Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 24th Jan 2010 16:22 UTC, submitted by Dale Smoker
Linux LWN.net founder and kernel contributor Jonathan Corbet offered an analysis of the code contributed to the Linux kernel between December 24 2008 and January 10 2010. 18% of contributions were made without a specific corporate affiliation, 7% weren't classified, and 75% were from people working for specific companies in roles where developing that code was a major requirement. "75% of the code comes from people paid to do it," Corbet said.
Order by: Score:
Money moves the world around
by WereCatf on Sun 24th Jan 2010 16:37 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

It's just the sad truth; money makes things happen, pure enthusiasm only lasts for so long. Apparently Linux kernel has reached the point where pure enthusiasm just isn't enough anymore.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Money moves the world around
by diegoviola on Sun 24th Jan 2010 18:41 UTC in reply to "Money moves the world around"
diegoviola Member since:
2006-08-15

It's just the sad truth; money makes things happen, pure enthusiasm only lasts for so long. Apparently Linux kernel has reached the point where pure enthusiasm just isn't enough anymore.


Why sad truth? This is real life, money is needed to survive.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Money moves the world around
by strcpy on Sun 24th Jan 2010 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Money moves the world around"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20


Why sad truth? This is real life, money is needed to survive.


That is the sad part of it.

Reply Score: 6

Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

That's sad only if you are emo or something. Real men deals with the reality even when it's sad/painful.

Umm... what does that have to do with it being sad or not? In fact, your basically admitting that it is sad by making that argument.

It is perfectly okay and normal to not like the truth. That doesn't mean that you can ignore it though.

Reply Score: 5

Jondice Member since:
2006-09-20

True, but another way of looking at it is that you can get paid to do what you love (assuming that is what you love;)). Such jobs tend to be somewhat Epicurean in nature of course.

Reply Score: 4

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

[boohoo]
No it isn't.

Money is just an abstract representation of value. The correct sentence is: you have to work to get food to eat, so you can survive. Money is merely an abstract method to make it easier to share objects with different values.

To love money is sad, but then all kinds of love to material things are sad. And that sort of makes all of us sad persons, mkay?
[/boohoo]

Get on with it. Great to see companies are understanding the value of FLOSS, and nice to see it doesn't make programmers breadless, as we've seen it claimed on occastion.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Money moves the world around
by dagw on Sun 24th Jan 2010 21:50 UTC in reply to "Money moves the world around"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

I know several people who work on open source software out of pure enthusiasm, and consider the fact that people are actually paying them for it an awesome bonus. Money and enthusiasm aren't in any way mutually exclusive.

Reply Score: 7

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I know several people who work on open source software out of pure enthusiasm, and consider the fact that people are actually paying them for it an awesome bonus. Money and enthusiasm aren't in any way mutually exclusive.


It's awesome when you get to spend time doing something you love, but it's even better when somebody pays you for the privilege ;)

Reply Score: 6

RE: Money moves the world around
by Laurence on Mon 25th Jan 2010 17:30 UTC in reply to "Money moves the world around"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

It's just the sad truth; money makes things happen, pure enthusiasm only lasts for so long. Apparently Linux kernel has reached the point where pure enthusiasm just isn't enough anymore.


Sad truth?

Personally I see this as good news.
It shows that Linux is a viable business and therefore proves that Linux deserves to be considered a serious OS every bit as much as Windows or OS X.

If there wasn't money in Linux nor paid developers contributing to the kernel - then Linux would effectively be nothing more than a hobbist OS.


So I really don't get what's so sad about this?
Do people want Linux to be taken seriously or not?

Reply Score: 5

Well
by Xaero_Vincent on Sun 24th Jan 2010 16:52 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

The Linux kernel has become so big and complicated that only those paid have much incentive to work full time on the project. In addition, there are strict requirement before code is accepted into the mainline kernel. Not just any casual hacker will get their contributions accepted.

