The set of things that will change the world is not at all the same thing as the set of things that people will pay for. Linux has come a long way toward changing the world (especially on the server side), and it's free. People happily pay for the Wendy's Baconator and caramel Reese's Cups, but neither is on track to change the world.
Sorry, but Linux is the ultimate "me too". It has cost thousands and thousands of man-hours of labor, and the result is something that is, at best, almost as good as what already exists (and often, what has existed for a long time). See also the *BSD's.
The main effect of Linux is to keep the prices of its competitors low. For any given application, you will probably find a better alternative to it which is only slightly more expensive.
I dont think it says anything about things people pay for changing the world or even that payment means something will change the world. In fact it says "Or if its free, at least figuring out how to do some stuff that has the potential to really make a difference". In other words if you are not going to make money at least do something important. Clearly linux would qualify.
The article references three different posts about how startups need to aim higher and try to change the world, then conflates it with "trying to do something really useful like making things that people actually want to pay for," before falling back to the comment on "or if it's free."
My point is that making something people will pay for is vastly different from what any of those articles he was referencing is talking about.
Honestly, the whole post kind of struck me as a retread dressed up to be linkbait. Which, ironically, is what he's complaining about in startups.
