5 ms·

> The fact that I didn’t really know where it would end up meant that I was perhaps more open to outside suggestions and influence than I would have been if I h

> The fact that I didn’t really know where it would end up meant that I was perhaps more open to outside suggestions and influence than I would have been if I had a very good idea of what I wanted to accomplish. That openness to outside influences I think made it much easier, and much more interesting, for others to join the project. People didn’t have to sign on to somebody else’s vision, but could join with their own vision of where things should go. I think that helped motivate lots of people. This is so quintessentially Linus. He's criticizing this idealized tech startup CEO character with a big passionate vision, a kind of person which I've heard described as "the captain of a ship where as long as everyone is rowing in the same direction, it doesn't matter where the ship is going." We obviously understand that is preposterous, and yet there are lots of very smart people rowing together on ships that are going shitty places. Who actually believes things like inbound sales will actually save the world? Containerization? Restaurant reservations? Ad mediation? Linus's opinion is inviting and has obviously contributed to the longevity of what he is doing. Has he built a huge multi-billion dollar business? I guess not. Neither has Jimmy Wales, as an example. And yet the yield-to-community, my-vision-isn't-first philosophy has firmly solved problems in ways which seriously threaten corporations with billions of dollars to spend on making their own operating systems, drivers, hardware, etc. (e.g., Microsoft). He didn't just motivate lots of people. He motivated lots of very talented people, with little recruitment, no equity and little money, over decades, with diverse skills, better than far better equipped institutions. The open source model repeats this success story in lots of places, naturally, but few have been as influential. I think this philosophy of not "having to sign on to somebody else's vision" is essential.