Distribution specific, non-vanilla kernels likely have many more kernel patches and driver contributions from non-paid community developers; its just these aren't accepted in the mainline kernel and thus aren't counted.

Edited 2010-01-24 16:53 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Well
by Zifre on Mon 25th Jan 2010 00:09 UTC in reply to "Well"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

The Linux kernel has become so big and complicated that only those paid have much incentive to work full time on the project.

This is true. Almost nobody can work full time on something without getting paid for it.

In addition, there are strict requirement before code is accepted into the mainline kernel. Not just any casual hacker will get their contributions accepted.

Any random person can get a patch in the Linux kernel if it does something important (in fact, I am working on a patch to the kernel right now; I don't know if it will be accepted though). I don't think that there is any bias toward accepting code from corporations. However, corporations often have more experience and thus write better code than some random hacker on their first try.

Distribution specific, non-vanilla kernels likely have many more kernel patches and driver contributions from non-paid community developers; its just these aren't accepted in the mainline kernel and thus aren't counted.

I don't think this is true. The amount of code in the patches that most distributions apply is probably not even 1% of the total kernel code. And, for example, I'm guessing that many of Ubuntu's kernel patches are written by Canonical, and many of Red Hat's kernel patches are written by Red Hat.

Reply Score: 2

Who cares
by Windows Sucks on Sun 24th Jan 2010 17:11 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

Who cares if people get paid to write the code. People have to eat. I only care that it stays under the GPL and that patents don't control it. Other then that I don't care if 100% of the code was from paid developers.

Reply Score: 14

RE: Who cares
by lemur2 on Mon 25th Jan 2010 07:53 UTC in reply to "Who cares"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Who cares if people get paid to write the code. People have to eat. I only care that it stays under the GPL and that patents don't control it. Other then that I don't care if 100% of the code was from paid developers.


Exactly so.

There is absolutely nothing wrong about being paid for writing code ... no-one should have to work for free.

Linux and FOSS provide a way that code can be written and the development costs recouped and the developers paid while the code itself can remain forever open source. Everybody wins.

What exactly is wrong with any of that?

Reply Score: 4

There's nothing wrong...
by olligod on Sun 24th Jan 2010 17:14 UTC
olligod
Member since:
2010-01-24

...with developers being paid for their work. The Linux kernel still *is* a good cooperative project by different groups / organizations etc. No single corporate board can ever scrap it / "sabotage" it or command a direction that is objectively not good.

If the system doesn't work any more, there may ba a fork at any time.
Look at what happend to xfree86.org. It didn't live up to the needs - and so a fork happend (by X.org of course) and essential took over command of the developing process.

What's more: Commercial interest is both a sign of how attractive the Kernel is as well as a sign of the high level of technology. It is always difficult as an amateur to beat the pros at their own game. Therefore the best contributions seem to come from people who do it FULL TIME, i.e. are still able to feed their respective families at the end of the kernel programming day, aka Pros.

So, Linux pro's - KEEP GOIN' !

Reply Score: 4

Kind of sad
by strcpy on Sun 24th Jan 2010 17:24 UTC
strcpy
Member since:
2009-05-20

I find this sad.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Kind of sad
by irbis on Sun 24th Jan 2010 19:13 UTC in reply to "Kind of sad"
irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

I find this sad.

Why? One fifth of code contributions still come from persons without a specific corporate affiliation, so even individual developers can still have a role. The old hobby aspect of Linux may be mostly gone, but on the other hand Linux is more popular and more widely used and developed than ever, also by big companies and organizations. A major part of important and useful contributions have come from paid kernel developers, and Linux wouldn't be so advanced as it is now without them. Also, because the GPL promotes cooperation, all the new code contributed and added by paid developers is open and free to use and tweak.

