I've been employed by the University of Helsinki, and they've been perfectly happy to keep me employed and doing Linux.

When it comes to software, I much prefer free software, because I have very seldom seen a program that has worked well enough for my needs, and having sources available can be a life-saver.

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

Programmers are in the enviable position of not only getting to do what they want to, but because the end result is so important they get paid to do it. There are other professions like that, but not that many.

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

To be honest, the fact that people trust you gives you a lot of power over people. Having another person's trust is more powerful than all other management techniques put together.

In many cases, the user interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial company: whether the programs works correctly or not seems to be secondary.

The economics of the security world are all horribly, horribly nasty and are largely based on fear, intimidation and blackmail.

I don't try to be a threat to MicroSoft, mainly because I don't really see MS as competition. Especially not Windows-the goals of Linux and Windows are simply so different.

To be a nemesis, you have to actively try to destroy something, don't you? Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.

I'm sitting in my home office wearing a bathrobe. The same way I'm not going to start wearing ties, I'm also not going to buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords.

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 used to be interested in Windows NT, but the more I see it, the more it looks like traditional Windows with a stabler kernel. I don't find anything technically interesting there.

Shareware tends to combine the worst of commercial software with the worst of free software.

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'm generally a very pragmatic person: that which works, works.

I've actually found the image of Silicon Valley as a hotbed of money-grubbing tech people to be pretty false, but maybe that's because the people I hang out with are all really engineers.

I want my office to be quiet. The loudest thing in the room - by far - should be the occasional purring of the cat.

You won't get sued for anticompetitive behavior.

In my opinion MS is a lot better at making money than it is at making good operating systems.

The thing with Linux is that the developers themselves are actually customers too: that has always been an important part of Linux.

I've never regretted not making Linux shareware: I really don't like the pay for use binary shareware programs.

Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did.

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.