Gabriel argued that "Worse is better" produced more
successful software than the MIT approach: As long as the initial program is basically good, it will take much less time and effort to implement initially and it will be easier to adapt to new situations. Porting software to new machines, for example, becomes far easier this way. Thus its use will spread rapidly, long before a program developed using the MIT approach has a chance to be developed and deployed (
first-mover advantage). Once it has spread, there will be pressure to improve its functionality, but users have already been conditioned to accept "worse" rather than the "right thing": Gabriel credits
Jamie Zawinski for excerpting the worse-is-better sections of "Lisp: Good News, Bad News, How to Win Big" and e-mailing them to his friends at
Carnegie Mellon University, who sent them to their friends at Bell Labs, "who sent them to their friends everywhere". He apparently connected these ideas to those of
Richard Stallman and saw related ideas that are important in the
design philosophy of Unix, and more generally in the
open-source movement, both of which were central to the development of
Linux. In December 2000 Gabriel answered his earlier essay with one titled
Worse Is Better Is Worse under the
pseudonym Nickieben Bourbaki (an allusion to
Nicolas Bourbaki), while also writing
Is Worse Really Better?, applying the concept to
C++'s success in the field of
object-oriented programming despite the existence of more elegant languages designed around the concept. The
UNIX-HATERS Handbook includes
Worse is Better as an appendix, and frames the concept in terms of worse-is-better in the form of Unix being "evolutionarily superior" to its competition. == See also ==