Of course, corporate interests may often be quite different from those of home users. Business Linux interests tend to be server-focused whereas home users are often interested in using Linux on desktops more than companies are. According to some, there have been cases where code good for servers could have been preferred by Linus and others instead of code good for desktops - or at least some people have questioned some of the kernel developers' decisions on those grounds. However, nobody can deny that Linux wouldn't work quite well on desktops too, although there is, of course, always room for improvements too.

Edited 2010-01-24 19:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Kind of sad
by siride on Sun 24th Jan 2010 23:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Kind of sad"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Furthermore, who's to say that the paid developers are just depressed code monkeys who slave for a paycheck? They might also be enthusiasts who got lucky and now have jobs doing what they would otherwise be doing for fun. Linus gets paid to work on the kernel and I'm pretty sure he's not just doing it for the money. Same for folks like Alan Cox, etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Kind of sad
by Laurence on Mon 25th Jan 2010 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Kind of sad"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Furthermore, who's to say that the paid developers are just depressed code monkeys who slave for a paycheck? They might also be enthusiasts who got lucky and now have jobs doing what they would otherwise be doing for fun. Linus gets paid to work on the kernel and I'm pretty sure he's not just doing it for the money. Same for folks like Alan Cox, etc.


Linus doesn't write code though. He effectively just project manages it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Kind of sad
by siride on Mon 25th Jan 2010 17:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Kind of sad"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

I'm sure that completely invalidates my point altogether. Thanks for bringing up a red-herring. What would the internet be like without people like you?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Kind of sad
by Laurence on Mon 25th Jan 2010 22:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Kind of sad"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I'm sure that completely invalidates my point altogether. Thanks for bringing up a red-herring. What would the internet be like without people like you?


I wasn't disagreeing with your overall point and there's no need to get shirty ;)

Edited 2010-01-25 22:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

How is this a bad thing?
by Hoodlum on Sun 24th Jan 2010 17:28 UTC
Hoodlum
Member since:
2009-05-22

How is this a bad thing? Linux hasn't lost developers, it has only gained. It now has scores of paid developers in addition to unpaid contributors.

I think its fantastic that the corporate sponsorship in many different sectors is so great that their contribution dwarfs that of unpaid contributors. This only shows how sucessful Linux has become; quite a feat for it's humble beginnings as a hobby.

Edit: Lets also keep in mind many of the previously unpaid developers are now employed contributing full time because of this success.

Edited 2010-01-24 17:30 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: How is this a bad thing?
by strcpy on Sun 24th Jan 2010 17:35 UTC in reply to "How is this a bad thing?"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

How is this a bad thing? Linux hasn't lost developers, it has only gained. It now has scores of paid developers in addition to unpaid contributors.

I think its fantastic that the corporate sponsorship in many different sectors is so great that their contribution dwarfs that of unpaid contributors. This only shows how sucessful Linux has become; quite a feat for it's humble beginnings as a hobby.


It is not a bad thing, it is more of a "bad" thing.

It undermines the community. Random hacker has increasingly difficult time into getting in, regardless of her possible talents. It is already more difficult to get anything in without having @intel or @redhat in your email address.

It makes the kernel more of a corporate playground. In the long run it means first and second class contributors. It chews the spiritual foundation of Linux. Thus the "bad" here is more of a cultural thing, but it may also influence the technological decisions (the old good 81288123 core supercomputer servers vs. desktops comes to mind here).

EDIT: This is also why many talented but unpaid hackers look for alternative operating systems to develop. It is much more rewarding to do unpaid work for say Haiku than it is to do unpaid work for Linux kernel.

Edited 2010-01-24 17:40 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: How is this a bad thing?
by vivainio on Sun 24th Jan 2010 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE: How is this a bad thing?"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

It undermines the community. Random hacker has increasingly difficult time into getting in, regardless of her possible talents.


Well, the random hacker may be unable to keep on maintaining the contributed code.

