By staying neutral, I end up being somebody that everybody can trust. Even if they don't always agree with my decisions, they know I'm not working against them.
I think, fundamentally, open source does tend to be more stable software. It's the right way to do things.
An individual developer like me cares about writing the new code and making it as interesting and efficient as possible. But very few people want to do the testing.
I very seldom worry about other systems. I concentrate pretty fully on just making Linux the best I can.
Helsinki may not be as cold as you make it out to be, but California is still a lot nicer. I don't remember the last time I couldn't walk around in shorts all day.
I want my office to be quiet. The loudest thing in the room - by far - should be the occasional purring of the cat.
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.
The Linux philosophy is 'Laugh in the face of danger'. Oops. Wrong One. 'Do it yourself'. Yes, that's it.
Software patents, in particular, are very ripe for abuse. The whole system encourages big corporations getting thousands and thousands of patents. Individuals almost never get them.
When you say 'I wrote a program that crashed Windows,' people just stare at you blankly and say 'Hey, I got those with the system, for free.'
I've been employed by the University of Helsinki, and they've been perfectly happy to keep me employed and doing Linux.