> And if you think Patrick is some kind of monk doesn't want a "squillion dollars" you haven't been paying very close attention.
I don't think that he's either a monk or avaricious. I think that he prioritises balance. He has written both about the 80-hour weeks that drove him to quit his day job, and the problem of what to do with yourself if your day job takes five hours a week.
PG and Spolsky give really good advice on how to run a good company. Patrick gives really good advice on how to live as a software entrepreneur.
In his seminal essay How to Start a Startup, PG describes a startup as "Instead of working at an ordinary rate for 40 years, you work like hell for four. And maybe end up with nothing". He sees a startup as inevitably stressful and growth-led and focussed on an exit - he'd be a lousy investor if he advised his proteges to do otherwise.
Spolsky places a great deal of emphasis on creating a great working environment for himself and his employees, but he still basically understands "work" to mean sitting in an office for 40 hours a week. Spolsky seems to find running a mid-size company intrinsically satisfying, which is fine but not for everyone. I don't want to sit in an office.
Patrick is the only person I know writing so intelligently about creating companies where the wellbeing of the founder is the primary objective. He seeks to get Pareto's 80%. He seems to often leave money on the table because he doesn't see it as being worth the hassle. I don't see anyone putting so much thought into building companies that practically run themselves.
Regardless of whether Patrick has the right answers, he's asking the right questions, something I see as far more important. I see too many people in the startup world who are sick with stress, malnourished from ramen and pizza and chronically sleep-deprived. Our culture is streaked with the idea that killing yourself for your business is a badge of honour.
Thinking about how to make money is smart. Thinking about how to live well is wise.