Apart from that, if you can hack kernel code, chances are good that someone is willing to hire you to do exactly that.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: How is this a bad thing?
by boudewijn on Sun 24th Jan 2010 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: How is this a bad thing?"
boudewijn Member since:
2006-03-05

Exactly. It's probably really hard for the remaining group to remain amateurs and not become players.

I'm not a kernel hacker, but I've just gone through a similar transition. Three years ago I was writing Borland C++ code for a closed-source application for a living. Then I went to work for Hyves, where I worked on a mostly free software application. All the time, since 2003, I've been working on KOffice in my spare time.

Then I founded a company with some friends from the KOffice project, and now the company can pay me so I can hack full-time on KOffice and be paid for it! I'm not sad, I'm elated :-).

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: How is this a bad thing?
by strcpy on Sun 24th Jan 2010 19:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: How is this a bad thing?"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20


Well, the random hacker may be unable to keep on maintaining the contributed code.


Except that you need someone from the same company to maintain the code contributed by the same company due to the all NDA shit you have there.

Sorry for my french.


Apart from that, if you can hack kernel code, chances are good that someone is willing to hire you to do exactly that.


Sure, nothing wrong in that. As I said, this is more of a cultural thing. And this might even be a disincentive for companies to release code as open source if it implies that they have to maintain it by themselves. Just look at something like OpenOffice.org.

Of course, ups, I did bad again, I criticized Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: How is this a bad thing?
by strcpy on Mon 25th Jan 2010 08:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: How is this a bad thing?"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20


Apart from that, if you can hack kernel code, chances are good that someone is willing to hire you to do exactly that.


You seem to imply that everyone who contributes are either unemployed or want a software engineering job.

News flash: many people in open source are employed in totally different fields, but hack with the code for other reasons than money. As an example, Con Colivas is a anesthesiologist by trade, and I doubt he'd want a full-time job doing the Linux kernel.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: How is this a bad thing?
by cb88 on Sun 24th Jan 2010 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE: How is this a bad thing?"
cb88 Member since:
2009-04-23

You assume (or perhaps not) that haiku developers don't get paid when some have for instance summer of code (google has paid for development and haiku directly as well through their own summer of code)

Also there are corporations interested in developing/supporting haiku the difference isn't in payment bu that haiku has clear target goals and integration unlike the Linux kernel which is just a building block that other things must be tacked on for it to be of any use.

The corporations will doubtless become very friendly with haiku once R2 rolls around IMO very similar to how Android is catching lots of attention at the moment on cell phones

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: How is this a bad thing?
by strcpy on Sun 24th Jan 2010 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: How is this a bad thing?"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20


The corporations will doubtless become very friendly with haiku once R2 rolls around IMO very similar to how Android is catching lots of attention at the moment on cell phones


Sorry, but I remain highly skeptical.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: How is this a bad thing?
by dylansmrjones on Tue 26th Jan 2010 11:16 UTC in reply to "RE: How is this a bad thing?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It undermines the community.


Bullshit. Making money on writing FLOSS does not undermine the community. Any random hacker can download the sourcecode, hack it and release the modified version. Whether anybody else will use the modifications is irrelevant. What matters is that all of us can still do it.

It is no more difficult today for random hackers to get code accepted in the original base than it was 10 years ago. All they have to do is to come up with good code. Find a bug in your sound driver, fix it well, and release that fix. You don´t have to write drivers for random embedded device only used by a scientist living on the backside of the moon.

Now stop spreading FUD (or Communism (money is evil boohoo), they are equal).

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: How is this a bad thing?
by strcpy on Tue 26th Jan 2010 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: How is this a bad thing?"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20


Bullshit. Making money on writing FLOSS does not undermine the community. Any random hacker can download the sourcecode, hack it and release the modified version. Whether anybody else will use the modifications is irrelevant. What matters is that all of us can still do it.


Ah yes. Quite like the MySQL that is just one happy community at the moment.

