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

as an ancient wise man once said ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... first post!

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.

Re:The suits haven't taken over

[tsa]

I would say that with Linux we have the best of both worlds. Some commercial programs are certainly worth buying for Linux, while for other applications a free program might be best. Linux is more and more all about freedom of choice.

What's the big deal

[Stevyn]

I RTFA and I don't see what the big deal is. Companies want to support Linux because they believe as a lot of people here do that it can revolutionize computing and they don't want to be left behind. They can't simply buy it so they influence it's contributors directly and indirectly. Bill Gates hasn't done much to innovate computing and he's the richest guy in America. Obviously that way of doing things wasn't best for everybody so we have a new system here. Let's see how this pans out.

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.

Re:What's the big deal

[davidsyes]

I don't care if "suits" that drive the influx of and pay for the installation of Linux F/LOSS into infrastructures as long as they fundamentally or nearly 100% respect GNU, GPL, F/LOSS, copyleft, etc.

It behooves them to encourage more people to "scratch an itch" by producing more Linux code.

Eventually, despite the mainstream corps' attempts to sew up or hijack virutally all conceivable "IP" by calling new or innovative spins "mere extensions" of their protected IP, the new adoptees will have to weigh in on Congress (and try to get some PROGress) to modify patent law. It behooves them because they will reduce the cost of doing business for themselves, and collectively, that could be a LOT of votes cast on dumping some fat-ass-cat/bought-off politician and casting doubt on their lobbyists.

Unfortunately, as companies save money by using F/LOSS, they'll probably need fewer engineers, and will be in a position to pay them less, since OSS community developers will probably crank out ever more amounts of code either for passion or for subconscious and over revenge motives to punish a government and tax system that is not keeping up with the fact that technological improvements displace workers, and displaced workers STILL have bills to pay, and bills being paid require MONEY, and money that cannot be LEGALLY obtained will result in theft or counterfieting of cash, or absolute walkaway or abandoment of debts.

Technology is going to UNDO America if lazy-assed corp tycoons and derelict politicians don't reassess the eventual demise or destructiveness of unfettered materialism.

Capitalism requires materialism and exchange of cash. Capitalism requires well-respected, cost-of-living/living-wage paid workers. Workers need cash and personal incentive to part with money, though for the time being, all too many of us too freely part with cash without know we are secure to do so.

The ONLY way to effect change from OUR level is to --en masse-- cancel cable, buy less gas, use the cells less or switch to MetroPCS and incentivize MPCS to spread to other markets, and if we eat more at home, and stop consuming what we don't need at our respective income levels, then ONLY those with disposable cash will consume excessively. Once they're incapable of supporting a run-amok tax-based system with far too many employees and pensions that are not being met adequately, the government and those among the rich who RUN the government/s WILL have to respond. They won't like it either way, but they'll HAVE to respond.

One way the government can start raking in cold, hard cash is to federalize the mortagage industry and skim its profits. There are BILLIONS of dollars there, and since the government already has the plat, lot and other info, all they need to do is hire or federalize certain experts who have competencies the government truly lacks and which the government cannot easily replicate.

Before massive computerization, it MADE sense for the counties and states to turn over the exchange of homes to mortgage pros. But, automobiles can be freely exchanged, and their registration and transfer and special taxation all are government-controlled. Yet, the individual is free to relatively cheaply (due to fewer hands and mouths in on the process) transfer or acquire a vehicle.

The government needs to start competing or acquiring mortgage officers and structures and keeping more of the money it's already forcing homeowners to pay. The new and fundamental difference is that the government --if it can avoid being corrupte yet again/more-- can keep more of this money in the various states, fix state health care, fix public service (police, teachers, firefighters, etc) pay and pension maladies, and reduce the cost of public transportation to the point it is less attractive to use cars except in the trickiest of commute road patterns.

David Syes

Quickly Becoming Public Enemy Number One by Power of the Pen or Keyboard

David Syes

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.

I wouldn't worry...

[Tore S B]

The GPL is automatic democracy. Anyone can work on it, it can't be closed, and improvements will be universally availible.

The only potential consequences I see is that developers get paid for working on OSS, and that OSS will be more widely adopted. I don't see the problem here.

Re:I wouldn't worry...

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost is feature direction. A lot of slashbots would like to see Linux more competitive with Windows on the desktop.

But the commercial interests that control key components (kernel, glibc, gnome, etc) don't give a shit about competing with Windows and only aim to outscale Solaris on big boxes and be slightly less paleolithic than CDE/Motif for engineering workstations. Which is reflected greatly in the final product. (Linux went from a toy to a Solaris-Killer in a few short years, but still lacks the tools for a cohesive desktop.)

Re:I wouldn't worry...

