Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Myth of Linux Hobby Coders Exposed 252

Posted by Zonk from the not-just-basement-rangers dept.
Eh-Wire writes "Stuart Cohen, CEO of the Open Source Development Labs, does a short piece on the myth of renegade hackers coding in their parent's basements to create the Linux OS. He suggests this hasn't been the case for many years and goes on to claim that of the top 25 core developers, more than 90% of them are fully employed with some of the largest technology companies in the world. Stuart goes on to explode the myth of renegade programmers by saying, 'Sure, it represents a new way to create software, but the actual process looks a lot like how enterprise software has been made for decades.' A short but interesting read."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Myth of Linux Hobby Coders Exposed More

Myth of Linux Hobby Coders Exposed

Comments Filter:

  • how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yagu ( 721525 ) <yayagu@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Friday May 06, 2005 @06:55PM (#12458150) Journal

    Interesting article that raises an even more interesting issue, possibly legal: Aren't these coders constrained by the same template IP contracts found in most corporations today? The basic distillation of these constraints stipulate an employee basically gives up their rights and "software" no matter when it's written, how it's written... the company "owns" anything said employee writes. Are these OSS coders and contributors seeing special waivers in their employment contracts? I know the article says the community has formal procedures in place to protect OSS IP -- but what are those?

    (I know these contracts are crap, but if they get your name in writing it can be a can of worms to draw a bright line between things that you (the employee) own and things they (the companies) own. I, as a contractor and consultant, have always taken contracting agreements and added my own modification which companies I work for must agree to before I'll sign the contract (I'll not get into specifics) and so far I've only had one company refuse.)

    Is there empirical evidence these contributors are doing this on the up and up? I know the OSS considers the community nothing but good, but I have a certain lack of trust for large faceless, morally and ethically bankrupt corporations (which includes pretty much all of them).

    • Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      you can either get a waiver added to the contract, or just let the evil bastards try to claim ownership, the clause will be found unfair, they cannot claim they own every thought in your head, especially when the only company resource it involves is you, in exactly the same way non compete clauses have no legal power, no matter what you sign.

    • Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by flood6 ( 852877 ) on Friday May 06, 2005 @07:04PM (#12458238) Homepage Journal
      They often have contracts that state that any work done on their respective OSS projects is not the IP of the company, even if done on company time.

    • Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Wesley Felter ( 138342 ) <wesley@felter.org> on Friday May 06, 2005 @07:12PM (#12458306) Homepage
      The companies own the code and they contribute it to OSS projects instead of the individual coders. The result is the same.

      • Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:4, Informative)

        by grcumb ( 781340 ) on Friday May 06, 2005 @09:21PM (#12459172) Homepage Journal

        "The companies own the code and they contribute it to OSS projects instead of the individual coders. The result is the same."

        That's partially true, but there's more. I worked for three years for a software company that sold a small office server that was essentially highly customised RedHat. We not only honoured the GPL on all the company-owned components, but also had employment contracts which explicitly stated that we were allowed to work on other GPL projects in our own time.

        In other words there are at least a few enlightened companies out there who realise that value provided to the community comes back several times over, and that at worst having employees active in the FOSS community will make them look like Good Guys. At best, they leverage the work that gets done and roll it into their GPL product.

        That company was later bought out by a larger one (which is why I left). That company continues to honour the GPL, though with somewhat less enthusiasm than the original. Anyway, they seem to have a credible business model - they just got USD 55 million in backing last month!

    • Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:5, Informative)

