JWZ, whether he is right or wrong, is an excellent writer and provider of his message and perspective. He provides photos, history, and his own opinion on his work. You don’t come away from his writing going “but what was he trying to say” or “what was the message in there”. You know it. You might disagree with it or accolade him for standing up for it, but either way, he gets it across.

Another person, to me, who also does an excellent job of this is Joel Spolsky, of http://www.joelonsoftware.com/, who is so good at also getting his ideas and perspective across along with photos, citations, and the rest. People can point to his stuff and say he’s nailed it, or point to it and bemoan its inaccuracy, but either way, there’s something to point to it.

That’s what I like here.

Quite frankly, I think that Jason is doing himself quite a disservice by even mentioning JWZ. Jason is introspective and passionate about what he does, and I deeply admire him for that. JWZ is merely bitter and self-congratulatory.

It is deliciously ironic that the “new” project he was trying to influence (Hula) also failed.

This is not irony. This is exactly the opposite of irony; it is foresight. What’s both verbally and situationally ironic, however, is the combination of your commentary and your choice to use this event to tear down what you see as the illusion of Zawinski’s wisdom.

Learn the definition of irony. You’re exhibiting it.

JWZ’s worst rant EVER was the one where he boldly declared “all groupware sucks” — mainly because Netscape failed at it. It is deliciously ironic that the “new” project he was trying to influence (Hula) also failed. His rant basically said “good software helps you to get laid” and a lot of people mistook the shock value of that statement for actual insight. No, you idiot, good software gets the job done without calling attention to itself.

JWZ is a beer salesman. Nothing more.