We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
 
75,052 News Articles

Interview: Linus Torvalds discusses Linux

Torvalds discusses Microsoft and open-source future

Linux has become the most prominent example of the free software movement, winning the backing of IT heavyweights such as Dell, HP, IBM and Sun Microsystems along the way.

But it all started as the hobby of 22-year-old University of Helsinki student Linus Torvalds in 1991. Torvalds could not imagine the revolution his decision to share the code of his newly created OS would cause through the IT industry in the years to come. In this interview with PC Advisor’s sister title Computerworld Brazil, he talks about why he released the code, offers his views on Microsoft and says the future belongs to open source.

What did you want from the public release of Linux? Was it money?

Torvalds: It certainly wasn't money, since the original copyright was very strict about that. It wasn't the GPLv2, it was my own "no money at all, and you have to give sources back" licence.

Was it for fame or for fun? Could you imagine the revolution you were about to start?

No, I didn't think that Linux would become as big and popular as it is now, so it wasn't really fame either. I'd like to say it was for fun, and that probably comes closest, but it might be more accurate to explain why I thought it would be fun. The releasing itself wasn't anything particularly fun, but what I was really looking for was feedback and comments.

When I released Linux in the fall of '91, I'd already been programming for a large chunk of my life, and it was what I did for fun. But I used to have a big problem in programming, namely, to find some issue to get excited about. I had done a few games, but I was never really all that interested in playing the games, so most of the time I was really looking for some interesting and relevant project for myself, so that I could keep programming.

That is where the public release comes in. I was hoping to get people to tell me what they thought needed improvement or what was good, and thus make the project more interesting for me. If I hadn't made it public, I'd probably have continued to use it myself, but it would have been good enough for what I did, and then I'd have to find a new project to work on. But it worked beautifully. I've been doing Linux for 16 years, and it's still interesting, exactly because I made it available publicly and asked for feedback.

How did Linux, as a product, benefit by being released as it was?

Well, in a very real sense, if I hadn't released it publicly, it would just have been a random small project of mine, and gotten use on my machines, but eventually it would have just been left behind as a "that was a fun project, let's see what else I can do" kind of thing. So, Linux really wouldn't have gone anywhere interesting at all if it hadn't been released as an open-source product.

I also think that the change to the GPLv2 (from my original "no money" licence) was important, because the commercial interests were actually very important from the very beginning, even if they were much smaller initially. Even in early '92, you had small (hobbyist) commercial distributions that were really just cheap floppy-disk copying services, where interested individuals that were involved decided that they might as well try to spread the word and also maybe make a small amount of money on the side. The fact that I personally wasn't interested in that part of the picture was irrelevant.


IDG UK Sites

Netflix to introduce price increase: New subcribers to start with

IDG UK Sites

Apple financial results: iPhones, iPads & Macs sales for Apple's Q2 2014, plus shares to split

IDG UK Sites

Twitter - not news

IDG UK Sites

See Moo Studios' new animated advert for Blue Moon beer