      by LnxAddct ( 679316 ) <sgk25@drexel.edu> on Friday May 06, 2005 @07:14PM (#12458317)
      Umm just be so valuable to the company that they'll take you whether or not you sign it. I currently am employed with a pretty major defence contractor working on some classified projects for the Dod, but at the interview (they offered me the job on the spot) I told them I would absolutely not sign the NDA in the form that it was (I also do some coding for some OSS projects and I wasnt giving that up just for a job). I said I've inteviewed with 6 other companies and they all were willing to compromise, IIRC Unisys has a whole little department or system set up just for such a purpose. Anyway, they wound up just asking me to sign the non-compete agreement and never asked me to sign the NDA. They more or less told me that they just wanted me to be comfortable where I work and I'm really thankful I took this job cause it is kick-ass. Moral of the story: Stick up for yourself if you feel you're being held down, dont be scared to ask for modifications, if nothing else it shows the company that you won't take shit which looks good on your character.
      Regards,
      Steve
      • The best way I've found to approach this is to state that you do some volunteer work for non-profit organizations, and that they need to have a waver from the company to protect them from being sued on any project that you've done for them. Most companies won't say no to that, after all it looks bad if they won't let you do charity work.
        Then, if any problems come up, assign your code copyrights to the FSF, which is registerd as a non-profit. Point, match, game.
      • ...I currently am employed with a pretty major defence contractor working on some classified projects for the Dod...
        Hmm. Once I use the patriot act to subpeona your ip address from slashdot you won't be.
        Really, come on dude loose lips sink ships and all that.

        • Re:Really. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by LnxAddct ( 679316 )
          I'm more then capable of talking about what I do for a living. Saying that the projects are classified is a habit of mine so people won't take offense when I tell them that I can't tell them something. It is perfectly okay to say "I work on classified information and deal with intelligence that can't be discussed." In some cases, yes you have to completely keep quiet about what you work on, but usually they'll move you somewhere because its pretty hard to live a lie and this whole second life of yours has t

    • Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by lheal ( 86013 ) <lheal1999NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday May 06, 2005 @07:17PM (#12458342) Journal
      the company "owns" anything said employee writes.

      If it's in your contract that the company owns everything you write while you work for them, then what?

      In the case of Linux and other GPLd software to which the code is a putback contribution, they have nothing to say, really. What can they do with the code? Sell it to SCO :-)?

      If the company is paying someone to be the main author of a GPLd package, and they insist on "owning" the thing, they'd better also have a no-compete clause. If not, then the author can quit, use a publicly available snapshot, and start doing whatever it was they didn't want him to do.

      Generally a company that open sources a package or contributes to an open sourced package is going to play nice. It's in their interest to have a good rep in the community.

    • Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Cecil ( 37810 ) on Friday May 06, 2005 @07:22PM (#12458378) Homepage
      They probably did the same thing myself, my friend, and most of the open source coders I know did:

      Refuse to sign it.

      Just politely explain that that particular clause doesn't work for you, as you do a lot of programming at home for projects unrelated to their business and you want to continue to do so as you feel it helps to hone your programming skills. They will likely agree to strike out the clause. Yes, if you're just starting a new job and the job market is bad, it takes some cajones to do this. But realistically the chances are extremely low they'll simply say, "Oh, okay. Goodbye." and, presuming that they do say that, and you respond by offering to sign the damn waiver, the chances are even lower that they would continue to refuse to employ you. And at that point you can be very sure that they were just planning on using you as a carpet anyway, if the fact that you showed a bit of backbone scares them so much. Realistically, all most companies want is an employee who knows their stuff and works hard.

      As a bonus, when you do this, you will likely be remembered as someone who stands up for themselves a bit more. As a result, you're more likely to get better raises and bonuses, simply due to the fact that the bosses don't really want to get into arguments or make a big deal about things most of the time (after all, their time is so valuable *cough*) so they'll give you a little more than most of the other people, since they'll think of you as someone who's more likely to argue about it.

      That's been my experience anyway.
      • You don't even have to take such a harsh stance. Ask them to amend the clause so that it is clear that it only applies to work done on company time.

      • You cannot have my mind... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        ...no matter how many documents you make me sign.

        I don't care if it is illegal. My mind is my own and you can't have it. Nor will I sell it to you.

        I don't care if it is unethical for me to sign a document (in bad faith) saying that you own everything I think of. It is still my mind, and there is still nothing you can do about it.

        I feel completely justified in continuing to write my free code, and releasing it to the public domain under a pseudonym. This is how I preserve intellectual freedom in a wor

      • Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by swillden ( 191260 ) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Saturday May 07, 2005 @12:43AM (#12460144) Journal

        As a result, you're more likely to get better raises and bonuses, simply due to the fact that the bosses don't really want to get into arguments or make a big deal about things most of the time (after all, their time is so valuable *cough*) so they'll give you a little more than most of the other people, since they'll think of you as someone who's more likely to argue about it.

