been injured in numerous ways as a result of Defendants’ ongoing extortion, including, but not limited to, measures taken to respond to the extortionate threats, loss and continuing loss of customers, and injury to its goodwill and reputation. WPE is entitled to monetary damages as allowed and injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from continuing their unlawful actions.
The court will decide if it's attempted extortion, and if it is then Matt and Automattic will owe damages.
[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43...
People sound like they are angry because they feel it's extortion - and I don't think it should matter what the judicial technicalities of some law say about some legislative definition of "extortion".
And in any case; ideally the law follows common sense not vice versa, so in the event that the law disagrees with common sense as a person with no stake in this game the legal ruling just doesn't interest me except as to the degree of damage done due to the judgement.
Finally, there's a very good chance all of this will be settled and we either won't hear about the terms in detail; or we'll hear some agreed upon compromise that won't reflect either of the party's actual beliefs, nor common sense, nor a judicial ruling - merely some negotiated settlement.
Their latest move (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41751776) is announcing a security hole in ACF, a WP Engine plugin, and preventing them from deploying a fix for it. This places 2+ million users at risk.
Good guys wouldn't do either of these things. The sooner Matt is replaced or Automattic goes under the better.
> The filing also includes a purported job offer from Mullenweg to WP Engine CEO Heather Brunner saying that if she declines to join Automattic, he’d tell the CEO of Silver Lake — the private equity firm that owns WP Engine. WP Engine referred us to the lawsuit when asked for comment.
(via https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/4/24262232/matt-mullenweg-w...)
There's likely more to Zeldman's personal struggles with respect to his health and other financial concerns than what he discloses (rightfully so). But at the same time, evoking the rhetoric of King during the Riots is indeed perplexing when measured against what Zeldman does speak about more openly: his commitment to the open web in light of the aforementioned drama. In this regard, as the kids say, "It's not that deep".
Edit: +++ "in light of the aforementioned drama"
FWIW I'd have to be pretty pissed and/or have no confidence in the direction of the company & its leadership and/or have another job/work lined up already to jump ship on a few days' notice like that.
This isn't the case for most people, but he is anything but most people.
If he's in it for the mission, and not for the money, then surely you can't claim that there aren't companies with a more meaningful mission than blogging?
And if there are, could it be that he can't get hired there? He's been literally offered money to leave and he's struggling financially, but he doesn't.
It's pretty easy to forgive mistakes if you believe people made them for the right reasons, and especially if those reasons are important and the consequences of the mistake fairly diffuse, as might be the case here. Also, given Zeldman's prior work he clearly believes in the power of big ideas; he's surely more likely than most to see the need for pain now to prevent much more later on.
Doesn't mean we have to agree with him; just that it's not hard to empathize with it.
> Our software and services aim to provide a seamless experience, but when things don’t go as planned, our customers rely on us for help. Happiness Engineers are the frontline heroes ensuring we deliver the best experience for our users. Their role is crucial because they interact with our customers the most and make the biggest impression in their time of need.
Call Flow Optimization Specialist - Works at the front desk answering the telephone
I think there is maybe one other "weird" job title in that list, but otherwise they're all pretty normal, so this is probably one of the last things I'd criticize Automattic for. The fact that they describe customer support as "Happiness Engineering" suggests the nature of the title - we have to be a little goofy to help people.
As a final note, for anyone thinking "I work in customer support and I don't like this yada yada", it's just not for you, and that's OK. No need to think up a huge rebuttal, it's just a different philosophy for those of us who like to help people and have a little bit of fun at the same time.
I don't work at Automattic, but I like WordPress and don't really care too much about this drama.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoL4gqjaWnY
I doubt it originated there, either.
No, they’re an entirely remote company hiring across the globe for any position, and they’re pretty clear about that beginning in the h1 title of their hiring page. This is just your “on-shore” bias talking.
This seemed like an adequate explanation without needing any details:
> incurred by the closing of my conference and publishing businesses.
I'm not questioning it! I just don't understand the mechanics.
