Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"ethernet will never work" 1974 memo (also at PARC) 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... More commentary: http://web.archive.org/web/20070615164202/http://bytecoder.c... 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.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: