The Myth of the Isolated Kernel Hacker 282
Ant writes "The Linux Foundation's report (PDF) on who writes Linux — "... Linux isn't written by lonely nerds hiding out in their parents' basements. It's written by people working for major companies — many of them businesses that you probably don't associate with Linux.
To be exact, while 18.2% of Linux is written by people who aren't working for a company, and 7.6% is created by programmers who don't give a company affiliation, everything else is written by someone who's getting paid to create Linux. From top to bottom, of the companies that have contributed more than 1% of the current Linux kernel, the list looks like this: ..."
Not quite a myth. (Score:4, Insightful)
At 18.2%, individuals are still the largest single group contributing to Linux. The next is RedHat at 12.3%.
Re:You know what company is shamefully absent? (Score:5, Insightful)
They seem to concentrate on the userland experience..
Not a bad idea.
Re:You know what company is shamefully absent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not quite a myth. (Score:5, Insightful)
At 18.2%, individuals are still the largest single group contributing to Linux. The next is RedHat at 12.3%.
By your analysis, the largest single group contributing to Linux is actually the "people working for a company" group, with 81.8%.
Re:You know what company is shamefully absent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You know what company is shamefully absent? (Score:2, Insightful)
What you're doing is criticizing someone who does volunteer work for not donating enough money.
From TFA:
But what I'd like to draw the attention of everyone who thinks of Linux as being written by techies for techies to is that major computer companies that everyone knows, like IBM, Intel, Oracle, Fujitsu, and HP, also spend hundreds of millions in making Linux better.
I don't think canonical has hundreds of millions, i thought they just had a few million.
GPL good for business (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope this finally kills off the "GPL is bad for business" myth. Every one of those companies is paying for work on the kernel because it is good for their business. Red Hat, IBM, Novell, etc. aren't charities - they sponsor Linux development because it expands their markets and brings in profits.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the list Before a karma whore can... (Score:1, Insightful)
So where are Microsoft and SCO? Both have contributed so much knowledge (in the form of patents) and code, yet they remain completely uncredited. I'm deeply disappointed.
(guidelines for modders: this is supposed to be funny. It is not really that funny, so I'd aim for +2 funny or possibly +3 insightful if you want to give me some karma as well. I'll promise to do better next time when aiming for a funny)
Re:GPL good for business (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, once Linux was established as a viable OS, companies jumped on the bandwagon.
The real business issue about GPL'd code isn't whether established companies will support it once it is successful, but whether you can start your own for-profit software business if you license your software under the GPL.
Re:You know what company is shamefully absent? (Score:3, Insightful)
Google.
This is a straw-man myth (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is that Linux would simply not exist except for the efforts of non-paid developers. The same cannot be said of Red Hat, IBM et al.
New collaboration model? (Score:5, Insightful)
For the longest time, it seems like major business have collaborated in one of several ways:
But with Linux, it seems like a new model of collaboration for companies. It's mostly a meritocracy where a company's stature cannot get a bad or only-self-serving idea pushed into the end result. But because of that discipline, the final product is so compelling that companies want/need to participate anyway.
Am I right?
It makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
It pays for companies using Linux to contribute to the development. The long term savings of using Linux massively outweighs the small contribution of programming resources. And those contributing to development get to address the technical issues on top of their priority list. You can't get that kind of service out of Microsoft.
We're quickly approaching the time when an operating system is more like a utility than a product. A commodity delivery mechanism for business services. The potential for Linux, very quickly approaching realization, is that it can provide a unified stack from a mainframe down to embedded systems. That type of efficiency is very powerful economically. I'm sure MSFT can swim against that tide a long time but, eventually, efficiency will win.
Re:the list Before a karma whore can... (Score:5, Insightful)
But since there methodology was garbage all that means is that someone using a Volkswagen email address wrote some code.
It says nothing about whether it was done as part of their employment with Volkswagen, or whether it was done out of business hours while hiding in their parent's basement.
You don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Free software is about freedom, not about community busybodies telling companies how they should give back. If you're a company who can take free software, respect the licenses, and make a bajillion dollars off of it, then great! That's part of what freedom is about.
Re:Small problem (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a piss-poor way to determine corporate sponsorship, especially the first one. Because someone works on the kernel and uses his work email address, it does not follow that the employer sponsored his work.
If it wasn't work, I wouldn't pass that kind of thing through my work account. Could lead to all sorts of silly questions about whether you're using work time or work code (you're already using work resources...) for this, causing you more headaches as necessary.
Once you've established that it is for work it pretty much drops out of your commit stats whether you're full-time or the lone patch contributor. I short, I don't think your criticism is very valid.
Re:shocking (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You know what company is shamefully absent? (Score:2, Insightful)
Google contributes in two ways. Directly, they provided a port to one of the Qualcomm MSM chips as part of the Android project. That's a pretty substantial chunk of code related to a pretty sophisticated microcontroller. Smallish compared to the total amount of kernel code, however, as are all platform/machine/architecture ports.
Indirectly, Google funds the the Summer of Code, which has resulted in kernel code submissions--- but all under the original author's identity and not Google's.
Overall, I don't know how much code that amounts to as a total percentage a'la Red Hat et. al. But it's nonzero.
Re:You know what company is shamefully absent? (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, what Canonical are focussing on, and what makes Ubuntu popular, is the user experience. They are doing all the tidying up of the installer and package handling so that the non-techie user doesn't get baffling (to them) messages about mismatched packages etc. In some ways, you should see them more as a packager than a developer. In which case it is hardly surprising that they contribute little to kernel development. The kernel, by and large, is the bit that you don't package.
Re:the list Before a karma whore can... (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you give me some info on "Independent Consultant"? .. they sound like a company I want to work for
Trust me, dude, you do NOT want to work for them. You have to work tons of unpaid hours, and they make you find your customers/clients, and they rarely pay you in a timely manner, and they make you do your own taxes. It's absolutely shocking, in my mind, that no one has reported them to the Better Business Bureau... I've thought about reporting them myself, but I left on decent terms, and don't want to burn any bridges.
Why isn't it done yet? The bloatware problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Linux kernel ought to be done by now, and stable.
Drivers, file systems, and networks ought not to be in the kernel. That's a big part of the problem.
Real microkernels like QNX don't change much. USB and FireWire support were added without kernel mods, for example.
Yes, microkernels require extra copying. But copying is cheap on modern CPUs, as long as what's being copied was accessed recently and is in cache. Fear of copying cost dates from older CPU architectures, where instruction cycles mattered more than cache footprint.
Re:the list Before a karma whore can... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a little surprised to see that Cannonical isn't on this list. Redhat, sure, but Cannonical has a huge marketshare.
Your surprise demonstrates the often pooh-poohed danger of confusing a kernel with an operating system. It shouldn't be surprising that Canonical's contributions to the Linux kernel are, like Volkswagen's, less than 1%. Both companies use the Linux kernel in their products, but one produces an OS, the other produces a car, neither have much business mucking around in Linux much. Their focus is elsewhere...
Re:the list Before a karma whore can... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care at all, since it's irrelevant.
But feel free to fixate on the details of the plucked out of the air company name.