        Well, they're more likely to give you the bare minimum they think will keep your trap shut, and more likely to re-evaluate every year whether or not they really like having a whiner on staff. I think negotiating on terms of your employment contract that you don't like is a wise thing to do, and if you approach it with the right tone will impress people rather than put them off.

        But, seriously, arguing with your boss about raises and bonuses is rarely productive. I learned this early on in my career, when I did exactly that. I got my raise, and was then laid off three months later (well, I was given the choice between relocating to Portland or taking a severance check). The whining and the layoff weren't direct cause and effect, but neither were they unrelated.

        Want good raises and bonuses? Let your boss know that they're important to you (saying "I'd really like to get a substantial raise or a good bonus next year" in your annual review is sufficient), and then do a good job. If you get what you wanted, great. If not, find another company that will give you what you think you ought to get.

    • Well, there's two things... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Friday May 06, 2005 @07:23PM (#12458391) Homepage
      a) Their copyright.
      b) The company's permission to release it under an OSS license on their behalf.

      You can have the latter, without having the former. That'd mean the company would be able to make a commercial product with the code, relicense the code, and the coder would not. But if released in a proper fashion, the license is still valid. And he, the person, could make a derivative of what he, the employee, has written under that license.

      The only time there could be a problem is if the company has claim to the IP and has not been aware of its use (possibly because the coder thought they had no claim). But these are employed to work on the kernel, and are perfectly aware of it being licensed out.

      In short, the only difference is whether the code has any commercial value on its own. If it doesn't make sense except for the specific task in the kernel, it doesn't really matter. The rest is about who can use it in other projects. I'd be more than happy to write OSS code "for hire".

      Kjella
    • Where I work I made sure this was not the case before hand. If I work on anything at home that is not related to what the company does, they don't get any of it. Everywhere I interviewed had the same "policy".

      I've heard of people being in situations where anything they make at home becomes property of their work, but I don't think it is too common. Everyone I know that codes has an environment where they can do as they please on their own time and so long as the software doesn't compete directly with wh
    • First of all, in many cases, it doesn't matter. The license is more important than the name on the copyright. If your work is based on, say, GPL'd code, then even if the company does own your work, it doesn't matter, because their only choices are to release it under the GPL, or simply supress it. Of course, if you want to avoid that last option (and want to avoid personal and legal hassles), you should make sure that the company knows what you're doing and approves. But if that's a problem, you're work
      • First of all, in many cases, it doesn't matter. The license is more important than the name on the copyright. If your work is based on, say, GPL'd code, then even if the company does own your work, it doesn't matter, because their only choices are to release it under the GPL, or simply supress it.

        GPL doesn't apply to something you don't have the right to contribute, so that's not going to work. And if you do release company IP under GPL, they can sue you into the stone age and they'll win.

        Second, it'

        • Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Xtifr ( 1323 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @12:35AM (#12460094) Homepage
          GPL doesn't apply to something you don't have the right to contribute

          Yes, of course, but the company doesn't have any other options. They can agree to allow it to be GPL'd, or they can discard it. It's tainted by being a derivative work, so there is no third option. (Well, they could use it internally, but that's not a very exciting choice, unless they actually use the original, unmodified software, in which case, they're probably motivated to release their enhancements under the GPL).

          (Note: I am of course, assuming that we're talking about the very common case of a contribution to an existing project. If you create a whole huge public project on your own when your employment contract forbids it, then you're just insanely stupid.)

          Anyway, I was mainly trying to point out that you're unlikely to hurt the project by such actions. I agree with you that I may have underemphasised just how badly you can hurt yourself through such actions.
          • (Note: I am of course, assuming that we're talking about the very common case of a contribution to an existing project. If you create a whole huge public project on your own when your employment contract forbids it, then you're just insanely stupid.)

            Oh, well that does make a difference. I'll confess I thought you were out of your mind. ;) Presumably if the company is involved with using OSS already they know what the GPL is, but I do realize that it doesn't always work that way.