blfr 11y ago
Containerization is a very cool idea for managing complexity. It already did wonders in the physical world for international trade. I don't think it's fair to list it along restaurant reservations.
majewsky 11y ago
> Has he built a huge multi-billion dollar business? He's built other people's multi-billion dollar businesses. :)
- hoof_marks 11y ago
  I've always wondered at the real value of a person's earnings. Is earnings an end in itself ? No, it is a means to obtain the worth of money one has with himself. Be it financial or mental satisfaction, material acquisitions, name and fame, respect and prestige. Keeping this in mind, I don't think Mr. L.T. is any less in his possessions than a star IT billionaire. Although he would far outdo everyone else when it comes to winning respect and a name for himself. He does not need to declare his life's earnings will go to philanthropy to win people's respect. He already has it. Something for which billionaires are willing to spend their entire fortunes.
  - rpgmaker 11y ago
    > He does not need to declare his life's earnings will go to philanthropy to win people's respect. I know you don't mention him by name but Bill Gates didn't need to give billions to charity to be respected, many already did so he could've just retired, hit the speech circuit and maybe written a couple of books and leave it at that. Philanthropy did make him a less divisive figure though.
peonicles 11y ago
> This is so quintessentially Linus. He's criticizing this idealized tech startup CEO character with a big passionate vision, (...) I don't think he's criticizing anyone in particular. He probably doesn't care enough about most startups to even begin criticizing them. Well, unless said tech startup CEO submits a dumb patch to the Linux kernel ...
Anderkent 11y ago
>Who actually believes things like inbound sales will actually save the world? Containerization? Restaurant reservations? Ad mediation? What's this obsession with 'saving the word'? You don't have to 'save the world' to be doing something useful. Restaurant reservations make the world better for people; that's what actually matters. Unless you're working on something like AI safety, or something that helps people make correct decisions in high-impact positions (military? politics?), you're not saving the world.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  Seems to be part of the "social justice" culture that has been taken root in universities as of late (though i have also seen it labeled "victim culture"). You can't simply exist to make good products, you have to have some kind of life altering/improving purpose behind every breath you take or you are part of "the problem".
  - Tenhundfeld 11y ago
    I respectfully disagree. I remember hearing that phrase when discussing career options in the late 90's. It probably goes back further. People rarely mean it literally. It's typically shorthand for the idea of making the world a better place, often as a contrast to focusing solely on material compensation. Also, if you do an ngram search on Google Books, you'll see similar phrases spiking in use in the early 90's. To your point though, you do see an awful lot of articles about how millennials are placing more emphasis on "personal fulfillment" than previous generations. I don't know how true that actually is, but I think it supports your point of people now talking more about doing good, not just building something valuable. I don't think that's entirely bad though. If you have the luxury of choice, it's good to think about how you and your career focus impact the world. It's good to want to leave the world better than you found it. However, my problem with the idea is that people approach it at such a shallow level. For example, I did a chunk of consulting work for a major vendor to pharmaceutical companies. My team helped them streamline a bunch of business processes and optimize software systems, saving them (low) millions of dollars per year. On the one hand, you could describe that as us just helping a giant corporation improve its bottom line. On the other hand, our improvements had a direct impact on clinical trials getting bid out and approved significantly faster with better end-to-end reporting and more automated safety checks during the trial. So, was that "saving the world"? Meh, not really. I was doing it for the money and joy of working on a solid team. But I did like the fact that in a small way our work was improving the efficiency of a global system that creates new live-improving, life-saving treatments (and admittedly some bad ones too). I think I kind of lost the thread of my argument. :) My point is just that people have been considering the personal fulfillment part of their careers for a very long time, e.g., see Maslow's 1943 hierarchy of needs, and I think talk of saving the world is just a specific flavor of that general idea.
smitherfield 11y ago
/* The following is not intended as a criticism of you or Linus! */ >my-vision-isn't-first philosophy Of Linus Torvalds? The man is nothing if not strongly opinionated, and AFAICT his word is law. He obviously has delegated a lot of the creative/editorial control of Linux to others (it would be impossible not to with a project on that scale), but if we think of Linux as a big software company and him as the CTO, you have to say he has an unusual level of direct personal involvement in the development process.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  I think you're talking about something different......you're right that Linus keeps tight control of the architecture, and tries to make sure every major decision is of high quality, and that the code in general stays high quality (according to his definition of quality), but..... If someone comes around with a new feature to add to Linux, as long as the code is high-quality and has no negative impact elsewhere, he's like to say, "sure, put it in!"
  - smitherfield 11y ago
    >If someone comes around with a new feature to add to Linux, as long as the code is high-quality and has no negative impact elsewhere, he's like to say, "sure, put it in!" But in that case it seems like a bit of a strawman that's being attacked. It's not like it's a commonplace attitude to object to high-quality new features with no negative impact.
    - betenoire 11y ago
      you are conflating strongly opinionated wrt to technical issues with the bigger picture of leadership
      - smitherfield 11y ago
        Obviously Linus is a good, even excellent leader. I'm taking issue with the notion that he has an unusually "my-vision-isn't-first" philosophy. For a software product that's not designed to fit any one highly-specific use case,* I don't see how you define "vision" as something other than the technical decision-making process in developing the product, or something meaningless. *And creating a large-scale software product that's not tied to a highly-specific use case is itself something that requires forethought aka "vision." Vision isn't a bad thing!

blfr 11y ago

Containerization is a very cool idea for managing complexity. It already did wonders in the physical world for international trade. I don't think it's fair to list it along restaurant reservations.

majewsky 11y ago

> Has he built a huge multi-billion dollar business? He's built other people's multi-billion dollar businesses. :)

hoof_marks 11y ago
I've always wondered at the real value of a person's earnings. Is earnings an end in itself ? No, it is a means to obtain the worth of money one has with himself. Be it financial or mental satisfaction, material acquisitions, name and fame, respect and prestige. Keeping this in mind, I don't think Mr. L.T. is any less in his possessions than a star IT billionaire. Although he would far outdo everyone else when it comes to winning respect and a name for himself. He does not need to declare his life's earnings will go to philanthropy to win people's respect. He already has it. Something for which billionaires are willing to spend their entire fortunes.
- rpgmaker 11y ago
  > He does not need to declare his life's earnings will go to philanthropy to win people's respect. I know you don't mention him by name but Bill Gates didn't need to give billions to charity to be respected, many already did so he could've just retired, hit the speech circuit and maybe written a couple of books and leave it at that. Philanthropy did make him a less divisive figure though.

peonicles 11y ago

> This is so quintessentially Linus. He's criticizing this idealized tech startup CEO character with a big passionate vision, (...) I don't think he's criticizing anyone in particular. He probably doesn't care enough about most startups to even begin criticizing them. Well, unless said tech startup CEO submits a dumb patch to the Linux kernel ...

