Linus Torvalds interview Reader's Digest - 2001

Shamelessly copied from a post on a Lemmy look alike site :)

You're viewing a single thread.

48 comments

He didn't give up his fortune directly, because today he is a rich man. He just enriched with a different approach like opting to not lock the source code of his work like another guy we know well...
But I like him anyway
- He would've definitely made more even as a senior employee in early Microsoft, IBM or any of the big Corps. Linux exists solely because he made it a collaborative endeavour from the start.
  
  Linux exists solely because he made it a collaborative endeavour from the start.
  That is the important part. If Linux had tried to compete with Microsoft as a closed-source operating system, no one would have used it -- who would use a tiny, buggy (back then), incomplete, closed-source operating system made by a few guys in their spare time against a very popular, feature-complete, close-source operating system with billions of dollars funding its engineering effort?
  What makes Linux popular is that it is collectively owned, that is as much a feature of the operating system as any technology or algorithm written into the source code itself. That feature is what set it apart from Windows or Mac OS.
- For a guy like that, it was never about money. He knew that would come in comfortable enough amounts. For him, it was about being the smartest person in the room. And 90% of the time, he is. And he lets you know.
  
  Perhaps I'm confused. I've never seen or heard Torvalds act in the manner you describe. In interviews, and talks, at least, I've seen him be quite self-deprecating, quite deferential, and quite humble. He just doesn't put up with bullshit in the space he knows extremely well, and he's very direct with little regard to being empathetic, or at least that's how he's acted in the past on the Linux mailing lists. Being matter-of-fact can often be misconstrued as acting superior, but I've found it's usually a time-saving personality quirk.
  Edit>> Clearly this guy is unable to understand what being matter of fact is and resorts to ad hominem when someone doesn’t share his opinion. Sad, really, but pretty normal for the internet, I suppose. Oh well.
  
  Torvalds has a great character and is humble, though because of his “straightforward” personality he has a reputation of being hotheaded and arrogant. For example: Torvalds: I want to be nice, and curse less, but it's just not in me
  
  Right, this happens with me all the time (though I suppose I don't require the use of swear words, but I do use them quite a bit, just not when speaking professionally). People take my matter-of-fact personality as being arrogant. I'm really not, or I actually try not to be, but I can understand how things can come across when not mincing words. I suspect Torvalds doesn't like making useless small talk, either, which is a trait of this kind of personality. I can wholly relate to that and how people might perceive him. But I do not feel, as the person I replied to had written, Torvalds "lets you know" that he's "the smartest person in the room" in any instance I've ever seen him speak.
  
  I get involved later on and say: ‘Christ this is horribly ugly code, how could you ever accept this?’
  That's a direct example of him acting like the smartest man in the room, and letting you know, straight from the link that was provided. He's most likely right, but there are ways of stating that diplomatically. That's not matter-of-fact, that's just being arrogant. If you can't see that, and you also find that people consider you arrogant, maybe you should consider talking to a professional about that.
  
  Nice ad hominem attack. You must be fun to be around.
  sigh
  
  My case in point. That wasn't an ad hominem, that was genuine advice. You admitted yourself that people find you arrogant. If this is affecting your life, you should consider talking to someone about it. Especially since you just accused me of something, and then immediately did the exact thing you accused me of doing. This isn't a competition, this is genuine advice. Please consider it.
  
  Yes it was. Trying to sugar coat it doesn’t change that fact. We’re done here.
  
  Not everything is an attack. You can interpret things however you want, but you're the only one that has to deal with the consequences. I wish you good luck...
- opting to not lock the source code of his work like another guy we know well...
  I'm out of the loop, who are you referring to?
  
  Mr.Redmond
  
  in flesh and bones
  
  Ahh, I thought it was somebody else you were talking about since DOS was never open source
  
  It was about ms basic at the time I believe.
  
  Interesting, so they had an open source product back then?
  
  No, but they were very adamantly against the sharing of ms basic which was their big product (before dos), at a time when software sharing was fairly common.
  
  Oh ok, makes sense.
  Funnily enough, it seems they decided to make it open source about 40 years later
- I don't think he ever expected fortunes, going off his famous usenet post. He just wanted a Unix-like OS that wasn't Minix and didn't cost exactly one space shuttle. One that he could fuck around and do anything he wanted with without regard for someone else's license and restrictions.
  Everyone else wanting one too was a happy accident.

48 comments