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, the community is fine. A tad worried about the future after Oracle took over, but Oracle has recently promised to keep MySQL under the GPL - also for future versions.

Besides that, this doesn't split the community. Oracle isn't a part of the community per se - and the code is quite available under the GPL, so if they f--k up, we'læl just fork the project. But nothing indicates this will be nescessary.

Reply Score: 2

One of the benefits of GPL
by darkstego on Sun 24th Jan 2010 17:38 UTC
darkstego
Member since:
2007-10-26

This is the reason that Linus believes that releasing Linux code under GPL is one of best things he ever did. Corporations were pretty much forced into contributing. Because of all the money they make on the back end they really don't see a problem paying more and more developers to work on it.

Before Linux, the concept of giving away code made no sense to corporations. Its good to see that these ideas, even in businesses, have evolved, even if it is just slightly.

Edited 2010-01-24 17:40 UTC

Reply Score: 5

I'm confused...
by jakesdad on Sun 24th Jan 2010 17:51 UTC
jakesdad
Member since:
2005-12-28

How is this a bad thing?

It's still a community project.

I look out my home windows to my town and guess what, there are companies and businesses. You know what they are doing? Paying people in the community in which I live. I and most other people consider these companies part of the community. The community would be upset if the businesses left. Go to any city, town, municipality in the US that has had all the businesses leave it and you will see a decimated community.

I don't see how this is undermining the community. It seems to be extending it. The companies have the resources to apply the code to their products and extend the usefulness of the code to the community at large. But now complaints are levied when more companies develop the code for their products and pay coders to do it. I would think that developers now have time to focus on the code since they are now paid to do it. They aren't doing it as a side job or a hobby. Focus can create better code. Being paid can also facilitate purchases of gear that can lead to knew projects for the community.

But whatever... Seasons change, people don't.

Reply Score: 3

RE: I'm confused...
by Brendan on Mon 25th Jan 2010 05:31 UTC in reply to "I'm confused..."
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

How is this a bad thing?


Is Linux "free"?

If a company like Intel is paying programmers to write code for Linux, then where do you think that cash comes from? If Intel adds a small amount to the price of each CPU to cover this cost, then everyone that buys an Intel CPU is paying for (a very small part of) Linux.

If 100 hardware companies add a small amount to the price of their hardware to cover the cost of paying for Linux developers; then maybe a complete computer costs $1000 instead of $999, where the extra $1 is helping to pay for Linux development.

If you buy some cheese at an online shop that happens to pay Red Hat for support, then maybe a tiny part of the price of that cheese ends up (indirectly) paying for Linux development.

It's like there's a tiny hidden "Linux tax" built into the price of lots of different things, where you pay this "Linux tax" whether you use Linux or not.

So, how much of your cash has (indirectly) gone into Linux development? It's very hard to guess what Linux is costing you, but it definitely isn't "free".

Of course none of this is "bad" (and the "Windows tax" is probably a lot worse).

The only thing that's really "bad" here is stupid people who expect something for nothing. These stupid people should be forced to spend a few hours each year doing unpaid work - maybe making meals and doing housework for those unpaid Linux volunteers responsible for the other 25% of Linux development. :-)


- Brendan

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I'm confused...
by nt_jerkface on Mon 25th Jan 2010 07:24 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm confused..."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

These stupid people should be forced to spend a few hours each year doing unpaid work - maybe making meals and doing housework for those unpaid Linux volunteers responsible for the other 25% of Linux development. :-)


Screw that, send them to work camp for 6 months to write manuals and help files. We'll call it the software entitlement re-education camp. Constantly barrage them with inane feature requests and hit them with a cane if they complain about having to work late into the night on a diet of Mountain Dew and Cheetos.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I'm confused...
by siride on Mon 25th Jan 2010 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm confused..."
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

If you follow that line of reasoning, everything has a "tax" for some other corporation or technology. You are basically pointing out the utterly uninteresting fact that the money you give to pay for something is in turn spent on paying other people to do things.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I'm confused...
by nt_jerkface on Mon 25th Jan 2010 06:52 UTC in reply to "I'm confused..."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


It's still a community project.


It's a community of professional corporate developers contributing because they are paid to. That's a far cry from the volunteer techno-hippie collective that most people assume it to be.

I was actually quite happy to see this information get a lot of press. The million man army of volunteer GPL programmers is really a myth and needs to be exposed.

Programming is difficult and for the vast majority of software trained professionals to get paid for it to be completed. GPL revenue models aren't viable for most software products and thus Stallman's plan for a GPL only world needs to be thrown in the trash bin.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I'm confused...
by boudewijn on Mon 25th Jan 2010 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm confused..."
boudewijn Member since:
2006-03-05

"I was actually quite happy to see this information get a lot of press. The million man army of volunteer GPL programmers is really a myth and needs to be exposed. "

You are quite wrong, and the way you bring your point makes you offensively wrong.

The vast majority of people working on free software are unpaid volunteers. I have worked on free software since 1993 and only now have a job where I will be paid for working on KOffice (and I helped found the company just to be able to get paid to work on KOffice). But guess what? It's not for the project I'm maintaining (krita), so when I work on that it's still unpaid volunteer work.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I'm confused...
by siride on Mon 25th Jan 2010 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm confused..."
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

"I was actually quite happy to see this information get a lot of press. The million man army of volunteer GPL programmers is really a myth and needs to be exposed. "

You are quite wrong, and the way you bring your point makes you offensively wrong.

The vast majority of people working on free software are unpaid volunteers. I have worked on free software since 1993 and only now have a job where I will be paid for working on KOffice (and I helped found the company just to be able to get paid to work on KOffice). But guess what? It's not for the project I'm maintaining (krita), so when I work on that it's still unpaid volunteer work.

Let's get some numbers here. If it's true that the vast majority of OSS programmers are volunteers, then let's see some stats. Otherwise, I believe you are just talking out of your ass.

His point is otherwise quite valid. The idea that an entire software ecosystem (not just a particular product) can be made mostly of people who incidentally contribute is absurd. And now we have numbers to show that that is indeed the case. It doesn't make open source any less of a valid solution to making software. The zealots need now rather understand that corporate involvement is legitimate as well, and very beneficial.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: I'm confused...
by boudewijn on Mon 25th Jan 2010 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I'm confused..."
boudewijn Member since:
2006-03-05

Everyone in this discussion is talking out of their ass, the guy who claimed there was a myth that needed to be exposed most of all. Let _him_ produce some numbers. Nobody in this discussion has numbers because nobody has taken a look at any of the academic surveys. At least I am a volunteer who works in one of the largest free software communities and knows who's got a job working on KDE technology, and who hasn't. And nearly nobody has: a dozen people at most, out of the thousands of committers.

"The idea that an entire software ecosystem (not just a particular product) can be made mostly of people who incidentally contribute is absurd."

Volunteer and "incidentally contribute" are not synonyms. I know that I spend about 20 hours a week on Krita: that is volunteer time and definitely not "incidental" People like Sven Neumann have over 9000 commits in Gimp. That is not incidental. And it has nothing to do with corporate involvement being legitimate or beneficial or not. And given the results, the idea that volunteers can build an entire software ecosystem is clearly not absurd: it has proven to work.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I'm confused...
by nt_jerkface on Tue 26th Jan 2010 02:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm confused..."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

The vast majority of people working on free software are unpaid volunteers.


But for the most successful projects the majority of the programmers are paid. The million man myth is that there are a million GPL programmers waiting to jump on any open source project. As we saw with OpenOffice that isn't the case. OpenOffice in fact has a shortage of volunteers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I'm confused...
by dylansmrjones on Tue 26th Jan 2010 11:26 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm confused..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It's very much still a community project. And your lame attempt at astroturfing doesn't change that.