            I agree with you that

  • Romatic vision (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MikeCapone ( 693319 ) <skelterhell @ y a hoo.com> on Friday May 06, 2005 @06:57PM (#12458161) Homepage Journal
    The simple explanation could be that it just seems a lot more romantic and heroic to think that a bunch of people in their parents' basement are taking on Microsoft...
    • Romantic? I think you spend too much time reading slashdot.
    • Microsoft wastes about 1 billion $ in "windows research". Linux is quite romatic compared with that, even if all the main kernel hackers are employed
      • > Microsoft wastes about 1 billion $ in "windows research". Linux is quite romatic compared with that, even if all the main kernel hackers are employed

        Why? Because it OSS copies CSS interfaces and features built with that research money?

  • Selected Instances (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06, 2005 @06:57PM (#12458162)
    This 'new finding' was fabricated by choosing the Top 25 Linux Developers (because 25 is the magic number that fits the results they want.)

    Truth is, there are hundreds of major, active kernel developers.

    • Re:Selected Instances (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Truth is, there are hundreds of major, active kernel developers.

      Really...

      "Stuart Cohen, CEO of the Open Source Development Labs, does a short piece on the myth of renegade hackers coding in their parent's basements to create the Linux OS.

      I really do my best work in the attic.

    • Re:Selected Instances (Score:4, Insightful)

      by imsabbel ( 611519 ) on Friday May 06, 2005 @08:00PM (#12458619)
      Hm.

      You have to explain your reasoning.

      Fact a: There are 100s of kernel developer.
      Fact b: Most work is done by a small elite.

      What would change if he had choosen the top10 or the top 50?

    • Re:Selected Instances (Score:5, Insightful)

      by prodangle ( 552537 ) <mathesonNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday May 06, 2005 @08:42PM (#12458871) Homepage Journal
      Good point. I suppose it should come as no surprise that those who contribute most are paid to do so full time. The majority of contributers, who can work on OS only in their spare time, don't make it into the top 25.

      Also, it makes sense that only top developers would find themselves in a position where a company was prepared to pay them to carry on with their work.

  • Slashdot Nerds (Score:3, Funny)

    by TheKidWho ( 705796 ) on Friday May 06, 2005 @06:57PM (#12458169)
    have just been pwn3d.

    No longer can anyone use the geek in their basement argument.(I know I know, im generalizing, so sue me)
    • You're posting from your parents' basement, aren't you.

  • renegade prgrammers (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06, 2005 @06:58PM (#12458173)
    Damn them renegade prgrammers, they have been the bane of my life for many many years!

  • PHBs will always get it wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Friday May 06, 2005 @06:59PM (#12458188)
    Just looking at the quality of much Linux code and the vast variety of features implemented therein will tell you that this ain't some system thrown together by some idiots who still live with their parents.

    Linux has grown up and had done so many years before most people who know about it now even knew that it existed. This is similar to how the Internet and email existed for decades before the general public knew anything about it.

    Now, many companies, and even government organizations, have their hands in Linux because it provides real advantages over other systems.

    The myth discussed in this article is really intended for a bunch of PHBs and people who aren't that technically inclined, who believe that Linux is a toy used by rogue hackers to break into peoples' Windoze boxes and steal their social security numbers... The kind of PHBs who wrote a book I recently read. Linux was mentioned only once, and that sentence stated something to the effect that, "Linux, a free software program available in the public domain..." Yeah. Even programmers know what the public domain is better than whatever PHB wrote that disgusting phrase.

    • idiots? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Erris ( 531066 )
      Just looking at the quality of much Linux code and the vast variety of features implemented therein will tell you that this ain't some system thrown together by some idiots who still live with their parents.

      You are right, they might be very smart 12 year old programmers. That's rare as the average age was between 22 and 37 the last time FOSS looked things [blueoxen.org]. Still, I know one very good 13 year old perl guy. In the free software world, what you do and make is more important than where you live or who you a


    • I figure it's time to start taking donations so that the IT community can support Bill Gates in his upcoming financial decripitude. I mean, after all, he was the guy that exposed the world at large to the marvels of computing and I don't think he should be thrown on the trash heap of society when it's all over.

  • True, but ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by GNUALMAFUERTE ( 697061 ) <almafuerte@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Friday May 06, 2005 @07:00PM (#12458192)
    Linux is not the begining of anything. Linux is a kernel that works with the GNU OS. It's just one component. Actually the real history of GNU is far, far away from what this guy is telling. It started as a revolution, it didn't recieve economic support, and rms was unemployed.

