
Linus Torvalds: Linux succeed thanks to selfishness and trust - sparknlaunch
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18419231
======
confluence
> _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 love that. Just a couple of guys randomly working together on something that
at the time sounded like a toy.

> _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._

And there's the cynicism we all know and love.

~~~
simonh
Adam Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the
baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own
interest."

~~~
slurgfest
That is a true and good observation. Much depends on those kinds of people and
those kinds of motivations.

But there are also the priests and doctors, from whom we reasonably do not
expect to hear "this is all about my interest, what's in it for me?" And
likewise there are many enterprises where people are doing them for reasons
which do not relate to turning a profit, a category which a great deal of
valuable open source development falls into.

~~~
simonh
Sure, but he doesn't say that self interest is or should be the only interest,
only that markets and economic activity work best when self interest and the
interests of society align.

Adam Smith wasn't a free market fundamentalist in this respect, much as the
fundies would like to make out. He was very much in favour of regulation.

I like this:

"..The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this
order [businessmen and traders], ought always to be listened to with great
precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and
carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most
suspicious attention."

SOPA and ACTA anyone?

~~~
arvinjoar
And he was also an all-around pretty shitty economist, and those who claim he
invented economics _ex nihilo_ are delusional. He pretty much stole all the
correct parts from other economists and added some falsehoods. His diamond-
water paradox for example is retarded, and a step back from previous (mostly
French) economists, since it's based on the Labor Theory of Value, which later
spawned Communism. When I hear people praise Adam Smith I just want to NOPE
out of the room.

------
slowpoke
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?

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.

~~~
chubot
Uh, whether altruism actually exists is a matter of serious debate. Google
"does altruism exist".

I think it's telling that one of the most successful open source leaders
doesn't really believe in altruism as the motivator for open source.

If you always acted as if people would do things just to be nice, you might be
continually confused about why contributions were made or not made. If you
just assume that people are going to contribute for their own interest, then
your project may be more likely to succeed.

Contributing for your own interest doesn't mean "selfish" or misanthropic. It
means finding common ground where interests align and both parties win.

Do you think IBM or Google contributes to Linux to be nice? Obviously they
have business interests in Linux. That seems to be the simplest explanation.
And I don't see it to be different for other contributors either.

Random links from Google:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/11/does-
altru...](http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/11/does-altruism-
actually-exist/248074/)

[http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/is-pure-
altr...](http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/is-pure-altruism-
possible/)

~~~
slurgfest
If you define altruism in an artificially stringent way - e.g. if you decide
that actions cannot be altruistic unless they result in pain, cannot be
habitual, have nothing to do with any relationship, have nothing to do with
sympathy, have nothing to do with any ideology, have nothing to do with trying
to be a better person... then of course you will conclude that it does not
exist. Not because it is not a real thing, but because you wanted to determine
that it does not exist, and therefore artificially ruled out all the ordinary
cases.

But this is a game of words because that's not what altruism is. Altruism can
be based on kinship, reciprocity, ideology, self-image, sympathy, habit and
other things which are active in normal people's minds.

IBM and Google are public corporations, meaning that turning a profit is the
whole point of their existence, and that their leadership have a legal
responsibility to shareholders. The same is not true of human beings, much as
a few have decided that turning a profit is the whole point of their own
personal existences.

~~~
chubot
There is some degree of ambiguity in the common usage of the word vs. the term
that evolutionary biologists use.

I don't agree with your definition -- altruism based on reciprocity is an
oxymoron. altruism based on kinship, i.e. a mother feeding a child, is not
altruism. It could be called "nice" or "heartwarming", but it's not altruism.

But putting the definition of words aside, what do you think is the most
common motivator for open source? Do you think that most contributions to the
Linux kernel are due to aligned interests, or due to altruism? (Whatever
altruism means, I would say it is mutually exclusive from "aligned interests")

I think Linus probably has some insight into this question, having led the
project for so long.

I think pure altruism is rare but possible. In fact I vaguely remember a story
about a guy contributing drivers to the Linux kernel for old hardware that he
didn't even own and never planned on using.

On the other hand, maybe he just had a different idea of fun than other people
(in all seriousness).

