Theo de Raadt, the founder and leader of the OpenBSD project, occupies a unique and controversial place in the history of open-source software. A brilliant and uncompromising developer, his reputation has long been shaped not just by his technical achievements but also by his unapologetically confrontational approach to collaboration. To speak of Theo is to enter a territory where ideology, personality, and code collide in ways that challenge the often idealized image of open-source communities as purely cooperative ventures. The open-source world is frequently imagined as a utopia of shared labor and mutual respect, where brilliant minds gather to build for the common good. But this is, at times, a veneer. Underneath the surface lies the complex dance of egos, ethics, and ambition. In Theo’s case, the façade was never necessary. He tore it down from the beginning, standing firmly behind his beliefs with a sharp tongue and sharper convictions. His outbursts and disputes are not isolated flare-ups but rather the manifestation of a philosophy that values correctness, security, and integrity above social niceties or institutional diplomacy. Perhaps the most famous example of this tension emerged during his falling out with the NetBSD team in the mid-1990s, which ultimately led to the birth of OpenBSD. Theo clashed with fellow NetBSD developers over governance issues, the direction of the project, and what he perceived as a lack of transparency and commitment to openness. Instead of tempering his views to maintain peace, he embraced the conflict and used it as fuel to build something new — a system that would not compromise on security or principles. OpenBSD, under his stewardship, became known not only for its rigorous security model but also for its absolute refusal to bend to industry pressures or political correctness. This dogged idealism came at a cost. Over the years, Theo has developed a reputation for being difficult, abrasive, even hostile in technical mailing lists and development forums. He has not hesitated to call out what he sees as sloppy work, flawed designs, or moral failings in other projects — including giants like the Linux kernel or hardware vendors that fail to release open documentation. To some, this has painted him as a troublemaker or a toxic personality, someone more interested in proving others wrong than in finding common ground. But to others — particularly those who prioritize the ethical foundation of software — Theo is a kind of prophet, a necessary irritant in a world that too often trades values for popularity. His confrontational style is not gratuitous; it stems from an unwavering moral compass. Security, transparency, and user empowerment are not negotiable for him. And in a world where so many have softened their stances to court industry favor or corporate backing, Theo’s resistance is both refreshing and polarizing. He sees complacency as dangerous. He believes that developers have a responsibility to their users, especially when those users are putting trust in code to protect their privacy, finances, or lives. In that light, harsh words become a form of accountability. It's also worth noting that behind the storms, there is a deep and enduring care for the craft. OpenBSD is an exceptionally clean and secure codebase, a product of relentless attention to detail and an almost obsessive insistence on doing things the right way. These achievements did not happen in spite of Theo’s personality — they happened because of it. The same force that alienates some developers also pushes the project to a standard few others can match. In the end, Theo de Raadt is not a simple figure. He is not merely a "difficult person" or a hero of open-source purity. He is a reflection of the contradictions within the movement itself: collaboration built on dissent, progress forged through friction. He reminds us that building something great often means refusing to compromise — not just in code, but in character. And whether one agrees with his methods or not, the world of secure, open computing is better — and certainly more interesting — because he never played it safe.