75% of Linux code now written by paid developers

Angus Kidman20 January 2010, 1:07 PM

Forget lofty ideals about the open-source community: most Linux kernel code is written by paid developers at major corporations.


The Linux world makes much of its community roots, but when it comes to developing the kernel of the operating system, it's less a case of "volunteers ahoy!" and more a case of "where's my pay?"

During a presentation at Linux.conf.au 2010 in Wellington, LWN.net founder and kernel contributor Jonathan Corbet offered an analysis of the code contributed to the Linux kernel between December 24 2008 and January 10 2010. (The kernel serves as a basis from which individual distributions such as Ubuntu, Debian or Red Hat are developed, though these will often add or remove specific features.)

A massive amount of coding went on in that period: 2.8 million lines of code and 55,000 major changes were contributed to the kernel, which evolved from version 2.6.28 to 2.6.32 over that time. "The development process is clearly quite alive and quite active," Corbet said, noting that this amount to more than 7,000 lines of code added every day.

The most striking aspect of the analysis, however, was where those lines of code originated from. 18% of contributions to the kernel were made without a specific corporate affiliation, suggesting true volunteer efforts. An additional 7% weren't classified. The remainder were from people working for specific companies in roles where developing that code was a major requirement. "75% of the code comes from people paid to do it," Corbet said.

Within that field, Red Hat topped that chart with 12%, followed by Inte with 8%, IBM and Novell with 6% each, and Oracle 3%. Despite the clear commercial rivalry between those players, central kernel development worked well, Corbet noted.

Those figures also don't include companies like Google which rely on Linux-based systems for their own technology, but tend not to contribute code back to the kernel. Google has said that it wants to become more involved in working with the core kernel team, moving away from its traditionally secretive approach about its own systems. "This is a process a lot of companies seem to need to go through," Corbet said.

In earlier incarnations getting support for specific devices built into the kernel has been a major challenge for Linux, but Corbet said that the process was now much more streamlined. "Hardware support is nearly universal, we support more hardware than just about any other system Graphics by the end of this year is really not going to be a big problem."

While some devices such as network adaptors still needed reverse engineering to work under Linux because vendors would not share information about their architecture, Corbet suggested those examples were rare and that alternative equipment was usually available. "The best thing to do is avoid those vendors. We really don't need them anymore."


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

plutonium210 (Advanced member):

"The best thing to do is avoid those vendors...."

LOL!
"Yeah, use the ones that are paid by us."
'Free' is starting to mean something different as defined by the oxford dictionary.

20 January 2010, 1:59 PM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting plutonium210:
The best thing to do is avoid those vendors...." LOL!

Actually the best thing to do is to avoid proprietory systems wherever possible.

The difference for those slow on the uptake is that much of the paid developer code still ends up available for usage under an open source license. It's a much better model than that offered by MS or Fruit Computers Inc. When a corporate need arises for particular code paid work can be integrated into a public model.
Open Source with a mix of funded development is the ideal situation everyone benefit, developers get paid, and the community at large both corporate and private is not manipulated and squeezed at the whim of any monopoly controls.


Quoting plutonium210:
'Free' is starting to mean something different as defined by the oxford dictionary.

Ok I'm game for a giggle, what's your interpretation of free?




20 January 2010, 3:33 PM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Your Average Joe (Regular user):

Quoting plutonium210:
"Yeah, use the ones that are paid by us."

I can see it now. Proprietry hardware for Ubuntu coming soon :)



20 January 2010, 3:40 PM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

plutonium210 (Advanced member):

Quoting Your Average Joe:
Proprietry hardware for Ubuntu coming soon

....... Chock full of ads sponsored by the 'contributing' developers.




20 January 2010, 4:46 PM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Phred (Cornerstone member):

Quoting plutonium210:
Chock full of ads sponsored by the 'contributing' developers.

In the 2 years I've been using Ubuntu, I've not seen one single bit of sponsored bloatware compared to to the Gigabytes of sponsored trash that Microsoft allows to be rolled into their monolith of an OS.


20 January 2010, 5:22 PM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tim01 (New user):

Surely they won't be charging for distro's now will they?

20 January 2010, 4:44 PM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

petert (Senior member):

I don't understand why most people are so adamantly against paying for Linux distro's. I used to use Linux a lot, and I always purchased a full retail pack as a way of assisting the developers. I'd never agree to paying MS-like rip-off prices for a Linux OS, but paying a small amount is an unselfish way of ensuring the survival of Linux distributors.

I am not suggesting that it should be mandatory to pay for Linux distro's; only that it each person should think about occasionally for a distro or at least giving a donation!

20 January 2010, 4:54 PM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting petert:
I don't understand why most people are so adamantly against paying for Linux distro's.

