[Clubber]

>Do many people hobby code with that entrepreneur mindset thing? Or sit down to play guitar thinking they want to make a hit and feeling bad if they just noodle some cover songs?

I absolutely do. Money and power is a great motivator. I don't feel bad about any of it. I took my shot and continue to do so.

>What a miserable existence that must be. How do you get that way? Should we blame LinkedIn or what is it?

It was not. I made some good side money. I always joke that I program to feed my computer habit. The benefit of it is you actually code like you are making a product, and there is usually a big skill difference between someone coding for fun and someone coding to make an actual sellable product; it's the 80/20 rule. That last 80% is what separates the good from the great. Like Jobs said, "Real artists ship."

[alkonaut]

The big difference for me is that what's actually fun (hard technical problems like e.g. writing an OS kernel, a db engine, a path tracer, an LLM from scratch...) is mentally challenging, and might progress your career, but it's not actually in any way sellable.

To make something sellable, you usually have to make it not-so-technical and not-so-complex. Simply because of the time constraints of hobby work and solo work. Your effort would go mostly to the market analysis and your product would need more polish meaning that for a personal project, it would usually be trivial (You can sell a shopping list iOS app, but you can't easily sell a 5 year hobby project making an OS). The sellable OS would be a 500 man-year product. What yo do by coding a kernel for 5 years is possibly that you can improve the product that is yourself.

So unless you actually enjoy the goal of marketing/selling/running a business, then the Shopping list iOS app won't be a good hobby.

[Clubber]

>The big difference for me is that what's actually fun (hard technical problems like e.g. writing an OS kernel, a db engine, a path tracer, an LLM from scratch...) is mentally challenging, and might progress your career, but it's not actually in any way sellable.

I'm not saying it's worthless by any means. I assume this would be the baseline. The benefit of making an actual sellable product is you learn how to finish, which is often a lesson not learned from hobbyists. It's fun to work on new tech, but if someone never learns how to make a product that can ship, their value in an organization is probably more limited than someone who can.

>Your effort would go mostly to the market analysis and your product would need more polish meaning that for a personal project,

It's the polish that's valuable, I couldn't care less about the business side of it, leave that to business people.

Let's use your example of working on the Linux Kernel. If Linus just made a kernel and said, "this is great!" we never would have had the GNU/Linux revolution. It was packaged and installers were created and distributions were made and it was eventually able to be installed pretty easily by anyone. That's making a viable product, that is finishing.

>To make something sellable, you usually have to make it not-so-technical and not-so-complex.

Sort of, you have to make a not-so-complex wrapper so other people can use it. The complexity is still there, but you have to abstract it so devs without that knowledge can use it. I feel that if no one else can use it, where's the value?

“The definition of genius is taking the complex and making it simple.”

Another simplistic example is I'm working on making a custom domain specific model. Getting it to infer properly is great (getting there), but the value to the company is to make it fast, wrap it in a usable API, get it to log useful errors, and integrate it into our software. The first is the fun part, the second is finishing to make it useful. That's value.