    Please read this: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html [gnu.org]
    and specially this: http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ [oreilly.com]

  • eh (Score:2, Funny)

    by derxob ( 835539 )
    Well there goes my theory that Linus Torvalds is "Zero Cool" from Hackers and he is married to Angelina "Acid Burn" Jolie ::sad face::

  • Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by skazatmebaby ( 110364 ) on Friday May 06, 2005 @07:02PM (#12458220) Homepage
    I code the project that feeds me eight feet from my bed, both located in a very small studio in a communal warehouse type deal. I don't have customers that come in and chat with me regularly, because my space isn't really set up like that - there's dirty clothes and all my messy art's done in here as well;

    I thank my lucky stars that this sort of setup works, as the work environment is optimal for me - no set hours, no boss, right in downtown. Just have to live simply.

    I love it.

  • What a joke of an article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xintegerx ( 557455 ) on Friday May 06, 2005 @07:03PM (#12458232) Homepage
    Once again, an article just for the sake of filling up space.

    He suggests this hasn't been the case for many years and goes on to claim that of the top 25 core developers, more than 90% of them are fully employed with some of the largest technology companies in the world.

    Yes, it makes the article more interesting to read. But it doesn't prove nor should be used to draw any conclusions. In other news, 90% of the top 25 swimmers, are very good and experienced swimmers. Swimming is not a hobby.

    Number one, those people are already employed full-time, so they ARE doing a hobby.

    Number two, if the top 25 people who contribute are doing a hobby part-time, and they're the top 25 people, then what does that say for the rest of the contributors to Linux? There are probably thousands of them.

    This seems to actually DEFINE that Linux is coded by hobbyists. I don't know where they think this proves otherwise (that it's a MYTH.)
    • Number two, if the top 25 people who contribute are doing a hobby part-time, and they're the top 25 people, then what does that say for the rest of the contributors to Linux? There are probably thousands of them.

      Oh dear, it sounds as if you've managed to completely misunderstand the few basic points the man made, somehow thinking that he says the exact opposite of what he's actually saying...

      Let's get this right, shall we? 90% of the top linux kernel coders are paid for that work by major corporations. W
      • Let's get this right, shall we? 90% of the top linux kernel coders are paid for that work by major corporations. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

        No, that's not what it says.

        "Looking at the top 25 contributors to the Linux kernel today, you'll discover that more than 90% of them are on the corporate payroll full-time for companies such as HP, IBM, Intel, Novell, Oracle, Red Hat and Veritas, among many others."

        Nothing about "paid for that work on Linux". Professional developers/testers/admin/whatever, y

        • Nothing about "paid for that work on Linux". Professional developers/testers/admin/whatever, yes. But not necessarily paid kernel/OSS developers.

          Yes, the author failed to fully make his own point. But the fact is that most of the top Linux kernel contributors are paid to work on Linux full-time.

    • Number one, those people are already employed full-time, so they ARE doing a hobby.

      I think you're completely missing the point of the article. He's blowing apart the 'Linux is just a toy OS written by hobby programmers who a real OS company would never let near their code' FUD that Microsoft et al like to use against Linux. The point is that while Linux developers may be hobbyists in the sense that they're doing this for fun, they're not the incompetents that anti-Linux FUD would make them out to be.

  • Only without the unreasonable demands by product management or the impossible to fille promises of salespeople.

    Though the terribly underfunded budget is still there...
    • What on earth makes you think IBM, SGI, et al. don't make unreasonable demands of the Linux kernel folks they hire? They still want to sell machines, and they'll still claim that those machines can walk on water and travel through time to make a buck...
      • What on earth makes you think IBM, SGI, et al. don't make unreasonable demands of the Linux kernel folks they hire? They still want to sell machines, and they'll still claim that those machines can walk on water and travel through time to make a buck..

