What are the three software? Well, these are just two sets of words, open source and free software. The words themselves are not important. What's important is the huge body of semantic opinion that underlies those. You have two camps. The open source camp evolved fundamentally as a way to get companies, corporations, comfortable enough with free software that they would want to be associated with it publicly, that they would want to be users of it, create dependencies of themselves on it, and also to publish their own work under it. And so a lot of the stuff that is open source as opposed to free software is all about various compromises and trade-offs trying to find a balance that will appease and appeal to corporates. And to a certain extent, I think that's very important. Corporate investment and backing and encouragement has been enormously important to the growth of the free software and open source phenomenon. We would still be a completely fringe environment unless IBM, HP, Intel, Sun and others really started to save to the world that this is a healthy and natural part of the IT landscape. So I think that's good. But when I look at the driving forces of innovation, particularly innovation, and the driving forces of the broader ecosystem that actually makes free software the wonderful thing that it is, the people who put that effort in are not motivated by the things that the open source group speaks to. They're motivated and inspired by the things that motivate and inspire me, which is the empowerment of this, the fact that it comes with rights attached to it, the fact that it comes with the ability to make it better for you, right, that you become an essential part of the process. And I think that's true, not only for the people who are software developers, because you never know how you're actually going to become a contributor to the free software process, right? If you look at the meme, the idea of participation, that is spreading now to all sorts of other aspects, right, to look at Wikipedia, the classic example of reference text being created in a participatory kind of way. I think we'll see all sorts of other forms of media, television media, radio media, and so on, podcasting, being democratized and having the same freedoms, set of freedoms come to the form, and participation coming to the form. So I think that set of ideas is actually the more important set of ideas. I recognize the importance of the things that the open source guys are trying to do. I appreciate what that does for all of us. But if you really want to know what lights the fire, it's the freedoms, not the ability to see the source code. There are a lot of very smart eeks who wouldn't fit into open to economical. So what we look for is, in others, I guess what I'm saying is I don't think I'm authoritative on geeks, universally. Because I actually only work with a very small subset of guys that do the core geeks. And those are geeks who have very strong values around free software and the freedoms associated with free software. There are a lot of very smart, bright guys out there, and just not interested in that stuff. They want to work with hot technology, interesting technology, complicated problems, and stuff like that. And I don't care if it's available to the universal audience or not. Because they don't really connect with them, they end up working for the NSA or Google or Microsoft. They're smart. Nice. Good guys. I have fun when I connect with them. But there are people who would fit into our kind of community. So I won't really try and speak to them. They'll have to speak for themselves. You'll have to find someone else to talk for them. As the idea started to crystallize in my head about building something, taking free software to the desktop, in a way that was genuinely free, I was trying to figure out the smartest way to do this. And by smart, I mean, basically getting the most done for the least amount of pain or money. And so one of the options that I had was basically to inject the funds that I wanted and my personal energy into an existing project. And I looked at a bunch of the different free software projects. I've had a long history with Debian. It goes back to the mid-90s where I started maintaining packages and so on because Debian seemed like the system, the Debian system, seemed like the scene is the most sensible to me. Right? The ideas that we introduced of independence between maintainers, each doing their own thing, but effectively collaborating through a sort of fairly standard set of processes. That seemed to me the right way to do things in any project. It turned out that when I looked at it again, there was still the case that this was still the community that had the best balance between cohesion and independence. So I looked for a while at trying to do what we do inside the Debian community. It struck me just that what we would be doing effectively would create tremendous divides if I tried to do it inside the community because essentially what I was trying to do is saying, I care a lot about the specific set of use cases. And the wonderful thing about Debian is that it doesn't ever do that. It says, in fact, we must embrace and reach out and become a kind of universal environment. So I realized that if I came in and tried to do this within Debian, while I could probably succeed, it would take something away from Debian. It would essentially narrow its focus, narrow the number of architectures, narrow the number of use cases which are considered important, which would make it better for those use cases. But it would actually take away what is the essential value of the thing. It would be a little bit like trying to get people who work on the internal only to focus on the kernel.org guys, only to focus on two architectures and one sort of use case. You would reduce the value of Linux for running on mainframes for running on big database service for running on watches and pdas and all of that kind of stuff. And that would be the wrong thing to do. So I realized that what we needed to do was to create something which would essentially, if you think of the Debian system effectively as being this huge family that reaches out from people who've taken Debian into pdas and people who've taken it to mainframes, right? We wanted to create another branch of that, essentially, all underneath the same umbrella. And so yeah, I knew that I needed to find good people. And I did download not the whole Debian mainlist archive. But over the previous year and a half, probably about 30 main lists, 30 of the major main lists that touched on the things that I thought were important. And then read through those, trying to find threads, ideas, people who express the same kind of vision, people who express the same kind of approach priorities, values that I had. And that became the core of the Ubuntu team. There are some things that the Debian is always going to do better than Ubuntu, right? So we must do everything that we can to make sure that that's stuff lands on Debian's plate. And to the extent that we can facilitate that, that we absolutely do. There are some things that Ubuntu is always going to do better than Debian, right? And so we just make sure that we focus on those things, do those things really well, and make sure that to the extent that Debian wants that contribution, it can take that contribution, right? That it's there on a platter, nicely served up, easy to take. So absolutely, I think that it's just a matter of time. This community is going to be producing a software that the world runs in whether it's five years time or ten years time or twenty years time. I don't really mind this process. The processes that we employ are going to win. They're better processes. I do believe that, right? If you're people are better in your processes, they're better. The world adopts what you do. As momentum for free software grows, that that ground will go entirely over to free software. Because again, it comes back to this difference between open source and free. It's not just being free beer. It's not just being free of charge, right? Even if Microsoft gives their software away free of charge, they're only giving away functionality points. They're not creating an empowering environment. And remember, they can only give away the software that they have. So when I look at a school that's deployed free software, right? For the artists in the school, we've got rich art software. Microsoft doesn't have rich art software. They don't have a Photoshop. They're hoping to create one, but they don't have one. They can't give one away. When I look at people who are interested in astronomy, right? There's tons of free software for astronomy. But Microsoft doesn't have astronomy software to give away. And when I see people who are interested in linguistics and statistics and programming and so on, Microsoft only has a certain amount of stuff that they can give away. So from a holistic ecosystem point of view, the free software platform is just that much richer, that much more empowering that I think it's going to win in the education space. As free software becomes more widely used, we get to help define what computing is all about, for millions and millions of people. That's exciting, right? I think Steve Jobs loves that. He gets up and he says, oh, what amazing things are people going to do with technology and with computers, right? And where I would differ is in the way the stuff is licensed and how people get to use it if they don't want to pay for it and that sort of thing. So there are philosophical differences between us, but we still get excited about I think the same thing, which is geez, what should my experience of this computer thing be like? So there's that. It's a multifaceted love affair.