Posted on 04/02/2008 5:41:41 AM PDT by twntaipan
Some people are still under the delusion that Linux is written by unwashed hackers living in their parents' basements whose only social life is playing D&D and having flame wars over IRC (Internet Relay Chat) about whether vi or EMACS better and debating Picard versus Kirk. Nothing, nothing could be further from the truth.
The LF (Linux Foundation) has just released a new report, "Linux Kernel Development: How Fast It is Going, Who is Doing It, What They are Doing, and Who is Sponsoring It." This comprehensive study of the last three years of Linux kernel development, from version 2.6.11 to 2.6.24 releases, reveals that the average Linux developer is being paid by a major corporation to develop Linux.
To be exact, between 70 and 95 percent of Linux developers over the last three years have been paid to work on Linux. According to the report, "More than 70 percent of total contributions to the kernel come from developers working at [such companies as] IBM, Intel, The Linux Foundation, MIPS Technology, MontaVista, Movial, NetApp, Novell and Red Hat."
Over the years, the number of Linux developers has been increasing. Version 2.6.11 had only 483 programmers whose code actually made it into the kernel. The latest kernel, 2.6.24, had 1,057 developers. Over the last three years, 3,678 programmers have had their work included in Linux's core.
That said, the report also stated that "despite the large number of individual developers, there is still a relatively small number who are doing the majority of the work. Over the past three years, the top 10 individual developers have contributed almost 15 percent of the number of changes and the top 30 developers have contributed 30 percent."
In fact, the top five developers, Al Viro (1.9 percent of the total percentage of changes to the kernel); David Miller (1.8 percent); Adrian Bunk (1.7 percent); Ralf Baechle (1.6 percent); and Andrew Morton (1.5 percent), alone accounted for 8.5 percent of Linux's recent code changes.
Of all the developers, 74.1 percent work on Linux for their companies. Of the rest, many programmers—12.9 percent with unknown employers—made 10 changes or less to the kernel. Only 13.9 percent of developers were clearly working on Linux as a hobby.
So, while Linux does have a substantial contribution being made to it by amateurs, the vast bulk of it is being written by corporate programmers. The companies that are building Linux, in order of their contributions to the kernel, are:
1) Red Hat, 11.2 percent 2) Novell, 8.9 percent 3) IBM, 8.3 percent 4) Intel, 4.1 percent 5) LF, 3.5 percent 6) SGI, 2.0 percent 7) MIPS Technology, 1.6 percent 8) Oracle, 1.3 percent 9) MontaVista, 1.2 percent 10) Lintronix, 1.0 percent.
In addition, consultants' efforts have counted for 2.5 percent of the total work on Linux.
The authors of the study, Linux kernel developers Jonathan Corbet and Greg Kroah-Hartman, and Linux Foundation Director of Marketing Amanda McPherson, also note that, "What we see here is that a small number of companies are responsible for a large portion of the total changes to the kernel. But there is a 'long tail' of companies which have made significant changes."
They also point out in the study that "none of these companies are supporting Linux development as an act of charity; in each case, these companies find that improving the kernel helps them to be more competitive in their markets."
Besides Linux distributors, like Red Hat, Novell and MontaVista, where the profit motive is clear, the study also finds that "companies like IBM, Intel, SGI, MIPS, Freescale, HP, etc. are all working to ensure that Linux runs well on their hardware. That, in turn, makes their offerings more attractive to Linux users, resulting in increased sales."
Other businesses that work on developing Linux, "like Sony, Nokia, and Samsung ship Linux as a component of products like video cameras, television sets, and mobile telephones. Working with the development process helps these companies ensure that Linux will continue to be a solid base for their products in the future."
It's not just IT companies these days that are working on improving Linux. For example, the study's writers state that "The 2.6.25 kernel will include an implementation of the PF_CAN [Controller Area Network] network protocol which was contributed by Volkswagen. PF_CAN allows for reliable communications between components in an interference-prone environment—such as that found in an automobile. Linux gave Volkswagen a platform upon which it could build its networking code; the company then found it worthwhile to contribute the code back so that it could be maintained with the rest of the kernel."
So since your typical Linux developer is more likely to be a full-time, upper-middle class software engineer, why does the FUD about Linux developers still hang on? McPherson believes it's because "it's difficult for most people to get their minds around competitive mass collaboration. It's obviously a huge shift from the command and control models of old. Most people seem to have a hard time understanding that companies will pay people to work on software that their competitors use and profit from."
