Have The Suits Changed Linux?

rcunnings points out this "interesting story about the assimilation of one prominent Linux hacker into the business of Linux. Sushi anyone?" Linus himself has always seemed a perfect pragmatist, and in this article he implies that corporations are benefiting everyone when they act as -- his term -- "sponsors."

Comments

The suits haven't taken over

[echeslack]

"Now the suits are cutting checks and running the show."

But that really isn't true. They may have some influence on the direction development takes, but anybody can still contribute, and there are plenty of kernel hackers not being paid to do specific things. And besides, isn't Linus paid, but pretty much can do anything he wants?

That's one of the great things about free software - people can pretty much do with it as they please without necessarily taking control of it. Sure, companies may pay for certain features to be added, removed, fixed, whatever, but somebody is always free to just keep their own tree without those patches.

I don't see the suits ever taking over linux.

I support Open Source and I repect Free Software

[Ridgelift]

I thought we were all for the idea of companies supporting Open Source by paying developers for their work? So what if it's a lot of golden handshakes, everything's being done out in the open with the source code available for all to see.

I support Open Source software because it embraces the economic realities of a capitalist society. I respect Free Software and Richard Stallman for the contributions that he's made, but I don't need the guilt trip that I use Linux, GNU & Windows.

Software development is all just a grand experiment. I want to see which method produces the best software. So far, there's no perfect way.

Linux changed?

[atomic-penguin]

Have the suits changed Linux, yes. Well, indirectly at least.

You have this company NetApp, they have an embedded online storage built on top of NFS. The problem it doesn't work well with Linux. Not because of a problem with their product but with the Linux kernel itself. So they go to Linus and offer to fix the NFS. He declines and pretty much tells them I only want Trond to work on it, because I trust him and not a company. So they go and hire Trond, pay him big bucks for him to approve the code to go into the kernel.

So the question was have suits changed Linux? Short answer, yes. Long answer, yes, but in a good way for the company, kernel hackers, and everyone in general. Company makes more from sales because of less money spent on supporting Linux. Kernel Hacker make more money, because Linus trusts him. Everybody else reaps the benefits of having better code, isn't that great?

Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, notice what happened: Linus said "I don't trust companies; I trust people." How can an OS be developed by volunteers in their spare time? Well, some of them are full-time volunteers who get sponsorship. But they're still basically working for the public good. The code is GPLed, so it can't die, and the judgement of what's good enough to be included is still trustworthy.

NetApp gets access to Trond, and Linux/NetApp problems will get debugged fast, but how is this a bad thing? All code in Linux is people scratching an itch. This is just NetApp's itch.

As Linus says, people trust him, but if he ever fails in that trust, he's completely replaceable. Someone else just needs to set up a credible alternative fork. The most he could do if he was posessed by an evil spirit is forbid someone the name "Linux"

MSNBC and Linux

[tod_miller]

"hippie-esque programmers who disdained revenue and profit, advocating a "peace, love and software" vision of Linux"

Wow, what a great tribute to those who worked hard to establish GPL and protect everyone from massive setbacks in technology and growing costs because of proprietary and dynfunctional software.

"And though some Linux zealots still consider themselves part of a quasi-religious movement,"

Zealot, quasi-religious? No really, how subtle are you trying to be? As a linux user even I felt mildly embarrassed at using linux now...

Very interesting:

"these days Linux is looking a lot like any other technology product, even those made by Microsoft"

So here they are saying, linux is nothing special, and now look just like the things Microsoft churns out. Talk about downplaying.

"the company Linux wonks hate most."

Wonk: One who studies an issue or a topic excessively.

But most people see 'wonk' as a crazy word, so therefore it is rather insulting.

"The rise of the middleman"

Try: A whole new powerful economy built around opensource that proves its viability in promoting growth in a market that lost 400k jobs in the US since 2001.

"Big companies pick up the tab for Linux development"

Big companies have seen the light of linux and invest heavily to ensure they do not die out.

Thank you MSNBC. I hope to see more of you articled /. in the future. not.

Re:What's the big deal

[JohnFluxx]

The "big deal" is simple a justified worry that companies may push linux to go in the direction they want.

For example, I remember a company submitting a load of 'bug reports' where a desktop didn't work like MS Windows, then produced a load of patches to fix it. (Stuff like renaming the trash can to use the same name as MS Windows)

I personally think it will work itself out, but I can see why some might worry.