Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Microsoft Open Source Linux

Microsoft Developer Made the Most Changes To Linux 3.0 Code 348

sfcrazy sends this quote from the H: "The 343 changes made by Microsoft developer K. Y. Srinivasan put him at the top of a list, created by, of developers who made the most changes in the current development cycle for Linux 3.0. Along with a number of other 'change sets,' Microsoft provided a total of 361 changes, putting it in seventh place on the list of companies and groups that contributed code to the Linux kernel. By comparison, independent developers provided 1,085 change sets to Linux 3.0, while Red Hat provided 1,000 and Intel 839."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Developer Made the Most Changes To Linux 3.0 Code

Comments Filter:
  • changes != LoC (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jamesh ( 87723 ) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @08:36PM (#36789758)

    In's evaluation of the number of lines of code changed, Srinivasan and Microsoft are therefore nearer the bottom of the list. found that Microsoft developers changed 11,564 lines of code (1.3 per cent) – compared to Intel's 163,232 (18.1 per cent).

    Little changes are good, but simple count of changes isn't necessarily a good measure of work done. Lines of Code, while itself not a perfect measure, is better than simply Number of Commits.

  • Re:changes != LoC (Score:4, Insightful)

    by scromp ( 148280 ) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @08:54PM (#36789834)

    Describing LoC as a "not perfect" metric is an astonishing understatement.

  • by Sc4Freak ( 1479423 ) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @08:57PM (#36789846)

    So? A contribution is a contribution, even if it is for selfish reasons.

  • by whiteboy86 ( 1930018 ) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @09:05PM (#36789886)
    HTC, Samsung, LG and probably some others pay Linux royalties to Microsoft for their Android based phones. Actually MS makes more money from Android (Linux) then what they generate from Windows Phone 7 now. It would make sense to embed the whole Microsoft patent portfolio there to cement their rule over Linux.
  • by Stormwatch ( 703920 ) <<moc.liamtoh> <ta> <oarigogirdor>> on Saturday July 16, 2011 @09:10PM (#36789910) Homepage

    It's still amusing to see Microsoft touching Linux at all while their monkey of a CEO slanders it and throws veiled threats at its userbase.

  • by NoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 ) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @09:18PM (#36789964)

    I wish people would get over this myth that idioms can't change and there's no such thing as colloquialisms.

    Irregardless, "could care less" is incorrect because it's logically flawed.

  • Re:Community Myth (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @09:29PM (#36790032) Homepage

    Contributions to Linux take many forms. Code-centric people only view contributions to the Linux kernel as contributions to Linux. Far more aware people, take contributions to Linux being amongst the following,
    contributions to GNU (something you obviously need to look up),
    contributions to Linux compatible hardware drivers,
    contributions to Linux documentation,
    contributions to Linux based graphical users interfaces,

    contributions to Linux compatible applications,
    contributions to graphics design including icons, appearance, fonts, screens savers, layouts,
    contributions to marketing and promotion,
    contributions to Linux protecting patents,
    contributions to service and support,
    contributions to the Linuc user community,
    and of course contributions to Linux based distribution without which Linux would not exist as an operating system rather than just a kernel.

    Seriously only a real asshat would take all those contributions and treat them as nothing either that or a microtroll. It amazes me that after all these years how people still fail to understand how a community developed product like Linux comes into being, how all contributions small and large are highly regarded (the value being in the sharing) and how contributions of individuals are valued (even those employed by M$, M$ did you create code, those people employed by M$ did).

    From your selfish self centred viewpoint, it appears that I must apologise for using Linux whilst not being a good enough coder to contribute to the kernel. So "I am sorry", my coding sucks and my others contributions to Linux are not good enough to appease you. Of course to the rest of the Linux community I say thank you for all the contributions made no matter how great or small.

  • Re:Yay (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BitZtream ( 692029 ) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @09:32PM (#36790052)

    So you're saying the people who review kernel patches are so shitty they couldn't spot any of the things you're referring too?

    You do realize you're insulting your own team more than the other team right, you're just too stupid to realize ... oh ... never mind.

