> 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.