Matt Mullenweg Quotes

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

I think the way IBM has embraced the open source philosophy has been quite astonishing, but gratifying. I hope they'll do very well with it.

In open source, we feel strongly that to really do something well, you have to get a lot of people involved.

The beauty of open-source is that you can pick up right where someone left off and start right there.

Companies have been trying to figure out what it is that makes open source work.

There are two main methodologies of open source development. There's the Apache model, which is design by committee - great for things like web servers. Then you have the benevolent dictator model. That's what Ubuntu is doing, with Mark Shuttleworth.

For WordPress to be world class, it needs to have a sustainable model.

The accomplishment of open source is that it is the back end of the web, the invisible part, the part that you don't see as a user.

I do get my pizzas paid for by Linux indirectly.

The biggest challenge for open source is that as it enters the consumer market, as projects like WordPress and Firefox have done, you have to create a user experience that is on par or better than the proprietary alternatives.

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.

What I find most interesting is how people really have taken Linux and used it in ways and attributes and motivations that I never felt.

All of our code is open source, so it can be used for other projects.

If you don't have the best product, you're not going to make it in open-source.

There were open source projects and free software before Linux was there. Linux in many ways is one of the more visible and one of the bigger technical projects in this area, and it changed how people looked at it because Linux took both the practical and ideological approach.

Certainly there's a phenomenon around open source. You know free software will be a vibrant area. There will be a lot of neat things that get done there.

I want people to use Perl. I want to be a positive ingredient of the world and make my American history. So, whatever it takes to give away my software and get it used, that's great.

In open source, you really have to be near the watershed to have an impact on the source code. Customers want to be near the key contributors to the code, not a level removed.

Open source can propagate to fill all the nooks and crannies that people want it to fill.

I think Linux is a great thing, in the big picture. It's a great hacker's tool, and it has a lot of potential to become something more.

The free sharing and teaching of open source is incompatible with the notion of the solitary genius.

Many people think that open source projects are sort of chaotic and and anarchistic. They think that developers randomly throw code at the code base and see what sticks.

I started working on OpenBSD, and many earlier projects, because I have always felt that vendor systems were not designed for quality.

When I first got into technology I didn't really understand what open source was. Once I started writing software, I realized how important this would be.

I think the wonderful thing about vi is that it has such a good market share because we gave it away.