~~~
jeffool
>In fact I vaguely remember a story about a guy contributing drivers to the
Linux kernel for old hardware that he didn't even own and never planned on
using.

[http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1047633/one-
writes-...](http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1047633/one-writes-linux-
drivers-235-usb-webcams)

Possibly this fellow, who wrote drivers for over 200 USB webcams?

~~~
chubot
Yes exactly!!

In the interview though, he says it started when he bought web cams for his
daughters but there was no Linux support.

But then he realized that a lot of the code was shareable, so he generalized
it to 235 cameras.

You could call the difference between making 2 drivers work and 235
"altruism". Or you could just call it "doing it a good job". Most people have
the desire to do a good job.

I frequently do the same thing... I call it cleaning up dirty hacks, and
learning the essence of a problem. Not necessarily altruism, but I won't
object if anyone calls it that.

~~~
excuse-me
Or just showing off !

Never underestimate the benefit of people showing off. Otherwise Mozart would
have retired at 12 and become a music teacher

------
raheemm
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...

<http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/happy-birthday-linus>

------
loboman
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.

Is the truth somewhere in between? Or are both valid models for leading a
fruitful life?

~~~
ajross
Neither. Your statistics are bad:

> It is interesting that both models appear mentioned by "successful" people

Biased sample set. What are the "unsuccessful" people doing, and does it
correlate?

Honestly in my experience, talent and productivity (and, of course, luck)
matter immensely more than planning or inspiration. (Edit:) But no one is
going to give someone an interview answer that amounts to "I'm brilliant and I
Get Things Done!"

~~~
einhverfr
I don't know that a "fruitful life" is something that can be objectively
defined, so I don't know that there is anything to measure statistically.

Also certainly talent matters, but inspiration (real inspiration) is important
to long-term productivity. For example I have a friend who had serious issues
working and typing due to old neck injuries. She became inspired to look into
the connection of bows to Old Norse mythology and in the process not only
typed a long written work (she's now working on a book) but took up bow-making
and made several original contributions to my own understanding of some of the
connections. None of this would have been possible for her if it were not for
this inspiration.

Similarly when you look at people like Linus who can code all day every day
there is a certain level of inspiration that's required to do this without
burning out. I also know that when I am in an inspired mood even hard problems
are easy, but when I am in an ordinary mood, hard problems can be hard......

------
goforit
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?

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.

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.

Pre-installation is a Microsoft/Apple tactic. It is far too easy to abuse.

Consumers should have choice.

Make OS installation easy. Let consumers do it, not just OEM's and Apple.

~~~
DeepDuh
OS installation has been easy for quite some time now. That doesn't make Linux
catch on in the consumer desktop / notebook market. A typical windows user has
no idea why he SHOULD install linux. Furthermore, even the ones that do try
often get stuck with 3rd party driver support, especially on new hardware (and
the time when a device is new is exactly the time when someone might be
tempted to install linux). The only way to solve this, is preinstallation by
the manufacturer.

Windows 8 will be a big chance for the consumer brands besides Apple to
distinguish themselves with their own preinstalled distro. Microsoft will
again fight, like they did during the netbook boom (which I believe is one of
the reasons why netbooks saturated / declined really fast - the 2nd generation
with XP preinstalled just was not pleasant to use anymore). Only this time the
core market of the PC industry will be affected, therefore a lot more will be
on the line.

------
arvinjoar
> _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 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.

(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 _agrees_ with ESR,
which should at least be some kind of signal.)

------
happypeter
Linus Torvalds, a great hero of mine, I do not know about you, he is certainly
my __King of Geeks __

------
mcnemesis
> _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._

Hahaha I love that Linus :-)