Spot on Peter. It's the beauty of open source, a model which offer the maximum of flexibility. The best and brightest can access development tools, corporates can fund whole applications or add-on to get product that meets their needs, and start-up can actually start-up without a huge cash flow penalty.

Contributions do ensure continued development, the beauty of the current situation is it offer some equity of circumstance for all participants.

People can and do donate for distributions and packages, the more that happens the quicker development occurs.


20 January 2010, 5:13 PM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Me In Oz (Cornerstone member):

Quoting petert:
don't understand why most people are so adamantly against paying for Linux distro's

It seems world domination is going to cost money ;)

In all seriousness, I suspect the Linux fraternity would not endorse such moves because as soon as you charge someone, you must provide support. And paying customers are less tolerant of products with defficiencies (and Linux has plenty).

And there are plenty out there who still subscribe to the "It's free, so its has to be good" mantra. It may not be so 'good' if you have to pay for it ............... Right?





20 January 2010, 5:19 PM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting Me In Oz:
because as soon as you charge someone, you must provide support.

Rubbish! It depends entirely upon what you charge for.


Quoting Me In Oz:
And paying customers are less tolerant of products with deficiencies

1000's of Windows fanboys, indeed your prime customer base will prove you wrong. MS Windows has proven that you can sell half baked software and offer the fixes in the form of an expensive upgrade.


Quoting Me In Oz:
and Linux has plenty

Pot, Kettle, Black, whose browser is making things easy for for legions of Chinese hackers?


Quoting Me In Oz:
And there are plenty out there who still subscribe to the "It's free, so its has to be good" mantra.

Plenty out there that subscribe to "I payed a lot for this, so I'd better justify it" too.


Quoting Me In Oz:
It may not be so 'good' if you have to pay for it

At least that makes sense, but participation of paid developers does not necessarily threaten availability of open source variants of each package.




20 January 2010, 5:28 PM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Me In Oz (Cornerstone member):

Quoting Raindog:
It depends entirely upon what you charge for

People demand a refund/repair/exchange warranty for the cheapest trinket from a discount store.

Quoting Raindog:
MS Windows has proven that you can sell half baked software and offer the fixes in the form of an expensive upgrade.

Our 'gaming' customer base have no other choice.

Quoting Raindog:
whose browser is making things easy for for legions of Chinese hackers?

Through sheer desktop dominance not because FF or Chrome is any better.

Quoting Raindog:
but participation of paid developers does not necessarily threaten availability of open source

Nor is it a guarantee against paid distros in future.




20 January 2010, 5:44 PM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting Me In Oz:
Nor is it a guarantee against paid distros in future.

No read this slowly and you might catch on. Number One, paid distros are here now and have been here for some time. Number Two, those paid distros work cooperatively with open source variants. Number three the licensing says that what's put in the public domain remains in the public domain, a developer cannot make some additions around the edges and at a future date charge for open source code.


Quoting Me In Oz:
not because FF or Chrome is any better.

They don't seem to be suffering the same same blight IE suffers. Does that give you a clue to which is better?




20 January 2010, 5:52 PM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Phred (Cornerstone member):

Quoting petert:
paying a small amount is an unselfish way of ensuring the survival of Linux distributors.

Totally agree, I remember paying about $20-30 for a copy of Mandrake about 10 years ago, but alas couldn't get the damn thing installed due to a heap of unsupported hardware.

Saying that, Linux has definitely matured as a product and with more community interest it's progressing faster than Microsoft is at present.

20 January 2010, 5:26 PM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting Tim01:
Surely they won't be charging for distro's now will they?

Some distro are charged for, most will continue with a free unsupported option for the capable user, and fully supported paid option for the corporates.

Take the time to read some of the Linux licensing it will help put your mind at ease.

Don't worry about the peanut gallery, they will go one paying for proprietary products and software without playing any useful part in the entire cycle.


20 January 2010, 5:20 PM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

I think by "network adapters" they meant wireless network adapters.

As for hardware support, he's right... Linux seems to just run now on almost anything, while finding drivers for Windows can be a pain in the rear end (especially 64 bit PCI dialup modem drivers).

20 January 2010, 8:06 PM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Aubrey (Cornerstone member):

I don't understand why this article is presented as revelation. RedHat, Intel, IBm etc have dominated kernel coding for years now. Anyone who thinks Linux is built and developed by nerd hobbyists in their garages is at least 15 years out of date. Kernel coders - who are only one of the types involved in the FOSS community - are quite sought after and paid well by major companies to contribute. It has absolutely nothing to do with Linux itself becoming commercialised or moving away from its Free foundations.

These companies - particularly Intel, IBM, Nokia etc - put a lot of effort and money into Linux as part of their long-term business strategy to become less dependent on MS. And it is working.

