Quotes About Linux

What commercialism has brought into Linux has been the incentive to make a good distribution that is easy to use and that has all the packaging issues worked out.

I do get my pizzas paid for by Linux indirectly.

I think that by October the whole company has to migrate to OpenOffice, and then I think it's by June next year we all migrate to Linux - you don't want to migrate 6,000 people both operating system and office suite in a single jump.

OK, I admit it. I was just a front-man for the real fathers of Linux, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.

It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not.

Bill Gates really seems to be much more of a business man than a technologist, while I prefer to think of Linux in technical terms rather than as a means to money.

That's what makes Linux so good: you put in something, and that effort multiplies. It's a positive feedback cycle.

I can find lots of examples where a game won't make you rich, but I can't find a reasonable case where a Linux port doesn't have at least a small, positive return on investment.

The situation is so much better for programmers today -- a cheap used PC, a Linux CD, and an Internet account, and you have all the tools and resources necessary to work your way to any level of programming skills you want to shoot for.

I like to think that I've been a good manager. That fact has been very instrumental in making Linux a successful product.

One of the reasons that I really don't mind that people are selling Linux commercially is exactly because it does make me feel good that people use the product.

You can pipe anything to anything else, and usually it'll do something. With most of the standard Linux tools, it'll even do what you expect.

Linux is only free if your time has no value.

Of course, all of the software I write runs on Linux that's the beauty of standards, and of cross-platform code. I don't have to run your OS, and you don't have to run mine, and we can use the same applications anyway!

I never felt that the naming issue was all that important, but I was obviously wrong, judging by how many people felt. I tell people to call it just plain Linux and nothing more.

Linux is its own worst enemy: it's splintered, it has different distributions, it's too complex to run for most people.

See, you not only have to be a good coder to create a system like Linux, you have to be a sneaky bastard too.

Linux has never been about quality. There are so many parts of the system that are just these cheap little hacks, and it happens to run.

Good craftsmanship implies socialism. The workings of a modern Japanese auto plant or a Linux chat room might have expanded their sympathy for collaboration of other sorts, but still, all three disputed the pursuit of quality simply as a means to profit.

I personally think of Linux development as being pretty non-localized, and I work with all the people entirely over e-mail - even if they happen to be working in the Portland area.

This is quite unlikely to happen to Linux

I currently use Ubuntu Linux, on a standalone laptop - it has no Internet connection. I occasionally carry flash memory drives between this machine and the Macs that I use for network surfing and graphics but I trust my family jewels only to Linux.

There's innovation in Linux. There are some really good technical features that I'm proud of. There are capabilities in Linux that aren't in other operating systems.

I'm interested in Linux because of the technology, and Linux wasn't started as any kind of rebellion against the 'evil Microsoft empire.'