Are you saying that because he didn't try to monetize his code as much as he could have, it somehow makes his opinion less valuable?
The man created Linux AND git, it doesn't matter whether or not he's got billions. He's got something more important than that, a legacy.
Why is that important?
It's important because he's actually delivered on the famous SV con-artist promise of "making the world a better place".
Not directly, as in curing diseases or revolutionizing energy production or consumption, but in ways that help people in developing countries access information due to falling costs of computers (Linux) and phones (Linux through Android) and people in business can thrive because of the diversity it brings to the table (versus the Microsoft quasi-monopoly we had before).
That's what I put under the umbrella term "legacy", something that has, in a way and ever so slightly, changed the world for the better.
Then again, we might say "it's just software", but in a software-centric world, I reckon it does matter.
That's besides the point. My point is that working without selling is not a viable strategy for 99% of people. Hell it barely worked for him in terms of earnings, and he's one of the most impactful people in tech history.
Suppose that what matters is to monetize your work. Then by that metric, Linus is immensely successful (personal worth of over 100 million dollars, which likely puts him in the high brackets).
Now suppose (like I do) that the metric that actually matters is sharing the result of your work so that others will build upon that and end up creating even greater things. Well, by that other metric, Linus is still a HUGE winner.
So we're basically both right (unless of course we're ready to discuss obvious falsehoods such as "Having 100 million dollars means it barely worked for you").
But many of us will regret not spending more time with our loved ones, or not leaving something of value behind, something we created.
The truth is many of us aren't doing this for the money, because let's be honest, most of us have an IQ over average and we could work in the finance industry, which is far more lucrative for making actual money. Or we could build a local business selling products or services for local needs, not "disrupting" anything in the process. Or we could end up in upper the management of big corporations, in safe and high paying positions, instead of doing the actual coding. Etc, etc.
We, the software developers, are creating, we've got the creator's virus. It's both a blessing and a curse.
Oh and if any recruiters are reading this, those of us with passion, experience and capacity for solving hard problems might be motivated by technologies or projects, but we aren't cheap or exploitable, so for as long as we are on the right side of the demand/supply curve if you're looking for cheap, then GTFO!
There's a whole world out there where you can live quite a comfortable lifestyle for a half or even a third of your average SV monthly income.
Seriously, money is a matter of hygiene and if you're feeling the need for more, it's time to make a serious change, like to change city or profession, because startups are a lottery.
I'm from Romania, having worked remotely for EU and US companies and I never left because here I can have a much better lifestyle, I have freedom of movement when needed and recruiters coming with proposals which include relocation are simply not competitive.
Seriously, Silicon Valley is extremely overpriced and IMO quite toxic as an environment to live and raise children. That's because it is a bubble of really smart and well paying engineers, scientists and business people that have created a highly competitive environment.
And if you suffer because of the bubble, the answer is not to fight your way to the top, because that doesn't solve the problem. No, if you don't like the bubble, the answer is to get out of it.
This kind of reducto as absurditum is how we have people that think it's perfectly fine for unprecedented mass poverty in the US outside the Great Depression because people may have running water and TVs when most of the world doesn't. While true, it misses the spirit of the discussion and is a non-sequitur line of reasoning as a result.
You're saying 95% of people in the Western world can't afford food, shelter, clothing, education, transportation, healthcare and entertainment? That's awfully grim. It also doesn't really jibe with my experience of the Western world; you can get by fine on $50k/yr (median US household income) outside of expensive areas like SF Bay Area or NYC. If what you're saying is true then the rest of the world must be truly unlivable.
EDIT: I think something like 20% is closer to the mark.
To illustrate, the median house price in the US is around $250k. That's pretty much in line with the rule of thumb that your house should cost at most 5x your gross annual income. So it would seem (at a first approximation) that most houses in the US are affordable, in the strictest, 30-year-mortgage sense of the word, to most households (considering $50k to be the median household income). And a $250k house in most parts of the country is by no means "modest"; we're talking 1500-1800 sq. ft., 2-3 bedrooms, a yard etc. (again outside expensive areas). So if a median-earning household were to spring for a truly modest home (1-2 bedrooms, 1000-1300 sq ft, $100-150k range) it would actually be cheap relative to their income and they could pay it off in < 15 years.
Maybe I'm simplifying too much, or perhaps your experience is different. In which case, of course, we would have differing opinions on this matter.