In my opinion MS is a lot better at making money than it is at making good operating systems.
If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won.
I've been very happy with the commercial Linux CD-ROM vendors linux Red Hat.
A consumer doesn't take anything away: he doesn't actually consume anything. Giving the same thing to a thousand consumers is not really any more expensive than giving it to just one.
Artists usually don't make all that much money, and they often keep their artistic hobby despite the money rather than due to it.
Finnish companies tend to be very traditional, not taking many risks. Silicon Valley is completely different: people here really live on the edge.
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 do get my pizzas paid for by Linux indirectly.
I don't expect to go hungry if I decide to leave the University. Resume: Linux looks pretty good in many places.
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.
I like to think that I've been a good manager. That fact has been very instrumental in making Linux a successful product.
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.
I try to avoid long-range plans and visions - that way I can more easily deal with anything new that comes up.
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.
I very seldom worry about other systems. I concentrate pretty fully on just making Linux the best I can.