Most good programmers do programming not because they expect to get paid or get adulation by the public, but because it is fun to program.
Artists usually don’t make all that much money, and they often keep their artistic hobby despite the money rather than due to it.
That’s what makes Linux so good: you put in something, and that effort multiplies. It’s a positive feedback cycle.
When it comes to software, I much prefer free software, because I have very seldom seen a program that has worked well enough for my needs, and having sources available can be a life-saver.
People enjoy the interaction on the Internet, and the feeling of belonging to a group that does something interesting: that’s how some software projects are born.
Finnish companies tend to be very traditional, not taking many risks. Silicon Valley is completely different: people here really live on the edge.
I try to avoid long-range plans and visions – that way I can more easily deal with anything new that comes up.
A consumer doesn’t take anything away: he doesn’t actually consume anything. Giving the same thing to a thousand consumers is not really any more expensive than giving it to just one.
I don’t expect to go hungry if I decide to leave the University. Resume: Linux looks pretty good in many places.
The fame and reputation part came later, and never was much of a motivator, although it did enable me to work without feeling guilty about neglecting my studies.
The cyberspace earnings I get from Linux come in the format of having a Network of people that know me and trust me, and that I can depend on in return.
I’ve been employed by the University of Helsinki, and they’ve been perfectly happy to keep me employed and doing Linux.
I used to be interested in Windows NT, but the more I see it, the more it looks like traditional Windows with a stabler kernel. I don’t find anything technically interesting there.
The thing with Linux is that the developers themselves are actually customers too: that has always been an important part of Linux.
I don’t try to be a threat to MicroSoft, mainly because I don’t really see MS as competition. Especially not Windows-the goals of Linux and Windows are simply so different.
What commercialism has brought into Linux has been the incentive to make a good distribution that is easy to use and that has all the packaging issues worked out.
Programmers are in the enviable position of not only getting to do what they want to, but because the end result is so important they get paid to do it. There are other professions like that, but not that many.
When you say “I wrote a program that crashed Windows,” people just stare at you blankly and say “Hey, I got those with the system, for free.”
There are lots of Linux users who don’t care how the kernel works, but only want to use it. That is a tribute to how good Linux is.
I very seldom worry about other systems. I concentrate pretty fully on just making Linux the best I can.
See, you not only have to be a good coder to create a system like Linux, you have to be a sneaky bastard too.
In many cases, the user interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial company: whether the programs works correctly or not seems to be secondary.
I like to think that I’ve been a good manager. That fact has been very instrumental in making Linux a successful product.
The Linux philosophy is ‘Laugh in the face of danger’. Oops. Wrong One. ‘Do it yourself’. Yes, that’s it.
I never felt that the naming issue was all that important, but I was obviously wrong, judging by how many people felt. I tell people to call it just plain Linux and nothing more.
I’ve never regretted not making Linux shareware: I really don’t like the pay for use binary shareware programs.
Before the commercial ventures, Linux tended to be rather hard to set up, because most of the developers were motivated mainly by their own interests.