Slashdot Log In
Who Wrote, and Paid For, 2.6.20
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:52 AM
from the names-and-companies dept.
from the names-and-companies dept.
Corbet writes "LWN.net did some data mining through the kernel source repository and put together an analysis of where the patches came from. It turns out that most kernel code is contributed by people paid to do the work — but the list of companies sponsoring kernel development has a surprise or two." The article's conclusion: "The end result of all this is that a number of the widely-expressed opinions about kernel development turn out to be true. There really are thousands of developers — at least, almost 2,000 who put in at least one patch over the course of the last year. Linus Torvalds is directly responsible for a very small portion of the code which makes it into the kernel. Contemporary kernel development is spread out among a broad group of people, most of whom are paid for the work they do. Overall, the picture is of a broad-based and well-supported development community."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
SCO? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:SCO? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SCO? (Score:4, Interesting)
Knowledge is power -- knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So losing that power really is a good thing.
Define "volunteer." (Score:5, Insightful)
Thing is, even though some of those changes were done by programmers in the course of their paid jobs, isn't the work still being "volunteered," albeit by the company rather than an individual? As companies, Red Hat, IBM, Novell, or Big Roy's Heating and Plumbing don't need to help improve the kernel, nor are they directly paid for their work on it. They simply do so because a better Linux kernel does benefit them directly or indirectly, as do many individual volunteers.
Re:Define "volunteer." (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Define "volunteer." (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If my large copy jobs are routinely late and I call Officemax and tell them they need to get their heads out of their asses, fire the guy responsible, and get me my stuff on time; am I volunteering my free consulting services to Officemax? It is all a ma
Re:Define "volunteer." (Score:4, Insightful)
If you put it that way, no one is a "volunteer developer" for linux. They write / change code for their own benefit (to add features, improve functionality). Once they've finished, they usually give their code to "the linux community", but the reason they do the work in the first place is because they want to fix / improve the way their system runs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Define "volunteer." (Score:4, Insightful)
So the work is not volunteered, it is a component of an agenda.
Doesn't the same argument apply to non-monetarily-compensated "volunteers"? Don't they have an agenda as well?
Re:Define "volunteer." (Score:5, Insightful)
Most everyone working on the kernel has an agenda and that's okay -- open source isn't about communism or pure philanthropy, it's more of a libertarian or anarchocapitalist philosophy.
Re:Define "volunteer." (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of geeks are anarchocapitalists, so it makes sense that they'd want to claim the successful and popular open source movement as their own, but I don't think they're as similar as you assert.
Anarcho-capitalism is about profit and individual property as the central pillars of society. Open source is not about profit, and it's definitely not about private property.
Open source is a tradition that was established to fight back against those who sought to profit from proprietary computer code. It was introduced as a way to foster cooperation and support between those programmers who didn't seek to profit from their code, but did want to share it with other like-minded people. Open source has become so successful that entire profit-making industries have come to depend on it, but at its core Open Source is designed as a sort of "non-profit cooperative" for people who code for free. Open source is a gift economy - sure everyone gives gifts for different reasons, but they're still gifts.
The open source philosophy is also clearly against private property. Of course, the only form of property that open source involves is intellectual property, which many anarcho-capitalists claim is a special case, but I think the point should still be made that nobody owns open source code, and nobody can own it. Since private ownership of everything is a central tenet of anarcho-capitalism I can't see where the similarity is.
I know socialism is a bad word on Slashdot, because it means red commie soviets who are going to take away all our civil rights and make us live like in 1984, but personally, I see the open source movement as an example of voluntary socialism, or anarcho-socialism - programmers have decided that the existing market forces are abusing their property rights to producing crap software for ridiculous prices. So, they have voluntarily formed a network which allows them to share their resources in a non-market environment.
The reason open source software is so good is precisely because it's not driven by profit-oriented market forces, but by the diverse motivations and interests of many people and organizations. Obviously they're not doing it out of pure generosity, but in general when people develop open source code they're considering how to make good code primarily, not how to make lots of profit primarily.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This disdain seems especially ironic these days, now that the capitalist West is proving that
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Before you can call it a socialist system, you'd need to demonstrate that a command economy is possible.
Socialism, properly so called, does not involve a command economy. Read up a little on Marx and Engels' positions (particularly Engels) and you'll fi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure open source was introduced for many different
Re:Define "volunteer." (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people donate, volenteer for something because they know it will benifit them in the end(how many people at Harvard who have volenteering on their application to the school volenteered because it was something they wanted to do, I would guess half does that make their time in a soup kitchen less valuable or appreciated?). This doesn't mean that its any less noble in the end.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is what economists call utility [wikipedia.org] whereby actions that result in no clear economic gain for those giving of their resources are explained in that they incre
oh noes.... (Score:2)
Funding... (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite a paradox (Score:5, Insightful)
So... the surprise is that there is no surprise?
GPL vs. BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
It is just confirmation of old statement that GPL(v2) provides better (at moment best) ground for cooperation between vendors.
Many companies are willing to control what OS does with their software and hardware - and Linux gives them that chance on cheap. But even more so, GPL allows Linux to "merge" back possible code base "forks". That's next to impossible with BSD licensed code most tend to keep closed.