And I agree, if people use and appreciate Linux they should find some way to contribute back to the community - whether that is financial, coding, bug reporting, helping users online or writing documentation. I personally wear a Linux T-shirt and say cleverly rude things about proprietary software at every opportunity. "You aren't still using IE are you?"

20 January 2010, 8:09 PM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

FreeBooteR (New user):

What makes up 75% of that code however? Who's interest does the contributing code serve? Corporations pay people to work for them to generate profits for their shareholders and not out of any magnanimous spirit. I don't think the free software community need feel that their contributions are of less quality or import, so they needn't bow down in abject worship.

21 January 2010, 6:01 AM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

FreeBooteR (New user):

What makes up 75% of that code however? Who's interest does the contributing code serve? Corporations pay people to work for them to generate profits for their shareholders and not out of any magnanimous spirit. I don't think the free software community need feel that their contributions are of less quality or import, so they needn't bow down in abject worship.

21 January 2010, 6:01 AM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply
21 January 2010, 6:02 AM (2 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Ramsey (New user):

This is an MSN Blog.

LOL

22 January 2010, 4:31 AM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Sheree (New user):

Isn't working collaboratively still more productive than butting heads and suing each other, whether you're paid or not? The headline is FUD -- 'Paid' and 'community' are not mutually exclusive.

22 January 2010, 5:00 AM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

djackson (New user):

This is not new, open-source has always paid! What is the difference it you donate time or money. The end result is sharing code!

22 January 2010, 6:01 AM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

DJ Belieny (New user):

Sorry, double post here !

22 January 2010, 6:50 AM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

DJ Belieny (New user):

ok, now this is ridiculous.
Most of the people complaining here about paid open source development do not know anything about OSS licensing and the Ubuntu Pledge and things of the sorts.

Depending on the license (most use some variant of GPL) the source cannot be closed ever once it has been released in the wild.

The Ubuntu pledge : "Ubuntu is and always will be free of charge. You do not pay any licensing fees. You can download, use and share Ubuntu with your friends, family, school or business for absolutely nothing."

If the code is being contributed back into the Open project then who cares who's paying for it ? What matters is the fact that the code was written and now is available to you and me so we can do whatever we want with it.

I am actually glad to hear that developers hard work is being acknowledged and retributed, it's great to see and hear of people getting paid for their work.

Don't you like to get paid for your work ?

It's a win/win situation for all involved.

Another point is the fact that when a company pays for code they make sure it works period.

BTW those who say linux are full of flaws are most likely not using it on a daily basis, I have used Ubuntu for a few years now and had used a bunch of other distros prior to that, even a PAID Red Hat version at one time and would not go back to any other OS available.


22 January 2010, 6:52 AM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

DJ Belieny (New user):

ahhhhh.. triple post...

22 January 2010, 6:52 AM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Kim Bruning (New user):

It's free as in speech, not as in beer. It's an annoying feature of the english language that the two meanings of free get confused. It's Software Libre, not Software Gratis.
0) Freedom to run the program for any purpose,
1) The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish; Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
2) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
3) The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others; By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

None of these freedoms have to do with price. In fact; it's quite possible to buy (and sell) free/libre/open source sofware for tens of thousands of dollars or more.


22 January 2010, 7:58 AM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Kim Bruning (New user):

(rm double post)

22 January 2010, 7:59 AM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Linux Whiz (New user):

You *completely* missed the point with your opening line "Forget lofty ideals about the open-source community..."

Companies like Red Hat embrace and fund the "lofty ideals" by paying developers to do what they love. Do the majority of Linux developers get paid to work on Linux? Sure. Do they code Open Source apps because they are mercenaries? Hardly. Every one of the F/OSS developers I know work with F/OSS technologies because they're passionate about F/OSS.

Too bad you don't get that.

24 January 2010, 4:13 AM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

tracyanne (New user):

quote::Forget lofty ideals about the open-source community: most Linux kernel code is written by paid developers at major corporations.

Yeah, so. That's the point. They [the developers] get paid, and major corporations, get to put the bits into the kernel that are most important to them, and the Linux Kernel gets better faster, and we the community benefit.

Did you just discover this?

26 January 2010, 10:59 PM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

tregeagle (New user):

"75% of Linux code now written by paid developers"
That head line is just stupid. Why shouldn't free software be written by people getting paid for it.

- The freedom referred to is not the price it is the users rights.
- The software is not trying to control the users or own their data.

Pull your head in Angus.


11 February 2010, 10:12 AM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Adrian Perez (New user):

Quite interesting. I'm not a kernel contributor, but I am a Debian/Ubuntu developer; entirely volunteer because of where I live. Seems quite interesting that companies are being interested in Linux in such a way; even in it's core. By the way, notice that Intel is misspelled in the text. It was clear from the beginning but you can fix this.

20 February 2010, 7:29 AM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags