[baberuth]

Here's my major beef with what's happening. The real metric of business success is whether you have a positive impact — on your industry, on your community, on (in a small way) the world at large. That doesn't always mean starting your own company. Most of the time, in fact, it means becoming part of a company that you love, with a purpose you believe in, and people who you can't imagine not working with.

Might be true at large, but my FAVORITE thing about communities of hackers is that hackers are principally CREATORS. The reason I left a 9-5 to spend more time with hackers in the startup community because this community self selects the flavor of person who sees problems with the status quo, wants to fix them, and has the power to exact change (usually through code).

In contrast, most of the general populace is in "cover your ass" mode, which is why the author is probably generally right when he says, "Most of the time [business success] means becoming part of a company that you love" -- but not right for most HN readers.

[Vivtek]

Well, I'd submit it's just as true for HN readers - with the caveat that the strategy here tends to be that if you can't find the company you love, you make one.

[ootachi]

Changing the world doesn't have to be through starting a company. Often times, employees of companies, even established ones, end up changing the world. That's the entire point of the article, and one that squares well with the evidence. Consider Apple's recent products, the development of Java at Sun, the creation of Unix at Bell Labs, Gmail and Chrome at Google, and so on. None of the creators of these products (well, except maybe Paul Buchheit) made seven- or eight-figure exits, but they had much more of an impact on the world than the vast majority of startups, even those that did get acquired.