Let's just hope Linux would be able to go on surviving the "snowball" effect of the merges.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone's been taking BSD-lic
Re:GPL vs. BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
Because when Microsoft makes ftp.exe using BSD-licensed code, all they have to do is tell people that it had BSD-licensed code, not give them the code nor the changes they made. Or, take a look at the various commercial forks of postgres that add replication, live backups, or whatever. Sure, it'd be nice if they gave these features back to the postgresql database server, but the developers chose the BSD license knowing that the people who do stuff with the code don't have to give back.
This is why the GPL makes code Free, while the BSD license makes programmers Free.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:GPL vs. BSD (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing. But if I merge changes into a piece of BSD-licensed code, there's nothing to stop my competitor 20 miles down the road downloading this piece of code complete with my changes, making a few minor tweaks to it, keeping those tweaks private and selling it - even though I provided a lot of the code which his product is based on.
With the GPL, he can still make tweaks to it but he's got to make those tweaks freely available to anyone he distributes code to. Many choose to simply submit these tweaks as patches upstream rather than maintain their own fork of the software - not really a lot of point in being that anal when the license explicity allows your customer to do that anyway.
What we're seeing happening now - particularly in the embedded space - is that manufacturers are taking the free stuff in Linux, tweaking the kernel and submitting changes where necessary but keeping the majority of their proprietary code logically separate in userland so they don't have to GPL it. Hence why you can have a router based on Linux which is technically open source, but the clever stuff (eg. removing the complication from configuring iptables with a web app, a means of holding firewall rules and some glue to turn these into iptables commands) remains private.
Project Maintainers don't write much code... (Score:4, Informative)
He doesn't need to write code for the kernel to be important at this point. Besides, he contributes code to other things like git (an SCM) [kernel.org] and GNOME [linux.com].
No Real Surprises (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's wrong with 'I'? (Score:3, Insightful)
Broadcom (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting idea, but hardly accurate (Score:3, Insightful)
Finding an answer to that question is somewhat trickier than looking at who wrote the patches, mostly because very few developers say "I wrote this on behalf of my employer." The approach taken by your editor was relatively simplistic, but, perhaps, the best that is practical. Any patch whose author's given email address indicates a corporate affiliation is assumed to have been developed by an employee of that corporation. So any patch posted by somebody with an ibm.com email address is accounted as having been done by an IBM employee.
While I still find the result interesting, and while I also would like to know which organizations contribute the most to the kernel, I don't know that this method is really a good way to reflect whether the work was done in a "sponsored" fashion.
That is, just because someone's email address shows that they're from IBM, doesn't necessarily mean that they were being paid by IBM to explicitly work on the kernel. For all we know, they might have "15 minutes of real, actual work" like this guy [wikipedia.org] and are just hacking away in their cube because they're bored. Maybe not, but still, for he purpose of determining which companies contribute most (or the individuals motivations to contribute), that seems like a shaky method of proving or disproving things.
This is the DARKEST secret!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Companies are shelling out billions of dollars each year just to run some software that needs to be renewed, updated and purchased again and again and again.
Some companies are investing their workers or their donations into the community software projects because in some way, it will truly benefit them in a way that will not expire the way proprietary software does. So when people start noticing that businesses do more than just "use" F/OSS, but they contribute to it in a way that makes it more usable for themselves. And depending on the way they contribute, they can also write off some on their taxes as part of a tax strategy.
So companies can spend their software budget in a way the keeps them locked in and paying ridiculous annual fees and subscriptions, or they can actually pay to get the software they actually want in the way they want it, benefit themselves, benefit the public and even build a lot of good will in various communities.
I am hopeful to see the rest of the F/OSS revolution in my life time...
Re:Interesting how much was conributed by paid dev (Score:3, Insightful)
Tom
Re:Interesting how much was conributed by paid dev (Score:4, Informative)
The analysis is broken (Score:5, Insightful)
Many patches are fed in through email lists etc where the maintainer (more likely to be a "named person") picks it up and pushes it upstream. I expect many volunteers will be in that group.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fairly Interesting Overview (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you have the expensive systems that use Linux
Intel and HP are still hopping that the Itantium will work out in the end and frankly Linux is the big OS for the Itantium. Not to many hobbiest have an Itantium sitting around so Intel and HP probably contribute a lot of code for the Itantium port.
IBM sells a lot of Power systems that run Linux so they probably contributed a lot of code to support the new Power6. Not to mention the the 360/370/Zmachine port.
Then you have Mips contributing for the embedded market.
Linux is now big business.
Re:Fairly Interesting Overview (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact if you go to their home page you will see them right on the front page and yes they run Linux.
People want to run Linux on their servers and HPC clusters. If you want to sell servers and HPC clusters that run Linux you better make sure that Linux supports all the cool stuff that sets you apart from a bunch of Intel white boxes.
The fastest way to do that is to write it yourself.
Re:Fairly Interesting Overview (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Linus takes a different approach, and has said that the releases are "Linus's tree", and if you are un
Re:BDFL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BDFL (Score:5, Interesting)
Incidentally, why is this supposed to be news - I thought that any one who knew anything about open source knew this, and that only stupid journalists get it wrong [pietersz.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you figure exactly? It looks to me like a number of companies find it
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This may surprise you (intrigue you?), but Slashdot
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)