6 ms·

I don't read interviews with Linus Torvalds anymore. He's a harsh and selfish person and seems like his number one hobby is not software development, but sweari

I don't read interviews with Linus Torvalds anymore. He's a harsh and selfish person and seems like his number one hobby is not software development, but swearing at people.

thaumaturgy 14y ago
You can learn something from anyone, even someone you disagree with.
jlgreco 14y ago
You would be a fool to think that "What Linus gets to the front-page of HN for" is a representative sample of what he does.
ghshephard 14y ago
"He's a harsh and selfish person" Harsh, perhaps (a function of his brutal honesty). But, I don't think you would find more than 1 out of 10 people who would agree with you that he's selfish. He did license the linux kernel via the GPL, and, he's dedicated pretty much his entire software to writing software that you can freely copy, modify, and distribute.
- wyclif 14y ago
  Agreed. Of course, "harsh" is a relative term. But I think if most programmers and devs could see all of what Linus has put up with over the years on the LKML spread before them, they'd quickly reassess the meaning of "patience."
- pavanky 14y ago
  May be intermediate is confusing stubborn for selfish ?
- dnc 14y ago
  Here is what Linus Torvalds said on the topic in the other interview: "In many ways, I actually think the real idea of open source is for it to allow everybody to be "selfish", not about trying to get everybody to contribute to some common good. 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." Link to the whole interview: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18419231 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18419231 .
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    Notice that he uses the word, "Selfish" in quotes to make it clear that he's not using the word in the way we commonly define it. There's a very large difference between Linus's definition of "Selfish" (Which is basically people scratching their own itch, serving their own need) - and societies definition of selfish, "MW Def: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others" To some degree, all human behavior is "selfish" - we're all driven to do those things that bring us pleasure. The question is, in doing so, do we do so exclusively, and without regard for others. Traditionally, when we use "selfish" in the pejorative, that's the differentiator in how we use the word and Linus does. The genius of the GPL, of course, is that it aligns ones own self interest with those of a greater community. You can use the software as much as you want, just as long as you contribute back your changes to others. An enforced quid-pro-quo, if you will. I absolutely understand the argument that Linus is making, and I agree with him - that, long term, people need to be driven by the need to satisfy some personal need, not some greater community good. But suggesting that contributing software to the GPL is selfish is using language in the same way that suggesting affirmative action is racist. This is only true if we stretch the definitions of the words selfish and racist.
    - dnc 14y ago
      > The genius of the GPL, of course, is that it aligns ones own ... I agree. That's basically what Linus also said in the continuation of the quoted interview. I also think that being "selfish" (to some healthy degree) is not a bad thing per se. If we put it in a proper context (like GPL) it can have better results than many truly altruistic efforts in the same direction. It is simply more natural.
    - nathan_long 14y ago
      I think I agree with you, but just to debate a bit: couldn't you contribute to open source for entirely selfish reasons? For example: - There is no existing project that completely meets my needs. This one almost does. I can patch it, but maintaining a separate fork would be a lot of trouble. Therefore, the easiest thing to get what I want is to contribute a patch to the main project. - I want to prove to the world that I'm a good developer so that I can achieve my career goals. I can't easily show off my closed-source code. Therefore, the easiest way to get what I want is to release good open source code. - I like having lots of open source software available for free, and I want to keep that paradigm functioning, therefore I view contributing as an investment with a good payoff for me. (This one is a bit more of a stretch.) I think you can contribute to open source for truly selfish reasons, and that can work out well for everyone. It's similar to how you can run a business purely for profit, and as a necessary means to that end, provide a good product for a good price. However, in practice, I personally contribute to open source partly for selfish reasons and partly out of altruistic ones.
z3phyr 14y ago
Linus is like a large coconut. Harsh looking from outside but gentle inside.
- debacle 14y ago
  And delicious.

I don't read interviews with Linus Torvalds anymore. He's a harsh and selfish person and seems like his number one hobby is not software development, but swearing at people.

thaumaturgy 14y ago

You can learn something from anyone, even someone you disagree with.

jlgreco 14y ago

You would be a fool to think that "What Linus gets to the front-page of HN for" is a representative sample of what he does.

ghshephard 14y ago

"He's a harsh and selfish person" Harsh, perhaps (a function of his brutal honesty). But, I don't think you would find more than 1 out of 10 people who would agree with you that he's selfish. He did license the linux kernel via the GPL, and, he's dedicated pretty much his entire software to writing software that you can freely copy, modify, and distribute.

wyclif 14y ago
Agreed. Of course, "harsh" is a relative term. But I think if most programmers and devs could see all of what Linus has put up with over the years on the LKML spread before them, they'd quickly reassess the meaning of "patience."
pavanky 14y ago
May be intermediate is confusing stubborn for selfish ?
dnc 14y ago
Here is what Linus Torvalds said on the topic in the other interview: "In many ways, I actually think the real idea of open source is for it to allow everybody to be "selfish", not about trying to get everybody to contribute to some common good. 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." Link to the whole interview: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18419231 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18419231 .
- ghshephard 14y ago
  Notice that he uses the word, "Selfish" in quotes to make it clear that he's not using the word in the way we commonly define it. There's a very large difference between Linus's definition of "Selfish" (Which is basically people scratching their own itch, serving their own need) - and societies definition of selfish, "MW Def: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others" To some degree, all human behavior is "selfish" - we're all driven to do those things that bring us pleasure. The question is, in doing so, do we do so exclusively, and without regard for others. Traditionally, when we use "selfish" in the pejorative, that's the differentiator in how we use the word and Linus does. The genius of the GPL, of course, is that it aligns ones own self interest with those of a greater community. You can use the software as much as you want, just as long as you contribute back your changes to others. An enforced quid-pro-quo, if you will. I absolutely understand the argument that Linus is making, and I agree with him - that, long term, people need to be driven by the need to satisfy some personal need, not some greater community good. But suggesting that contributing software to the GPL is selfish is using language in the same way that suggesting affirmative action is racist. This is only true if we stretch the definitions of the words selfish and racist.
  - dnc 14y ago
    > The genius of the GPL, of course, is that it aligns ones own ... I agree. That's basically what Linus also said in the continuation of the quoted interview. I also think that being "selfish" (to some healthy degree) is not a bad thing per se. If we put it in a proper context (like GPL) it can have better results than many truly altruistic efforts in the same direction. It is simply more natural.
  - nathan_long 14y ago
    I think I agree with you, but just to debate a bit: couldn't you contribute to open source for entirely selfish reasons? For example: - There is no existing project that completely meets my needs. This one almost does. I can patch it, but maintaining a separate fork would be a lot of trouble. Therefore, the easiest thing to get what I want is to contribute a patch to the main project. - I want to prove to the world that I'm a good developer so that I can achieve my career goals. I can't easily show off my closed-source code. Therefore, the easiest way to get what I want is to release good open source code. - I like having lots of open source software available for free, and I want to keep that paradigm functioning, therefore I view contributing as an investment with a good payoff for me. (This one is a bit more of a stretch.) I think you can contribute to open source for truly selfish reasons, and that can work out well for everyone. It's similar to how you can run a business purely for profit, and as a necessary means to that end, provide a good product for a good price. However, in practice, I personally contribute to open source partly for selfish reasons and partly out of altruistic ones.

z3phyr 14y ago

Linus is like a large coconut. Harsh looking from outside but gentle inside.

debacle 14y ago
And delicious.