There are many volunteers in the *nix-world and FLOSS. Besides that there has never been a myth of FLOSS being all hippie and that.

That's merely an image MS tried to spread some years ago with the help from SCO-lovers. Some in USA may believe in that myth, but the rest of the world has never heard of said myth.

Software is essentially an unsaleable commodity* (though some haven't realized that yet). Services however can be sold, which is what is happening today more than sale of software.

And no. I'm not a religious linux-zealot. I'm writing this from my brand new Win2K8 installation - and I've bought a license for this. Imagine that; I've paid for Windows.

* Only protectionism at government level, increasing reduction of fair use and/or de jure/de facto monopoly can make software saleable.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I'm confused...
by strcpy on Tue 26th Jan 2010 22:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm confused..."
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

What f*ck is astroturfing? Can I be a shill too?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I'm confused...
by dylansmrjones on Tue 26th Jan 2010 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I'm confused..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

What f*ck is astroturfing? Can I be a shill too?


Yes. If you want to. Do you want a CoA comfirming you are one? I'm sure I can do something in Scribus and Gimp :p

Reply Score: 2

and that's cool!
by sergio on Sun 24th Jan 2010 18:15 UTC
sergio
Member since:
2005-07-06

That 75% comes from big companies like Red Hat, Intel and lots of small companies too... all of them with very different interests.

I think that's the strength of Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE: and that's cool!
by tyrione on Sun 24th Jan 2010 20:23 UTC in reply to "and that's cool!"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

That 75% comes from big companies like Red Hat, Intel and lots of small companies too... all of them with very different interests.

I think that's the strength of Linux.


A big chunk comes from Oracle, IBM and even the US Government and other foreign governments.

Reply Score: 2

Truth hurts, eh?
by tyrione on Sun 24th Jan 2010 20:21 UTC
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

Linux would never have progressed without Corporations, period.

I'm glad it has evolved so we have options, but the folks who fantasize and proclaim it a labor of free service are in denial.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Truth hurts, eh?
by bralkein on Sun 24th Jan 2010 22:31 UTC in reply to "Truth hurts, eh?"
bralkein Member since:
2006-12-20

Of course I think most reasonable FOSS enthusiasts welcome such useful and positive corporate contributions as we see with the Linux kernel and in many other projects besides.

However, while these corporate efforts are certainly most welcome, remember that there are still many good projects which depend almost exclusively on the work of volunteers. In my opinion there is something especially admirable about those projects, and I do think they deserve special recognition.

Reply Score: 3

News?
by Milo_Hoffman on Mon 25th Jan 2010 00:25 UTC
Milo_Hoffman
Member since:
2005-07-06

This has been true for several years now.

Here is an article from the Linux foundation from a few years ago:


"over 70% of all kernel development is demonstrably done by developers who are being paid for their work."


http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/linuxkerneldevelopment....


I am surprised someone familiar with Linux would not know this already. This was data from as far back as 2005.

Edited 2010-01-25 00:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

Yet FOSS advocates expect software engineers to follow different rules.

Oh wait they can get paid as long as they release the source. Autodesk should release the source to Autocad because Richard Stallman calls it "Freedomz".

Would most people still pay $1000 for AutoCad LT or just download the unsupported GNUCad that would appear overnight?

Their stock would tank and the codebase would stagnate because very few people would volunteer to work on a CAD program. But this would all be for the great "Freedomz" so sayeth Stallman.

The software world needs to return to the days when you contributed to an open source project for fun and not because you hold some indignant moralist position on how all software must be open source. Open source is a feature, not a freedom.

Reply Score: 1

paid developers.
by hussam on Tue 26th Jan 2010 22:19 UTC
hussam
Member since:
2006-08-17

There's nothing wrong with Linux kernel having paid developers. It *is* after all a professional operating system that many companies make profit off.

Reply Score: 1