<i>"... why is this being down voted w/out any counter argument? ..."</i><p>The point of the timeline was to try and highlight developers who worked on browser projects during this time and highlight the differences in both company and individual responses. IE might have been an OK browser, MS made large sums of money but compare the difference Andreessen and jzw from Netscape have made to users by releasing the source code for Mozilla in the long run.<p>I suspect because I'm perceived in attacking the author by proxy criticising MS and IE. The thing I don't understand is why Scott needs affirmation? Just getting into MS at this time and working on the core product marks him as an above average developer. But lets not mince words. MS and the IE team did harm the Web and their customers needlessly during the periods of '95 to 2000. And being on this team with influence doesn't negate some responsibility. It would be good to get some sort of view of this from the author.<p><i>"... i'm not surprised that IE was managed by a rejected undergrad/frustrated closet writer? jk :) ..."</i><p>As for being a <i>"rejected undergrad"</i>, credentials matter less in tech companies than ability ~ <a href="http://paulgraham.com/credentials.html" rel="nofollow">http://paulgraham.com/credentials.html</a> that's why Scott was hired.  The description of <i>"frustrated closet writer"</i> doesn't do Scott's contributions at justice.<p>If only HN was filled with writers of his calibre ~ <a href="http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/how-to-be-a-free-thinker/" rel="nofollow">http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/how-to-be-a-free-thinker/</a>