I have one very basic rule when it comes to "good ideas". A good idea is not an idea that solves a problem cleanly. A good idea is an idea that solves several things at the same time. The mark of good coding is not that the program does what you want, it's that it also does something that you didn't start out wanting.

I do get my pizzas paid for by Linux indirectly.

I think of myself as an engineer, not as a visionary or 'big thinker.' I don't have any lofty goals.

I often compare open source to science. To where science took this whole notion of developing ideas in the open and improving on other peoples' ideas and making it into what science is today and the incredible advances that we have had. And I compare that to witchcraft and alchemy, where openness was something you didn't do.

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

I will, in fact, claim that the difference between a bad programmer and a good one is whether he considers his code or his data structures more important. Bad programmers worry about the code. Good programmers worry about data structures and their relationships.

Once you start thinking more about where you want to be than about making the best product, you're screwed.