Submitted by While the kernel 2.6.23 development cycle has not yet run its course, things are getting close enough to the end that it makes sense to start looking at the overall statistics for this release. As of this writing (shortly after 2.6.23-rc6 came out), just over 6,200 non-merge changesets had been added to the mainline kernel repository. These changesets came from 854 developers – a slightly smaller number than we saw for 2.6.22. Just over 350 of those developers contributed one single changeset. On a related note, LWN.net has a number of reports from the Linux Kernel Developer’s Summit.
not me,
but i’m using it everyday and intend to continue !
users drive features and demand imho
cheers
anyweb
ANOTHER ONE OF THESE … come on there have been quite a few articles like this and most people don’t really care who writes the software as long as it works. After all it’s still under GPL regardless of the fact who’s paying for it …
Its quite different from the usual *written* by companies comments. It actually tries to describe which groups write what. Which I found interesting…but not altogether unsurprising.
The other Gem that jumps out and its on the first page is this “the patches added almost 430,000 lines, but also removed 406,000 lines, meaning that the kernel grew by just under 23,000”. To be fair its nice to have an article that actually makes very little judgments.
Considering the improvements that have gone into this version…those are welcome statistics.
Unfortunately this kind of statistics mean nothing. If you’ve ever worked on a project under a version control system you’ll know that “N lines added, M lines deleted” give absolutely no insight on the quality or even quantity of work that went in these modifications. It’s a seductive play upon figures, and many first timers fall for it, but eventually learn better. The same goes for number of commits and so on.
Edited 2007-09-25 16:32
PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS POST SERIOUSLY!
ANOTHER ONE OF THESE … come on there have been quite a few articles like this and most people don’t really care who writes the software as long as it works. After all it’s still under GPL regardless of the fact who’s paying for it …
What you probably mean is that you don’t care about anything as long as you get free stuff. What you probably missed is that the companies who pay the developers who write most of Linux get their cash from somewhere, and eventually this cash comes from consumers.
Basically, you are paying for Linux, it’s just that you’re paying indirectly (by buying unrelated stuff from companies who pay for service contracts, by buying hardware manufactured by companies who increase their hardware costs to pay for Linux development, etc) rather than paying directly.
For an example, imagine you buy some tennis balls for $10. The store you buy them from pays Google for some advertising and the manufacturer of the tennis balls has a service contract with Redhat. A small part of your $10 ends up in professional Linux developer’s wallets.
The problem is that cost of Linux development is spread across everyone – people who don’t even use Linux also (indirectly) pay for Linux development, and people who do use Linux aren’t paying their fair share.
Don’t you think it’s ironic how “software should be free” ends up ripping off people who don’t even use the software? For commercial/proprietory software you only pay if you use the software and you know how much you’re paying before you pay, which makes companies like Microsoft much more ethical than these open source theives…. 😉
PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS POST SERIOUSLY!
That must be one of the most cowardly things I’ve seen. If you have a point to make, make it. Don’t hide behind the whole ‘this is a joke’ trick, it doesn’t reflect well on you as a person.
That may be my problem – I don’t have a valid point to make.
Something does make me feel uneasy about the Linux development model, but I’ve been unable to figure out exactly what the source of this uneasy feeling is.
I know that Linux is mostly developed by professional developers, and I know that the cash comes from *somewhere*. I also know that the examples I gave are completely flawed.
Perhaps my uneasy feeling comes from too many people thinking that Linux is made by unpaid developers working in their spare time out of pure generousity. Perhaps it comes from too many people thinking that companies spend money on Linux for motives that don’t involve profit. Perhaps it comes from too many people thinking Linux is “good” just because they don’t need to pay for it (and no other reason). The truth is I don’t know, but that uneasy feeling is still there.
Perhaps it comes from too many people thinking Linux is “good” just because they don’t need to pay for it (and no other reason).
You may be confusing the two common meanings of the English word free. It is very sad that a language with a huge overabundance of words, uses the same word for two extremely different meanings.
Free when applied to GNU/Linux and related software means the user has freedom to use, modify and share it. It does not necessarily mean it is free of charge.
Huh, so when i buy a tennis ball, and the store i buy from pays MS for their operating system, a small part of my 10$ ends up in MS employees wallets. So whats your point?
Of course Red Hat does a great deal, and so does Novell, but I find it worth to mention that IBM and Oracle are doing more than they generally get credit for.
Also pleased to see both Sony and the “evil” Google as considerable contributors which leads me to something much more interesting; those that are not high on the charts despite big financial gains from Linux. The one I really miss to see there is VMware, where are they?
technical docs but not code however that will change in the near future…
what you’re writing now is probably more valuable than writing code.
For an article with less ads and on one page, check printer friendly page :
http://www.linuxworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x_linux.cgi?pagetosend=/ex…
Despite all the buzz, Ubuntu does not write Linux…
choice by design!
I would like to know how many of the kernel hackers are full time employees of some other company. I know IBM and Redhat employ some of them, but I wonder how large the percentage of those who do it as a job vs. those who do it as a hobby.