        They probably do, but the Linux kernel folks can push back with a valid excuse: any features that require horrible twisted hackery won't get accepted into the mainline code branches. Since the companies want to benefit from the ongoing development being d

  • Mixed Message (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Salamander ( 33735 ) <jeff AT pl DOT atyp DOT us> on Friday May 06, 2005 @07:09PM (#12458276) Homepage Journal

    The article winds up by saying that Linux is in professional hands. Perhaps that's so, at least for the kernel(certainly less so than other OSS projects), but there is a flip side. To the exact same extent that the ranks of Linux hackers become more professional, they also become less able to claim altruism or objectivity. Somebody whose livelihood is tied up in promoting something simply cannot avoid self-interested bias when it comes to decisions about it or comparison to alternatives. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's reality. Anybody who wants to tout the "professionalization" of Linux had better be prepared to tone down some of the moralistic lecturing as well. They're becoming a business competing with other businesses, and that doesn't grant much moral high ground.

  • In other news... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Friday May 06, 2005 @07:11PM (#12458290) Homepage
    of the top 25 core developers, more than 90% of them are fully employed

    ...people that are fully employed usually have more time than those that do it in their spare time.

    If the linux team consisted of 25 full-time employees and 10000 volunteers, I'd expect the full-time employees to take the top 25. Doh.

    I'm not quite sure what the story here is. Is it that there are any at all, or is it suggesting that most of the linux developers are like that?

    Besides, on the whole "how is it organized part", the GPL is a software license, not a development license. If you want to run your code tree like a cathedral, you can. It's simply a matter of what is most efficient, just like for businesses.

    Still, I don't see the real news here. Full-time employees do more than volunteers? Huge projects need a review process and managers, both OSS and not? The important part is still what sets them apart, not the similarities. In my opinion, at least.

    Kjella
    • Wow, I didn't know Linus was now paying people to code!

      Fully Employed. As in, ELSEWHERE. Duh.
    • "Still, I don't see the real news here. Full-time employees do more than volunteers?"

      Nope. The real news is that one of the bfd's about using Linux (or OSS in general) is that it isn't made by a big evil corporation. The revelation that a lot of what you like about Linux was made by a big corporation (those are typically evil) is shocking.

      I dunno if I'd call it 'news' so much as a story intended to stir up a few jokers. On a side note: People shouldn't take the word 'news' in the tagline too seriousl

  • Linux in professional hands? (Score:5, Funny)

    by mr_majestyk ( 671595 ) on Friday May 06, 2005 @07:11PM (#12458293)
    Make no mistake, Linux is in professional hands

    yeah, like these guys [devnulled.com].
  • having a job, and having one dealing with software.. I dont quite fit the bill of the linux devs.
    However I have contributed to F/OSS projects.

    And of course when I tell people that are not in any way involved with software ive been percieved as a hacker.
    'oh your a hacker arent you?'
    mind you, thats from the layman.

    but its happened to me. its that 'you must be an evil person' stereotype that bothers me, personally.

  • What is being exposed? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by misleb ( 129952 ) on Friday May 06, 2005 @07:19PM (#12458355)
    Perhaps I wasn't captivated by the same myth as this guy, but I don't really see what is so sensational about Linux contributers being otherwise employed. If the coding is done while not being paid for it, it is a hobby. Doesn't matter if you also happen to code for money. Can't an electrician go home and tinker with electrical things as a hobby? Now, what might be interesting is if it turned out that the top 25 Linux contributers were actually being paid by an employer to contribute to Linux. Other than that, who cares?

    -matthew

  • Don't tell the PHBs!

    We all know this is what's really going on, that essentially we're getting corporations to pay our salaries while we work together for the common benefit of all. We also know that doing this is in the corporation itself's best interest if the corporation can use the resulting software, which is why we don't have any guilt about it.

    But the PHB types really don't get it. As long as we keep them thinking that a large chunk of the software they're running is being given to them for free

  • So Linux is not bizarre after all (Score:4, Interesting)

    by khaladan ( 445 ) on Friday May 06, 2005 @07:24PM (#12458398)
    This goes to show how the metaphors in ESR's The Cathedral and the Bazaar often are not useful in describing software. I know of no software project that can be described as having a 'Bazaar' model, except for projects that consist largely of disconnected components such as CPAN or collections of drivers for OSs (including Linux), but I think these are special cases.

    A more apt description is 'Open Cathedral', in my opinion.

