Even if a rewrite is truly needed, the work of the first programmer is still more than zero
and the work of the rewriter is still less than 100% of the task.
I'd guess in most situations, the rewriter did less work than the guy who wrote the original.
My point being that the first 6 years of development was more important in terms of moving the
project from non-existant to perfect than the work in the subsequent 12 years, but the
analysis in the linked document attributes importance in the opposite way.
Imagine a company who spent the nineties trying to keep free software back by denying us
documenation, but who then hired a kernel hacking team in the last five years to sqeeze out 5%
better performance here, 10% there, and scale it up to extreme case. That company "scores"
highly in the linked document, while hackers who did great work when we had little, like Alan
Cox, "score" quite low.
There's nothing false in the linked document, I just think a lot of people will misinterpret