Who really writes Linux?

[mediator]

I hope this isn't repeated! Searched but not found...so here u have it!

Linux Weekly News has just published one of the most interesting analysis pieces on Linux that I've seen in ages. In it, LWN executive editor Jonathan Corbet addresses the common misconception that Linux, and other major open-source projects, are maintained by volunteers.

Corbet's examination of who really has worked on the 2.6.20 kernel and on Linux over the last year is a real eye-opener.

He used a variety of scripts to look at who patched, added to, and edited Linux. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Linux is not written by unpaid enthusiasts in basements. At most, by Corbet's calculations, 32.7 percent of the changes in the Linux 2.6.20 may have come from volunteers. The rest -- the vast majority -- was written by programmers working for companies.

To be exact, the company whose developers work the most on the latest kernel is Red Hat. I might add, it's not even close. By contributed changesets or lines of modified code, Red Hat's developers contributed 12.8 percent of the changes.
Other significant contributors, more than 2 percent, were, in order of contribution: IBM, Novell, the Linux Foundation (which employs Torvalds), Intel, and Oracle.

If you look at it in terms of lines of codes changed, then smaller companies begin to appear. In the listing by more than 2 percent of new lines of code, IBM again leads, followed by Astaro, a security company; the Linux Foundation; Qumranet, a stealth company that's behind the KVM (Kernel based Virtualization Machine); Novell; Intel; SANPeople, which focuses on serial to Ethernet connectivity; NetXen, a high-end network hardware vendor; Sony; Broadcom, the WiFi chip vendor; and Tensilica, a chip designer.

Get the picture? Linux and, I suspect, almost other mature open-source projects are written not by anti-social, open-source communists, as Microsoft's Steve Ballmer once had it. No, it's written by people who are either financially invested in it, or getting a pay-check for doing work on it. Open-source is alive and, well, a capitalist.

Another interesting pattern that Corbet found is that while it's clear that Linus Torvalds and Andrew Morton are vital to Linux, though more as code managers than as coders, it's also clear that maintainers of subsystem or architecture trees have more influence over what actually gets into Linux than one might think.

So, there you have it. Proof positive that open-source can work, be decentralized, and still fit perfectly into today's corporate world. Welcome to the 21st century.

Source!

[Pathik]

it opened my eyes.... I had thot the other way... Neways does it matter much??

[mediator]

^^Nope! Just posted to clear some fog.

[goobimama]

Excellent Post. Reps away!

[Pathik]

hey yup..i forgot.. Reps 4m me 2..

[The Outsider]

thx for the nice read m8

[subratabera]

Thanks @mediator...Nice read.

[amitava82]

great info.. Window$ users should have a look

[praka123]

Super Post mediator.it is an eye-opener,Linus's codes seems smaller after 15+ years-the power of volunteers made the System growing;going!

[mediator]

^Thanx guys.....I too always wanted to know such thing, but doubted if all the work is done by individuals separeated across the globe.

[anandk]

nice read.

it's written by people who are either financially invested in it, or getting a pay-check for doing work on it. Open-source is alive and, well, a capitalist.

a real eye-opener. thanx !

[mkmkmk]

Thanks....shared new information to everyone .......

[unni]

It is estimated that the development of one version of Linux, Red Hat 7.1, required 8 000 years' worth of man hours.

Developed as proprietary software, the project would have cost more than $1 billion (R7,2 billion) in 2000.

Linus Torvalds is worth $20-million (R144 million). He has been called one of the most influential people in the world (Time magazine, 2004) and came 17th in Time's Person of the Century poll in 2000.

Source

[freebird]

most ppl i think are peeping this thread to see a controversy on Linux.some change to the title like:"Linux is Capitalist" =may be one more wi%dows user change to Open SOurce eh?

[chesss]

interesting...
Can someon clear a lil more fog?
In this decentralized world who makes the decisions? say for example who made the decision to finally have out-of-the-box suspend-to-disk from kernel 2.6.17?

[mediator]

U shud read the 2nd last para again then!

[piyush gupta]

Very nice info thanx for sharing

rep U

[mediator]

MORE.........................

Can open source and capitalism co-exist?

For some reason, people still can't seem to get their heads around the idea that you can make money, big money, from FOSS (Free Software/Open Source). It's a pity that more of them couldn't have been in New York City this week for the O'Reilly Money:Tech conference.

While I wasn't there, eWEEK's Peter Galli was, and he caught a fascinating panel discussion on the question: "Are Open Source and Capitalism Worlds Apart?" What I found especially interesting was that the people on this panel were not from Red Hat, MySQL or Trolltech.

No, these were not the people who had built open-source software and then cashed in on it; these were people who invested in companies that use open source and its ideas.

In other words, these were money people, not technology people. At heart, they could care less about the technical issues so near and dear to many a Linux fan's heart. They get excited about how changes in the tax code might affect capital gains instead of how changes in the kernel might effect virtualization.

So, why do they care? Because open source makes money. In my favorite quote from the panel, Stephen Bate, vice president of software development at FOLIOfn, an online brokerage firm, said, "Open source helps people get to market faster and in many cases lowers the cost."

Exactly.

And that's why FOSS is becoming ever more important not just in technology, but in a whole economy that runs on technology.

[NucleusKore]

Nice post, and good after thoughts

Originally Posted by freebird

most ppl i think are peeping this thread to see a controversy on Linux.some change to the title like:"Linux is Capitalist" =may be one more wi%dows user change to Open SOurce eh?

Nobody is against anyone making money, the question is AT WHAT COST ?

If the Open source model works for all the above companies (they make money and pay people too!), I cannot see why it can't work for OTHERS.