Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Myth of Linux Hobby Coders Exposed

Posted by Zonk on 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."

252 comments

  1. how is OSS protected? specifically! by yagu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

    1. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by flood6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      SEO Firefox Extension
    3. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    4. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by LnxAddct · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    5. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by lheal · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    6. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe they live somewhere sensible where you usually do not write(or be able to enforce, even if you did) contracts that are just silly and make slaves of the workers("we own everything you ever did and ever will do and you shall not work for anyone else after us....." thats just silly and if enforceable would really make you a slave as you couldn't pursue your career on the field anymore...).

      what they do on their own time is their business.. ..but in case of hired folk doing linux on the company time I don't think that's much of a problem.

    7. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by Cecil · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Random and weird software I've written.
    8. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by cortana · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by nate+nice · · Score: 1

      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 what their company does, it's ok.

      --
      "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
    10. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by fitten · · Score: 1

      Some of us do consulting/contract work outside of what our "day jobs" are. I was doing this before I started working where I am and worked this into my contract. Outside of the office, unless I'm working at home on "day job" work, what I do is my own (or whoever is paying me to write it for them).

    11. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      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 working for the wrong company.

      Second, it's easy to write in exceptions to those contracts. The last one I signed even had a place for you to list previously existing projects that were yours, not the company's. I wrote in "Debian GNU/Linux", thereby ensuring that any work I did for Debian would be exempted (at least if it didn't violate other terms of the contract, like non-disclosure and non-compete, which is only fair). I made a point of pointing it out, and explained that I was making a huge, broad exemption here, and was told that that was just fine. (Of course, this was a company that was already bragging about how they employed some Apache developers, so I wasn't too worried.)

    12. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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's easy to write in exceptions to those contracts. The last one I signed even had a place for you to list previously existing projects that were yours, not the company's. I wrote in "Debian GNU/Linux",

      That's they way. Actually, in some states, companies can't claim things you develop on your own time that aren't related to your work. Any stipulation in a contract is invalid. California I believe works that way.

    13. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      News: there is no such company on the planet, AFAIK.

      --
      C|N>K
    14. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by grcumb · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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!

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    15. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by zootm · · Score: 1

      Would this raise issues with unpaid overtime? Putting aside, for the moment, the fact that unpaid overtime raises issues of its own.

    16. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are working out of work hours and not using the company's resources then the IP remains with the creator or whoever they have assigned the IP to.

    17. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by tchuladdiass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    18. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by tchuladdiass · · Score: 1

      Then have the clause specify for any projects that is part of a work assignment. This covers them even if you feel like hacking on a company project late at night.

    19. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by zootm · · Score: 1

      Yeah, figured it would be something like that. This is the sort of nonsense that lawyers love, though.

    20. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by Xtifr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    21. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    22. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      (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 I may have underemphasised just how badly you can hurt yourself through such actions.

      Heh! Note to 23 year olds in your first jobs: GPL'ing the company's IP will get you fuX0r3d.

    23. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by clymere · · Score: 1

      I just took a job for a security consulting firm, and their normal contract specifically excludes them from rights to any software i write on my own time
      There are defintly some enlightened people out there :)

      --
      once you go slack, you never go back
    24. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by Mynorrrr · · Score: 1

      It's in my contract. Any non=related work or research not part of my day to day work is exempt.

    25. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does your sweet job use computers to kill ragheads faster? If so, can you open source it?

    26. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by Tassach · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Or even more to the point, the terms of the OSS license force the work to be released publicly.

      For a company that relies on OSS software for it's core business, it may make financial sense to hire one of the core maintainers full-time, so that they are guaranteed to get the features and bug fixes THEY need.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    27. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by Tassach · · Score: 1
      That's my experience too. I've only had one potential employer refuse to modify an IP agreement so that I retain ownership of my private work. Needless to say, I declined that offer.

      In fact this issue makes a pretty good litmus test of whether you want to work for a company or not. If an employer tries to get you to sign your private life away, that should be a red flag which should make you dig deeper and question the company's motives. If they give you any resistance to changing the terms at all, RUN for the nearest exit.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    28. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by rosoft2001 · · Score: 1

      why "non compete clauses have no legal power"?

    29. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      I applied for a position at a certain Chicago-based arcade game/console game/pinball manufacturer (that should narrow it down, eh?) and they had the temerity to ask me to sign NDA's, sign over your life's work, etc forms before I even got an interview! Needless to say I made some changes to the documents before turning them in.. it probably hurt my chances, but I like to think it may help make them reconsider being such jerks.