Anderkent 11y ago

>Who actually believes things like inbound sales will actually save the world? Containerization? Restaurant reservations? Ad mediation? What's this obsession with 'saving the word'? You don't have to 'save the world' to be doing something useful. Restaurant reservations make the world better for people; that's what actually matters. Unless you're working on something like AI safety, or something that helps people make correct decisions in high-impact positions (military? politics?), you're not saving the world.

digi_owl 11y ago
Seems to be part of the "social justice" culture that has been taken root in universities as of late (though i have also seen it labeled "victim culture"). You can't simply exist to make good products, you have to have some kind of life altering/improving purpose behind every breath you take or you are part of "the problem".
- Tenhundfeld 11y ago
  I respectfully disagree. I remember hearing that phrase when discussing career options in the late 90's. It probably goes back further. People rarely mean it literally. It's typically shorthand for the idea of making the world a better place, often as a contrast to focusing solely on material compensation. Also, if you do an ngram search on Google Books, you'll see similar phrases spiking in use in the early 90's. To your point though, you do see an awful lot of articles about how millennials are placing more emphasis on "personal fulfillment" than previous generations. I don't know how true that actually is, but I think it supports your point of people now talking more about doing good, not just building something valuable. I don't think that's entirely bad though. If you have the luxury of choice, it's good to think about how you and your career focus impact the world. It's good to want to leave the world better than you found it. However, my problem with the idea is that people approach it at such a shallow level. For example, I did a chunk of consulting work for a major vendor to pharmaceutical companies. My team helped them streamline a bunch of business processes and optimize software systems, saving them (low) millions of dollars per year. On the one hand, you could describe that as us just helping a giant corporation improve its bottom line. On the other hand, our improvements had a direct impact on clinical trials getting bid out and approved significantly faster with better end-to-end reporting and more automated safety checks during the trial. So, was that "saving the world"? Meh, not really. I was doing it for the money and joy of working on a solid team. But I did like the fact that in a small way our work was improving the efficiency of a global system that creates new live-improving, life-saving treatments (and admittedly some bad ones too). I think I kind of lost the thread of my argument. :) My point is just that people have been considering the personal fulfillment part of their careers for a very long time, e.g., see Maslow's 1943 hierarchy of needs, and I think talk of saving the world is just a specific flavor of that general idea.

smitherfield 11y ago

/* The following is not intended as a criticism of you or Linus! */ >my-vision-isn't-first philosophy Of Linus Torvalds? The man is nothing if not strongly opinionated, and AFAICT his word is law. He obviously has delegated a lot of the creative/editorial control of Linux to others (it would be impossible not to with a project on that scale), but if we think of Linux as a big software company and him as the CTO, you have to say he has an unusual level of direct personal involvement in the development process.

ktRolster 11y ago
I think you're talking about something different......you're right that Linus keeps tight control of the architecture, and tries to make sure every major decision is of high quality, and that the code in general stays high quality (according to his definition of quality), but..... If someone comes around with a new feature to add to Linux, as long as the code is high-quality and has no negative impact elsewhere, he's like to say, "sure, put it in!"
- smitherfield 11y ago
  >If someone comes around with a new feature to add to Linux, as long as the code is high-quality and has no negative impact elsewhere, he's like to say, "sure, put it in!" But in that case it seems like a bit of a strawman that's being attacked. It's not like it's a commonplace attitude to object to high-quality new features with no negative impact.
  - betenoire 11y ago
    you are conflating strongly opinionated wrt to technical issues with the bigger picture of leadership
    - smitherfield 11y ago
      Obviously Linus is a good, even excellent leader. I'm taking issue with the notion that he has an unusually "my-vision-isn't-first" philosophy. For a software product that's not designed to fit any one highly-specific use case,* I don't see how you define "vision" as something other than the technical decision-making process in developing the product, or something meaningless. *And creating a large-scale software product that's not tied to a highly-specific use case is itself something that requires forethought aka "vision." Vision isn't a bad thing!