[Robert The Coward]

Yes but those guns like IBM are now moving to replacing there work desktops with linux. We see novell buying up desktop part. Server has for the most aren't going away and by many experts have been won now we can move on to the desktop. As it was put once. 2.4 was about scaling up. 2.6 was about scaling down. Big companys see linux in corp workstations and embeded devices. I have noticed in the last Year that desktop linux is make leap and bonds. Money is starting to flow into the development of desktops. Several company have come out with desktop based distro's and more seem to come out each day.

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"

This is a GoodThing(tm)

[yuri benjamin]

Like most of the other posts so far, I see the corporate sponsership as a Good Thing(tm). The GPL prevents a complete takeover, meanwhile companies get to fix things to make linux work with their products.

Developers have the option of working for one of the hardware manufacturers, so they can feed their families while working on something they feel passionate about, and everyone wins.

I think we owe a great debt to RMS for the GPL, which makes this possible without a complete takeover.

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:MSNBC and Linux

[reverius]

where do you think the MS in msnbc comes from? it's a partnership between NBC, and, you guessed it.. Microsoft. i wonder whether it's biased...

it would seem to be so, heavily, based on the choice quotes you used. i just wouldn't expect it to be "fair and balaced", to use a Newscorp trademark.

Re:MSNBC and Linux

[tod_miller]

Where do you think the suspiscion stems from in my comment? :-) of course I know MS is behind it, which is why I state there are subtle nudges at linux, that are far more hurtful.

If msnbc said linux is crap, then noone would take it seriously.

Nudging at linux and using this language is very harmful to the image of linux.

That is why I disected it quite heavily.

Re:MSNBC and Linux

[ClippyHater]

You should probably check the source of the article before getting too paranoid.

Of course MSNBC DID pick it up, but I would be surprised if they were the only ones.

Linux and the Future

[SimianOverlord]

I know I will be lambasted and moderated down for this, so I hope those of you who still browse at less than +1 will take the time to read and understand my fresh viewpoint. I'm not sure how much longer I will be able to continue being part of a community that I have found extremely closed to unique opinions. I could easily "karma w****" as it is known (I personally prefer the term "karma solicitation") in order to get my views more widely seen, but I feel that that would be adapting myself to fit into a community which frankly is not ready for me, emotionally.

Anyway, this is all far from the point. I'm not about to claim to you that I'm an individual with any real experience in the world of Linucks. I've had my share of jobs involving IT, but these were exclusively to do with the administration and usage of Windows systems.

This article, and the other just like it posted a week ago, made me think about where we are all headed with this "Open Source" phenomenon. After some thought I realised - if Open Source software comes to predominate over all other forms of software, then we are on the highway to hell - and we don't even have a paddle.

Let's, as an example, look at Joe FLOSSpack, sitting down at his computer in the year 2100 - the year of the Linux desktop. He painstakingly "logs on" to his "Linux Box" to look at his e-mail. OH WAIT! NO E-MAIL JOE! Our current open source, ubiquitous e-mail system has been hijacked again overnight by Russian Gangsters. EVEN A LINUCKS MONOCULTURE WAS A BAD IDEA. "Maybe I'll surf the net instead", thinks Joe next. "Oh no - I've just remembered. THERE IS NO INTERNET! When everyone gained the open source tools to do away with advertisements and pop ups MOST POPULAR WEBSITES WENT UNDER. Now all that's left is pickaninny sites that die if they get +200 visitors in one day. Someone had to pay for that infrastructure- if only I could have lived in the GOLDEN AGE of 2004."

True, this scenario as I've outlined it makes no sense. But compare what I say to what ESR regularly says. I think I've made my point.

Re:Linux and the Future

[resourcefulidiot]

True, this scenario as I've outlined it makes no sense

enough said.

As long as

[dpilot]

As long as the code stays open, and as long as there isn't skullduggery where netApp gets a change pushed into the kernel for the purpose of hindering one of their competitors.

Before and after corporate involvement, Linux was about the struggle for excellence. That aligns simply with corporations and others, since they want the best computing base they can get. As long as coporate contributions are pushing in that same direction, great.

I don't see any kernel maintainers knowingly including skullduggerous code.

Re:As long as

[atomic-penguin]

...where netApp gets a change pushed into the kernel for the purpose of hindering one of their competitors...

Not likely to happen, as Trond gets creative control and may reject anything he does not see fit.

Re:As long as

[dpilot]

I tried to say that, in the next paragraph. I'm not worried.

Linux did not save us, if not Linux then BSD

[AHumbleOpinion]

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.

Linux and the GPL did not save us, the "vaccuum" would have been filled by something. Most likely BSD. The computing world would have been pretty much as it is now. In short, Linux is great, but unique or irreplacable it is not.

Re:Linux did not save us, if not Linux then BSD

[tod_miller]

They reffered to free software, so did I, basically the concepts are important, not just in term of fiscal mechanics.

Where is the source.?

[Anonymous Coward]

An article at MSNBC? Questions the objectivity of one of the Lnux kernal contributers? Am I the only one who doubts the reporters ofjectivity? Or could this be just more FUD being sown into the comunity?