    Wikipedia is also like a 'Bazaar', but that also falls under the concept of many parts that are not precisely interconnected.

  • Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LordNimon ( 85072 ) on Friday May 06, 2005 @07:27PM (#12458416)
    Sure, it represents a new way to create software, but the actual process looks a lot like how enterprise software has been made for decades.

    Not from where I'm sitting.

    I've done enterprise software development. Managing the releases is something that the Linux kernel developers don't know how to do. In real software companies, there is a quality assurance (QA) team whose purpose is to make sure that the releases pass standardized tests. I don't think the kernel developers know what that mean.

    Want an example? Download the 2.6.0 kernel, untar it, and do the following:

    make mrproper && make defconfig && make

    This is supposed to build a kernel with the default options. Sounds relatively simple, right? Well, it's not, because about 10 seconds after you press ENTER, compilation halts with an error:

    CC init/main.o
    In file included from include/linux/sched.h:23,
    from include/linux/module.h:10,
    from init/main.c:15:
    include/linux/smp.h:33: error: conflicting types for `smp_send_reschedule'
    include/asm/smp.h:41: error: previous declaration of `smp_send_reschedule'
    make[1]: *** [init/main.o] Error 1
    make: *** [init] Error 2

    That's right - you can't even build it! From an enterprise standpoint, this isn't just embarrassing, it's pathetic. It shows that there is virtually no real quality control in the kernel releases. How in the world could the kernel developers release a version of Linux without even checking to see if it compiles normally?

    Maybe you're thinking it's just a one-time fluke? Well, you'd be wrong. Because the 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 kernels have the same bug!

    • How strange. I've compiled 2.6 kernels without a problem. Perhaps you have some mutually exclusive features turned on. SMP in particular does have some problems with some other functionality.
    • Works here. Output from where you started:
      CC init/main.o
      CHK include/linux/compile.h
      UPD include/linux/compile.h
      CC init/version.o
      CC init/do_mounts.o
      LD init/mounts.o
      CC init/initramfs.o
      LD init/built-in.o
      HOSTCC usr/gen_init_cpio
      CPIO usr/initramfs_data.cpio
      GZIP usr/initramfs_data.cpio.gz
      AS usr/initramfs_data.o
      LD usr/built-in.o

      That's the kernel.org 2.6.0 kernel, as is.
    • You think that is something? I just recently had Fedora Core 3 do an update and my Eth0 NIC connection kept going inactive. I would activate it, only to have it go inactive in 15 to 30 seconds.

      Fedora Forum traced it to Notwork Mangler, aka Network Manager and I had to remove it.

      How is the typical Linux user supposed to manage when the standard install programs cause problems like that? I think Fedora is the beta test for Red Hat Enterprise Server. I feel like a crash test dummy for running Fedora with con

      • How is the typical Linux user supposed to manage when the standard install programs cause problems like that?

        What's a "typical" Linux user? I think, at present, the typical Linux user is fairly technical and probable able to deal with such issues as well as you did.

        If what you wanted to ask is "how is a non-technical Linux user supposed to manage", then the answer is that the non-technical Linux user should probably stay away from Fedora which, as you noted, is a beta test distribution whose users a

    • It's a kernel. There is no such thing as "default options." All you've really shown is your naivete; no one with any experience in UNIX at all expects software as low-level as the Linux kernel, which runs on as many platforms as it runs on, to do anything reasonable with "default options."

      Jeremy
    • Sounds like you were using an unsupported version of gcc.

    • Because the one example you give doesn't work. Maybe the Linux kernel team isn't the only one that needs better QA?

      % cd /usr/src
      % wget <a href="http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ linux-2.6.0.tar.bz2">http://www.kernel.org/pub/lin ux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.0.tar.bz2</a>
      % tar jxf linux-2.6.0.tar.bz2
      % cd linux-2.6.0
      % make mrproper && make defconfig && make
      RM $(CLEAN_FILES)
      Making mrproper in the srctree
      RM $(MRPROPER_DIRS) + $(MRPROPER_FILES)
      HOSTCC scripts/fixdep

    • You're looking at the wrong part of the system. You're criticising the product based on internal development snapshots, and criticising the release process due to confusing product releases with kernel-developer releases, which are roughly equivalent to the code that would be sent between groups within an enterprise product development team. That's an easy mistake due the public nature of the engineering process.

