I don't think the experience is necessary. He wants to found a company not be an excellent engineer. That means as long as he can get a prototype out, it doesn't matter if it's all spaghetti code. It's startup code and it will be shitty. He can then hopefully raise money and hire people with at least a few years experience to build things out properly (hopefully).
I've seen successful startups started by people who could barely code or taught themselves to code to build the business just like the OP is describing. Sure, the code is shitty and there's no architecture, but once you're making money, who cares? This explains the shitty code found at most startups, but if it's temporary and a way to get somewhere, I definitely see its benefits. If this was a proper system, meant to live on for years, that's different. Hopefully the OP will have enough wisdom to realize when it's time to switch between the two mindsets. Most startup CEOs don't (even if they started out like the OP because they quickly get disconnected from engineering), and that's the real problem, IMO, but by then you've already started a company and raised money.
Very important point here, and often overlooked. Real world runs on shitty code, people like Zuckerberg didn't spend his early facebook days discussing on message boards what is the best javascript framework or the best way to build testable code; he shipped, put it out there and attracted people. It was most likely spaghetti code as Zuckerberg did not have any prior professional experience as an engineer, but it worked.
What qualifies a programmer (even a good programmer) to found a tech company? Starting any company requires so many more skills than just programming knowledge, it becomes very unlikely that a random programmer is qualified. In fact, many programmers I know are the least qualified people I can think of to found a company -- they lack the ability or desire to sell an idea, manage a team, or motivate people. If you think "I'm a good programmer, and that makes me qualified to run a company," you'll be disabused you of that notion very quickly. It may turn out that you have the qualifications, but it won't have anything to do with your coding ability.
The truth is, there are many boxes you need to check, and technical knowledge is just one of them. It's very rare that a single individual can check all those boxes. That's why VCs generally prefer companies founded by multiple people with complementary skill sets.
That's also why the OP should seriously consider finding a technical co-founder. He may be qualified to found a tech company (perhaps he can manage people, sell an idea, or use his prior experience to enter an underserved market), but it's unlikely he's qualified to found a tech company alone.
What qualified Steve Jobs to start a tech company? Right - nothing!
What qualifies anyone who is not technical to start a tech company?
Perhaps you should ask the non-technical founders of almost every single successful tech startup. Maybe some will comment right here as there are so many ...
I think you missed the part where I said I am on a journey to learn so I can be at a stage to start and build a Startup. No one comes out of their mother's you know what knowing everything they need to know. Thank you for the feedback though.
I guess if you follow those nine rules for a year - your head will clear up that much - you will realize how pointless this carrot-in-front-of-donkey-style-career-rat-race is and get off!
>- rarely features security issues which aren't fixed immediately
I tried to use WordPress once. I downloaded a theme from wordpress.org with the assumption that themes are reviewed before making there. Nevertheless, I did some basic pentesting before putting my app live, and I quickly found a XSS vulnerability in the search bar of the theme (their paid version featured the same vulnerability). Maybe my experience is not to be generalised to WordPress in general, but it put me off.
There are more than 38k plug ins available (https://en.wordpress.org/plugins/). And also from what I have seen so far - there is no extensive (if any) reviewing done regarding safety and quality.
When programmers see a terminal, they tend to see it in terms of the freedom and flexibility it provides. To everyone else, it looks broken, primitive and weird.
But most modern frameworks and CMS platforms seem to take for granted that everyone moved on from FTP to git ages ago, which isn't the case.
I wasn't talking about blogging specifically, but in general terms, having to use one for updating and deploying.
I could possibly imagine someone writing blog posts in markdown or plaintext and pushing them somewhere, but that would be the edgiest of edge cases, and even then a native app or web form would be more intuitive.
You could get the same or higher value for less money by buying a Samsung f.x.