McPherson continued: "People are still stuck in the zero sum game of the past. But now, with papers like this, they can see that companies who support open source actually profit through a shared R&D cost. The myth persists but as open source is becoming more common than proprietary development; I think you'll see a shift in understanding."
Bookmark for later.
Yes, as a guy whose only social life is playing D&D, I admit that I did not have any part in the creation Linux.
----
At the end of the day these companies work on the Linux kernel in order to make money off the product. They understand that improving the kernel for all will benefit themselves as well. GE will probably be along shortly to deny all of this, but the facts are pretty evident.
Jeez, ALL these companies are in league with the Chinese government? Damn socialists!
In fact, the top five developers, Al Viro (1.9 percent of the total percentage of changes to the kernel); David Miller (1.8 percent); Adrian Bunk (1.7 percent); Ralf Baechle (1.6 percent); and Andrew Morton (1.5 percent), alone accounted for 8.5 percent of Linux’s recent code changes.
Or put another way, if a woman can make a baby in 9 months, it’s not true that 9 women can make a baby in 1 month.
Algore?
So how do these companies make money off the product? AFAIK it’s a breach of the usage license of Linux to sell it (although I have no idea who’d sue you for it). I get the idea of competitive collaboration to improve a product, but if the product can’t be sold, why are these companies paying people to work on it?
They pay little of R & D costs, benefit fully from collaboration, and sell both the product and the services (especially the services) behind the product.
But, remember, these are not small start-ups. IBM has existed for 60 years or so, and Intel is the leader in the industry. They must derive some benefit to the bottom line or they wouldn’t be involved.
Almost 100 years actually.
More knowledgeable FReepers, correct me if I'm wrong.
The Linux kernel is covered under the GNU GPL, which means that companies can sell modified copies of the kernel, but they must provide the source code, including modifications. And, after the first distribution, the recipient can then turn around and offer the entire thing for free to others. So, there's not really any money to be made in selling the product itself. As for breaches of the GPL, the original author (or copyright holder) would be the one to sue the infringer.
The money is in supporting businesses and developing custom software applications that may depend on the GNU/Linux system.
Written, no - just advocated by. ;)
(Sorry, I'm an OS/X advocate...)
The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
To be a tad too blunt about it, five or ten years ago I managed a group doing a piece of Unix kernel code critical to the specialized computer systems my employer sells. Now I do that myself as a Linux open source project cooperating with other people in other companies from around the globe (Australia, France, China, Japan, India, Eastern Europe, ...)
For a tenth the cost my employer is getting several times better technology, and our customers much prefer not being locked into proprietary solutions.
That's one way, but not typical.
Here's a fact: Most companies that write software never sell it. The number is huge, something like 90%.
Most software is written in-house for in-house use. It never gets sold.
Since most businesses have the same basic needs, the process of writing software to run internal systems is extremely wasteful. Every company out there that writes a bit of software writes basically the same thing with a few things different for their particular business practices.
Off-the-shelf commercial software doesn't help. It's a one size fits none thing that generally you can't modify to meet your needs.
Enter Open Source software. One company writes it. They give away the source. Hundreds of other companies take it, improve it, and give away the source.
The original company (who was never going to make any money off of the software anyway) gets back a better and more useful product. So do all of the other companies that make changes and release their source.
Everyone ends up with a better, more useful product. No one is out any money. Everyone SAVES money because they don't all have to keep reinventing the wheel.
And that's how you make money off of Open Source. By saving money.
Who says it can't be sold? You're confusing Free (as in Beer) with Free (as in Speech)
If you take open sourced code that is released under the GNU Public License (GPL) and make modifications to it, you are fully free to charge whatever you want for it (as in Beer) The requirement imposed on you though is that the source code including your modification also be made available, under the GPL, for others to use as they wish (as in Speech). If you don't redistribute the software to others, you're under no obligation to release your modifications.
Why this is worth expending resources to companies is that it allows them to avoid re-inventing the wheel, or having to purchase expensive proprietary software when open-source software exists that does what they need with little or no modification.
Companies also can make money off open source software by releasing it packaged with proprietary "value-added" software that makes it worth the consumer's time to buy. ie. Installer programs, Office programs, Point of Sale software, etc.
However inhouse development for inhouse use probably applies for software that is closer to what people actually use -- applications and such.
Most of my colleagues working on the Linux kernel are paid by computer system vendors, such as those listed earlier in this thread.
I suspect you are correct however that the majority of open source work is for inhouse use, where money is saved and better software obtained, by sharing development with other companies needing the same kind of software.
I like the original phrasing: “The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.”
Yes, much more elegantly put.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.