Linus Torvalds: Linux succeed thanks to selfishness and trust

&#62; <i>I think your question assumes a level of planning that simply didn't really exist. It wasn't so much about me having any particular expectations of what would happen when I made the original kernel sources available: a lot of the impetus for releasing it was simply a kind of "hey, look at what I've done".</i><p>I love that. Just a couple of guys randomly working together on something that at the time sounded like a toy.<p>&#62; <i>In other words, I do not see open source as some big goody-goody "let's all sing kumbaya around the campfire and make the world a better place". No, open source only really works if everybody is contributing for their own selfish reasons.</i><p>And there's the cynicism we all know and love.

I don't agree with Linus here. He first goes on about how "open source" is not about making the world a better place, but then states that the GPL is all about fairness. Well, that's the point - we want a fair world, where everyone's freedoms are respected. How is that not making the world a better place?<p>You could just as well start arguing that there is no such thing as altruism, and that everyone always acts out of selfish reasons, even if helping someone else. I must say I find this to be a quite misantropic attitude in general.

Here is a link that provides rich details on the kind of tinkering that eventually lead to Linux. It started off with a game of Prince of Persia...<p><a href="http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/happy-birthday-linus" rel="nofollow">http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/happy-birthday-linus</a>

There seem to be to exist to competing theories for success: 1) plan where you want to be in the future, and work your way up there, 2) do things that interest you until somehow, randomly, you hit something big. It is interesting that both models appear mentioned by "successful" people (by whatever definition of success you use), even if they are contradictory in some way.<p>Is the truth somewhere in between? Or are both valid models for leading a fruitful life?

He says he favours tinkering. But then he says he believes "pre-installation" is the way forward. Am I the only one who sees a certain incompatibility here?<p>It is not rocket science to transfer an image to some media. Installation of an OS is not some black art. Non-technical consumers can do it. (I've tested this with some people and they caught on more quickly than I expected.) More advanced users can compile their own images from source.<p>At the same time, I suspect that replacing Linux when it is "pre-installed" will prove more and more difficult. Hopefully I'm wrong. But Linus himself fears bias. That fear should also apply to "Linux bias". Equal opportunity for all OS's.<p>Pre-installation is a Microsoft/Apple tactic. It is far too easy to abuse.<p>Consumers should have choice.<p>Make OS installation easy. Let consumers do it, not just OEM's and Apple.

&#62; <i>Once people and companies got over their hang-ups - renaming it "open source" and just making it clear that this was not some kind of anti-commercial endeavour definitely helped - things just kind of exploded.</i><p>I can't help but notice that this is what ESR said when he critiqued RMS for being a fanatic, and most people in the comments were pretty critical of ESR. I guess Linus at least agrees with him.<p>(I realize this might sound like an "Argument from Authority", and you'd be right, but we all know Linus is an authority for a reason, and I'm not saying he's right because he's an authority, I'm merely saying he <i>agrees</i> with ESR, which should at least be some kind of signal.)

Linus Torvalds, a great hero of mine, I do not know about you, he is certainly my <i></i>King of Geeks<i></i>

&#62;<i>I'll happily sit in front of the computer the whole day, and if the kids distract me when I'm in the middle of something, a certain amount of cursing might happen.</i><p>Hahaha I love that Linus :-)