> Listen, I’m struggling with medical debts and financial obligations incurred by the closing of my conference and publishing businesses
People are reading it as
> Listen, I’m struggling with (medical debts and financial obligations) (incurred by the closing of my conference and publishing businesses)
but I suspect it was meant to be read as
> Listen, I’m struggling with (medical debts) and (financial obligations incurred by the closing of my conference and publishing businesses)
If I were Automattic I would be deeply embarrassed if any of my employees were struggling with medical debts. That just shouldn't be a thing.
I assumed the situation was something like that.
I wonder what happened
His whole Web design system was based on a hand-coded methodology that made standard HTML/CSS sites work optimally.
That doesn't really scale too well, into the current world.
I was unaware that the company (and conferences) closed. I am sad to hear about his medical issues. They can really clobber you.
You have to look out for number one.
What an immensely cowardly statement. Zeldman is not some naive worker elf and pretending to be such as an excuse to avoid saying anything is contemptible. If you don't want people to know what you think, just say that, or say nothing. Pretending you don't have an opinion because you don't understand is just...ick.
As the layoffs and hiriing hesitation has increased over the past 1-2 years I have seen an increased amount of copium coming from engineers work at prestigious jobs.
If you work at a for profit company, I believe that you believe in their mission.
That mission is to make money.
If you work at a company where your job role pays out enough that you could retire of a few years of salary from the position, and you stay after the company pivots to something you didn't think was a good idea, you are there for money.
If you work at a company where your job role pays out enough that you could retire of a few years of salary from the position, and you stay after the company lays off a large number of your coworkers that you think could have been a net benefit to the company, you are there for money.
If you work at a company where your job role pays out enough that you could retire of a few years of salary from the position, and you stay after the company lays off many coworkers that you had a positive, personal relationship with, you are there for money.
I see people in this thread lauding this person for making what I believe is an ultimately selfish decision, and trying to pretend he is not.
I am tired of seeing all these software luminaries discussing how brave they are for {getting a fuck ton of money but pretending it is difficult to accept because they dont get to control everything}.
The feeling I am getting from this blog post and the reaction to it, is the same reaction I got to hearing about how Linus Torvalds was all for the concept of Free Software and then checking his wikipedia page to find out that the chain of links to his famous ancestors goes back to at least his grandparents.
Like no shit you "stayed", you got bank for it. Don't try and spin it as a moral good under
> I stayed because I believe in the work we do.
His last two paragraphs are so egregious I segfaulted when reading them.
Did he really quote Rodney King on why we cant all get along as a response to layoffs that he survived, and then tells everyone that his group is hiring?
Fuck this guy. I don't care if it hurts my career. I wouldn't work with someone who is this big an asshole cause I wouldn't trust them to not throw me under the bus the second its expedient for them.
If it was just about the money they would have probably left. They are well known enough to almost certainly be able to quickly get another job making at least as much money. Add in the 6 months severance they would have gotten and leave is the money maximizing option.
I can't understand this. I do not view my coworkers as part of my personal life, so while I enjoy working with some, I wouldn't say I'm sad if they leave. This sounds unhealthy
This might not be a "them" problem.
I'm not advocating that your coworkers have to be at the same rung as your family or [in-group X] but it's weird/sad to many reading this that you're okay not caring about the people you spend your days working towards a common goal with.
When you spend 8 hours a day around folks and become friends with them, it's natural to miss them when they leave. It's OK if you don't have any meaningful relationships with your co-workers, but, to me, that sounds unhealthy.
While you aren’t seeing people every day (the company is distributed), the relatively frequent meetups in cool places are a massive highlight, and just make your relationships that much stronger.
There are a lot of folks who have been around for ages — even if you aren’t working with someone directly anymore, you’ll frequently see a familiar face (and helping hand!) on the other side of the company.
So the grief of leaving these relationships is acute, especially if you’ve been around for a while. Processing that grief is healthy — and I might suggest that not having any kind of relationship with your coworkers is unhealthy. Or at least speaks to a cold culture somewhere.