      The vanilla 2.6.0 kernel (vanilla meaning the one from kernel.org) is not intended to mean t

  • Who says they don't live in basements? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Friday May 06, 2005 @07:37PM (#12458475) Homepage Journal
    ...on the myth of renegade hackers coding in their parent's basements to create the Linux OS. He suggests this hasn't been the case for many years and goes on to claim that of the top 25 core developers, more than 90% of them are fully employed with some of the largest technology companies in the world.

    Just because they're fully employed by some of the largest tech companies doesn't mean they don't live in their parent's basements and telecommute.

    Set A can always include Set B.

    It's like saying that since the wealthiest people in the world are tech geeks, and wealthy people get hot babes, that tech geeks have hot babes.

    Perhaps most tech geeks - even those who are wealthy - don't have hot babes (or hunks, whatever) - but most wealthy people (of which tech geeks are a very wealthy subset) do have hot babes/hunks?

    Therefore, it's totally possible for them to live in very fancy basements in their parents homes and still be fully employed by big tech firms.

    And maybe a few actually own their own homes, but who knows, because the statistics are flawed by virtue of the premise as stated.

    Think of it as a Venn diagram in action. Just because top models hang with some economists doesn't make economists party animals and opposite-gender magnets.

  • "He suggests this hasn't been the case for many years and goes on to claim that of the top 25 core developers, more than 90% of them are fully employed with some of the largest technology companies in the world"

    Given that, we all know they still live in their parents basement.
  • Better a renegade programmer than a redneck [dba-oracle.com] DBA [dba-oracle.com]. Or something.
  • the top 25 core developers, more than 90% of them are fully employed

    Let's hope so. I mean we're not talking about the 1 milionth, pre-alpha IRC client sitting around dormant on sourceforge.

  • SCO Created It (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Everybody knows that The SCO Group [sco.com] created Linux [kernel.org]

    Oh, wait...
  • I certainly found the read short but it was not that interesting. The goddamn server is /.ed!

  • It isn't true that we ALL live in our parents basements...

    ...Some of us live in our parents attics.

  • OK... answer these: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fitten ( 521191 ) on Friday May 06, 2005 @08:46PM (#12458917)
    How many of those who work for large companies as a "day job" are actually hired to work on the Linux kernel as their "day job"?

    How many of them don't work for IBM or some other company that have a huge vested interest in the Linux kernel (SuSE/Novell, RedHat, etc)

    How many of these people work on non-OSS for a day job and basically are subsidising OSS through non-OSS work?

    If any work for non-OSS companies, how many of those companies know that this is going on?

    If any work for non-OSS companies, how many can actually be working in a conflict of interest situation?

    My theory has always been that few people actually work and make a living doing OSS. Most work for non-OSS/commercial/proprietary companies and are basically subsidized by these companies. Also, if these people aren't already independently wealthy, they wouldn't be able to feed themselves or their families by their work in OSS.
  • They are not really fully engaged to the project. Which myth is worse....?
  • Next thing you will be telling me is that they also have girlfriends.

  • Sure, it represents a new way to create software, but the actual process looks a lot like how enterprise software has been made for decades.

    Except that enterprises don't put out a call to say, "Hey! Anyone interested in hacking a device driver for X? We can't pay you, but your name will be up there in lights!" Enterprise coders are commodities. They are not expected to be evangelists, and are not expected to be excited about the work. That's left up to senior management.

    Linux creator Torvalds has

  • take a look at all the core dev's on major OSS projects and their all are employeed full time to do it. typically by larger companies who have a clue about what oss is, and not 2 bit sweat shops that are greedy, ignorant and totally blind to anything but penny pinching tactics
  • From the article:
    At virtually every stage of development, the code is available for review by those who have an interest. It's like a global faculty peer review that follows the traditional tenets of the scientific method.

    Well, it's computer science. It was only a matter of time until somebody realized that this was the best way.

    As much as Slasdotters love to make fun of him, this is all thanks to the awkward charisma of Richard M. Stallman.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close