  • Re:Community Myth (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 16, 2011 @09:40PM (#36790098)

    This just makes me think of how, if you call someone out for being incredibly stupid, they just go "LOLOLOL I TROLLED YOU GOOD" in order to save face.

    Where was that one picture....

  • Re:A Purge Needed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @10:08PM (#36790208)

    The code from ANYONE at Microsoft is venom ... and must be dead ... and must be deleated.

    Neither Microsoft nor Apple can be trusted! They are both EVIL. KILL their CODE! ... Let their
    bodies BURN.

    A real good day will be when the bodies of Microsoft and Apple employees are burning in the streets.

    -- //

    Just a suggestion... cut back on the caffeine.

  • Re:Community Myth (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fnj ( 64210 ) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @10:08PM (#36790210)

    No, it's called illiteracy.

  • by wrook ( 134116 ) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @10:21PM (#36790258) Homepage

    Even more importantly, contributing for selfish reasons creates a win-win situation. Contributing in a way that is detrimental to you, is detrimental for the community. It is important for people and organisations to realise that we want them to succeed in their enterprises.

    I think a lot of people misunderstand the driving forces behind free and open source software. They see it as some kind of charity where the group "donating" code is losing out. Instead, groups should understand how they are going to benefit from contributing to a free software project before they do so. Benefit can come in the form of money, it can come in the form of eyeballs (attracting attention to an under serviced area), or it can simply come from the pleasure of contributing. These are all benefits.

    Free and open source software allows more than one group to benefit from contributing to a project. You can't control how much benefit another group can get from a project, but the more you do to tie your success to the success of the project, the more you benefit you get from other people's contributions. Ideally, we want companies like MS to make money from the success of free software. The more they do so, the more they will understand the opportunities they are missing. The more they rely on our success, the more everyone benefits.

  • by staalmannen ( 1705340 ) on Sunday July 17, 2011 @12:43AM (#36790798)
    The whole point (which Linus often stresses) is that open source is all about "scratching your own itch". This means that all contributions are self-serving. I am actually quite surprised that Apple has not tried to push patches to Linux for kernel GCD support yet. That would also have been a self-serving improvement since they want to push the standards of C in that direction.
  • Re:Community Myth (Score:4, Insightful)

    by X0563511 ( 793323 ) on Sunday July 17, 2011 @02:23AM (#36791112) Homepage Journal

    Saying one thing and meaning it's exact opposite is not an evolution of an "idiom" - it's just idiocy.

    Unless you're telling me that in 300 years "4" might actually mean "27" or something along those lines?

  • Interoperability for MS is a short term goal..

    When IE was new and competing with netscape, they worked to make it interoperable with netscape...
    Once netscape was gone, that flew out of the window and they tried to maintain lock-in.
    Now that firefox and chrome have become popular, ie is now trying to interoperate again.

    The same can be said of msoffice, when they faced serious competition they supported opening wordperfect files and had a relatively open rtf spec, once the competition was overcome they turn the screws of lockin again.

    I predict the same will happen with hyper-v if they get the chance... If vmware, xen and kvm fall by the wayside then it wont be long before hyper-v only runs windows, the linux support will stagnate and new versions of hyper-v will come out which aren't compatible with it.

  • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Sunday July 17, 2011 @07:21AM (#36791864) Journal

    Why would Apple want to do that? Libdispatch runs on *BSD, Linux and Solaris, but on Linux and Solaris uses libkqueue to provide an emulation of the kqueue APIs and it only uses the kernel scheduling on Darwin and FreeBSD. If you write code using libdispatch, it works everywhere except Windows, but people using Linux get an inferior experience to people using FreeBSD or Darwin. That sounds pretty much idea from Apple's perspective.

    Oh, and someone did implement kqueue on Linux a couple of years ago. It was rejected because the mess of timerfd, signalfd, and epoll() was considered better by the NIH mentality of the Linux kernel team. As someone who has used both, I'm always glad when I don't have to make my code work on Linux.

Logic is a pretty flower that smells bad.