    30. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by njyoder · · Score: 0

      Why the hell would a government agency, the Department of Defense especially, make you sign a non-compete agreement? Are they worried that you'll start "competing" by designing missle systems for Iran?

    31. Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      I think you misread what I wrote, I work for a defense contractor who has contracts with the Department of Defense. The two projects I work on are for the DoD, but the DoD does not pay my salary. The DoD has most of it's research and future systems privatized with special firms.
      Regards,
      Steve

  2. Isn't this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...common knowledge by now?!

    1. Re:Isn't this... by northcat · · Score: 1

      This article is not for slashdotters who already know this. This is just to counter FUD that OSS is created by inexperienced kids.

    2. Re:Isn't this... by PsychicX · · Score: 1

      Yeah...

      In fact, if I had to guess...I'd say somebody is suffering from some real insecurity problems. Poor, poor Stuart Cohen.

  3. There you go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... debunking the Didiot and Endrools of the world..

    What a shame.

  4. Romatic vision by MikeCapone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    --
    Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
    1. Re:Romatic vision by CypherXero · · Score: 2, Funny

      Romantic? I think you spend too much time reading slashdot.

    2. Re:Romatic vision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Think more along the lines of David vs. Goliath syndrome. Afterall, the myth of OSS is that we're rooting for the underdog. A bunch of skinny computer nerds sitting in a dusty basement hacking out code all night has a higher hero factor than a bunch of suits working at a high paying tech job and doing it as a hobby on the side.

    3. Re:Romatic vision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      As in the Romantic era, not as in love story. Painting the perfect picture by glossing over character flaws and other "real life stuff."

    4. Re:Romatic vision by MikeCapone · · Score: 1

      As in the Romantic era, not as in love story. Painting the perfect picture by glossing over character flaws and other "real life stuff."

      That's exactly what I meant. I guess I've been listening to too music music from the 1800s lately...

      --
      Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
    5. Re:Romatic vision by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

      Microsoft wastes about 1 billion $ in "windows research". Linux is quite romatic compared with that, even if all the main kernel hackers are employed

    6. Re:Romatic vision by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      > 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?

    7. Re:Romatic vision by Omniscientist · · Score: 1
      A bunch of skinny computer nerds sitting in a dusty basement hacking out code all night has a higher hero factor than a bunch of suits working at a high paying tech job and doing it as a hobby on the side.

      Yes, however the corporate programmers you are speaking of are probably just a bunch of skinny computer nerds wearing suits sitting in dusty cubicles.

  5. Selected Instances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Selected Instances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
      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.
    2. Re:Selected Instances by imsabbel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:Selected Instances by prodangle · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    4. Re:Selected Instances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed... would've made a lot more sense to look at the percentiles of activity, and show how many programmers it takes to reach that point. E.g*:

      - 10% of the code contributed comes from 30 ppl, 20% from 100 ppl;
      - 200 ppl contribute regularly** to LKML.

      * examples totally made up
      ** where regularly == more than weekly or whatever

  6. Slashdot Nerds by TheKidWho · · Score: 2, Funny

    have just been pwn3d.

    No longer can anyone use the geek in their basement argument.(I know I know, im generalizing, so sue me)

    1. Re:Slashdot Nerds by Tarcastil · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're posting from your parents' basement, aren't you.

    2. Re:Slashdot Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. I don't have a basement

      2. No, from my dorm

    3. Re:Slashdot Nerds by dcrocha · · Score: 1

      Yes they can, because the author forgot to mention that the Top 25 are actually programming from their huge employers' basements.

    4. Re:Slashdot Nerds by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      I don't have a basement
      Hey, you! Yeah, you! It's SUPPOSED to be
      "I don't have a basement, you insensitive clod!"
      - you insensitive clod, you!

      Unless you're replying to someone french, in which case its

      "I don't have a basement, you insensitive Claude!"
    5. Re:Slashdot Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will be hearing from my attorney. You may expect charges of libel and discrimination.

  7. renegade prgrammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Damn them renegade prgrammers, they have been the bane of my life for many many years!

    1. Re:renegade prgrammers by Renegrade · · Score: 1

      Hey, I've never done anything to you.

      Oh, Renegade programmers. No second R. Nevermind.

  8. PHBs will always get it wrong. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:PHBs will always get it wrong. by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      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.

    2. Re:PHBs will always get it wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      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.

      Looking at the quality of much Linux (kernel) code from the perspective of having been a kernel programmer myself for a decade and a half, I reach much the opposite conclusion. I've worked on a half-dozen different kernels, and Linux is by far the sloppiest. It's a darn good thing you can modify the code to suit your purposes, because for any particular purpose it's likely to have a half dozen severe deficiencies and bugs that you just won't be able to tolerate if you want to ship a product based on it. In our case that has mostly involved the scheduler and interrupt handling, and the SCSI I/O system. There's still one nagging happens-twice-a-year crash somewhere in the latter, which has only been narrowed down that far because we developed our own tools to make up for the severe deficiency in generally-available kernel debugging facilities. I know bugs happen in other kernels too, but they happen less and they're usually easier to fix because of mature code structures and tools.

      PHBs will indeed always get it wrong...when they assume that being able to fix somebody else's code yourself is really a win. Sorry, but I have my own product to get out and I don't want to spend half my time fixing Linus's while my competitors catch up.

    3. Re:PHBs will always get it wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice troll, AC. Now please go back to your mommy's basement.

    4. Re:PHBs will always get it wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice troll yourself, other AC. Try adding some actual information or insight, or at least humor, next time. Or are you too busy apartment-hunting since your mother threw you out of her basement?

  9. True, but ... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    and specially this: http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    1. Re:True, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell is this Flamebait? Unless you're disputing the fact that the GNU project started in 1984 while the Linux kernel started in 1991, then it's hard to mod the parent anything but informative. The point is, the GNU project, which IS most of the operating system (Where would Linux be without GCC?) WAS done by what you might call renegade programmers. They weren't living in their parents basements, of course not, most were probably members of academia, but the point remains the same.

    2. Re:True, but ... by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 1, Informative
      The kernel can (or could - I don't know, I last saw this on 2.6.4 or thereabouts) be compiled with Intel's compiler (used to need some patches but it compiled). So there you have it.

      Now, the question is, is Linux compiled by Intel's compiler free or not? THAT's one for the lawyers.

      --
      Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
    3. Re:True, but ... by northcat · · Score: 1

      No no no, the very small part of the OS that is the Linux kernel is all that matters and all statistics/analysis should be taken from that. And don't you dare mention that stinking communist (being that communism is bad in an absolute sense) RMS' name on slashdot. He just uses propoganda for personal profit. (You know, the millions of dollars he makes every year?)

    4. Re:True, but ... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      You are not taking into account the fact that HE started the cause, and that the license, and the funding manifest of our cause was written by him, also he is the one that kept the cause alive in the early years, so please read before you post or just shut up. And mentioning his body odor is a FALACY. Please read some logic also.

      P.S: I Know him personally, and yes, he doesn't like to bath, just like most of the other true hippys still out there, but he doesn't smell, and is a fucking gentlemen.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    5. Re:True, but ... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1, Interesting

      WHT are you talking about?, first of all, comunism is a political and economic system, just like your stinking capitalism. Whether you like it or not, it's far more fair than capitalism. Yes, communism has failed just like capitalism, but at least communism is designed to triunf, and with the people in mind. Capitalism is designed to make the rich profit more, so they both failed (actually the human being failed), but capitalism is esentially evil, and communism is esentially utopic. If you choose communism, you may fail because the human being is esentially corruptable and egoist. If you choose capitalism, you will fail because the system is designed to make the richs richer and more powerfull and the poor poorer and defenseless.

      About RMS, what are you talking about?, all he owns is his laptop, a few books, no more than 3 t-shirts, and his incredible brain. His life is GNU and the FSF; and is the most honest and generous guy i have ever met.

      You should be ashame of yourself for talking about him like this, taking into account all that he has done for you and for me.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    6. Re:True, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > project, which IS most of the operating system
      > (Where would Linux be without GCC?)

      When we make these arguments, let's not fail to mention:

      GNU C Library
      http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/

      GNU Coreutils
      http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/

      GNU Binutils
      http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/

      and

      Bash
      http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/

      Saying "where would Linux be without gcc or emacs" often provokes responses where people say "who cares!"

      The above programs are fundamental to having a system that is a clone of UNIX. They are essential to our argument that GNU is an operating system that was completed with the addition of Linux.

      These are pretty important programs too:

      http://www.gnu.org/software/grep/
      http://www.gnu.org/software/tar/
      http://www.gnu.org/software/gzip/
      http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/
      http://www.gnu.org/software/patch/

    7. Re:True, but ... by northcat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dude, I was being sarcastic.

    8. Re:True, but ... by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      Your post reminds me of a short story I read about the Inquisition...Jesus gets condemned by the Inquisitors because they feel he's doing more harm than good to Christianity. In case you misread this, I'm not equating RMS to Jesus as a person (especially since the former's an atheist). I'm saying that since the "cause" either wouldn't exist or wouldn't have gotten started until much later without him, denouncing RMS so completely is a bit shortsighted.

    9. Re:True, but ... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I Absolutely agree with you.

      And about comparing RMS to jesus, off course you cannot compare them. jesus was an ezquisofrenic that thought he was the child of a nonexistan super-being, RMS is a scientist that started a revolution that changed the world for GOOD, leading us to a new era of knowledge and freedom, jesus & CO. OTH leaded the world to a dark era of mithology, undiscriminated massive assasination, and killing of knowledge. Don't you dare to compare RMS to such a bastard.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    10. Re:True, but ... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Shit, this is scary.

      1 - I Apologize
      2 - Don't you think it's scary the fact that i have archived tons of posts that just says something pretty similar to this, that WEREN'T joking?

      I'm usually pretty open and don't prejudge people, but lately in /. i have seen such things ...

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    11. Re:True, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "laughable, criable if you count the strength of his body odor."

      Bathing two times a year should be enough for everybody.

    12. Re:True, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ah so what your saying is PHBs should relax because a lot of GNU/Linux was written by pot smoking hippies at a good American University.

      As compared to professional operating systems based on BSD Unix written by a bunch of pot smoking hippies at a good American University, with some help from a couple of guys at Bell Labs.

      There are only two distinct types of code people need to worry about, code written by humans (unpredictable bugs), and code written by machines (predictable bugs). You start worrying too much about what sort of human wrote your code misses the point.

      Most people use computers whose source code review, and release management is so strict an entire flight simulator can make it's way into a business product with no one noticing. If we are going to discuss professionalism in software authorship lets start with the software that exhibits the most problems, we might learn more.

    13. Re:True, but ... by BerntB · · Score: 1
      That was fun.

      The first review I read about a speech by RMS (1990 or maybe a few years earlier, in Stockholm), said that he looked like Jesus!

      I don't particularly care for religion or people that have the mentality of believing things true because they need them emotionally (you find those in most causes).

      But RMS is obviously incredibly talented and has used his time and energy to help other people because he believes that the world will be a better place. He could certainly have earned a lot of money doing other things and having as much fun.

      He seems a bit strange but, frankly, this is Slashdot... would he be above either the median or the average? :-)

      It is one of the people I admire.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    14. Re:True, but ... by BerntB · · Score: 1
      Capitalism is designed to make the rich profit more, so they both failed (actually the human being failed), but capitalism is esentially evil, and communism is esentially utopic.
      I would agree with you that capitalism is the worst of all economic systems. The only redeeming fact is that everything else works worse.

      Consider the boring practical details...

      Historically, the usual failure mode of communism includes results like mass starvation, mass murder and repression of all people thinking differently than the state way. We had something similar in most of Europe a couple of hundred years ago, they still have that in e.g. Bangladesh.

      The common results (failure in your words) in a mature capitalist country are democracy, acceptance of different viewpoints (as long as they don't hurt others) including rights for women/gays/etc and a general prosperity.

      Most people prefer that failure so much they might risk their lives to get to our countries.

      I really consider communism as another religion. All marxists I've read or talked to enough to have a certain opinion, did have that emotional need for their position to be true.

      But with genetic engineering, maybe some communist utopists can make people functioning like ants in, say, a century... Then you will have people that aren't selfish. (Try game theory and evolutionary biology why you have to go so far).

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    15. Re:True, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It?!

    16. Re:True, but ... by BerntB · · Score: 1
      It?!
      English isn't my native language. It was a straight translation, not a joke or something.
      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    17. Re:True, but ... by northcat · · Score: 1

      Hehe, no problems. My post probably was very unclear too.

    18. Re:True, but ... by northcat · · Score: 0, Troll

      WTF are you talking about? Communism doesn't advocate "repression of all people thinking differently than the state way", "mass murder" and otherwise exploitation of people and it didn't happen as much or the way you think it did. You appear to be seriously brainwashed by anti-communist propaganda. You're probably an American (or have read too much American literature).

    19. Re:True, but ... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Linux is not the begining of anything. Linux is a kernel that works with the GNU OS.

      "GNU" wasn't much of an OS without a kernel...
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    20. Re:True, but ... by BerntB · · Score: 1
      WTF are you talking about? Communism doesn't advocate "repression of all people thinking differently than the state way", "mass murder" and ...
      WTF -- can't you read?? I wrote:
      Consider the boring practical details...
      And:
      the usual failure mode of communism includes results like mass starvation, mass murder and repression of all people thinking differently than the state way.
      So I did not claim that it was part of the ideology but part of the usual failure mode -- and that the countries fail. Once, it might happen. Repeatedly? No. Reastically, a nazi could claim that mass murder was just a mistake the first time and be more believable than a communist.

      Your reaction illustrate when I wrote:

      I really consider communism as another religion.
      No, I'm not American. I have read (local and otherwise) leftwing argumentation long enough to have my opinion that communists have similar emotional reactions to their faith as the other religions. The local communists where quite friendly with e.g. DDR until the mid '80s.

      Political/religious opression is natural when you are certain you know better -- people with other opinions are obviously dangerous and might influence young and innocent minds. (-: Hmm.. North Korea and Kansas? :-)

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    21. Re:True, but ... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      Ah so what your saying is PHBs should relax because a lot of GNU/Linux was written by pot smoking hippies at a good American University.

      What i'm saying is that i care about freedom, about the software itself, about the pleasure of creating it, and about the pleasure of using it, PHBs can go fuck themselves, they are not needed, and Free Software wasn't created to please them.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    22. Re:True, but ... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 2, Informative

      And Linux is nothing of an OS without GNU, actually, without GNU, you can't even compile Linux.
      And, besides, the idea of GNU, was to create a basic system and let people contribute to it, this is in the manifest, and if people put their software under the GPL, they are saying that it can be used with the GNU OS ...

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    23. Re:True, but ... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      And Linux is nothing of an OS without GNU

      Not true. Linux could just as easily use the BSD userland, rather than the GNU userland.

      without GNU, you can't even compile Linux.

      Really? There are no other C compilers on the planet?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    24. Re:True, but ... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, there are no other C compilers that can compile Linux correctly, they just won't work, only GCC.
      And. it also needs a build environment that is usualy GNU.

      And, besides, the project that created all of this, and that inspired Linux, and inspired berkeley to open their OS, was GNU.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    25. Re:True, but ... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      No, there are no other C compilers that can compile Linux correctly, they just won't work, only GCC.


      You can compile the kernel with Intel's ICC as well. It might require few patches but it can be done.

      And. it also needs a build environment that is usualy GNU.


      So, because you USUALLY use GNU-tools, it means that you absolutely, positively require those GNU-tools? Since "usually" means that they are most used, but not the only alternatives, how can they be a requirement?

      You can use Linux just fine without GNU-tools. Just because you usually use them with GNU-tools doesn't mean that the two are linked in such way that they can't be separated.

      Seriously, you seem to be having a bit of RMS circle-jerk going on. RMS did alot, that much is true. But a bit less foaming-at-the-mouth extremism (both from him and from you) might be a good idea
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    26. Re:True, but ... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      I Challenge you to try to compile Linux WITHOUT the GLIBC.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  10. eh by derxob · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    --
    Beat the computer, program your life.
  11. Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... by skazatmebaby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Dada Mail - Program, Art Project or Absurdity?

    1. Re:Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Get a job hippy.

    2. Re:Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... by ThousandStars · · Score: 4, Funny
      I code the project that feeds me eight feet from my bed

      That's remarkable! Do you produce some kind of servant or cooking robot?

    3. Re:Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... by iabervon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the project you code eight feet from your bed feeds you, it's not a hobby; it's your main job. The idea that the article is opposed to is that these things are done primarily by people with no occupation or with a different occupation who don't get income from the project. As it turns out, this is not the case in general. Even RMS was supporting himself by selling GNU for $150 when he wrote Emacs.

      I've been working on git in my spare time, and it is obvious to me how much more gets done by people whose work overlaps with working on it.

    4. Re:Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... by stuntpope · · Score: 1

      And does it have an eight-foot arm, or does it throw the food towards the bed?

    5. Re:Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm unable to make my effort to support a OSS project an endevour that can pay the bills.

      Thats why I work on very un-OSS projects.

      If the time comes I can do OSS projects and then get paid something to sustain myself and family then I will do OSS projects.

      What would happen if there was a brain drain in OSS community (that would be manifest by a dearth of programmers to work on new/maintaining old projects) to the point where there was less innovation than their un-OSS counterparts ?

      The article doesn't make me worried about anything except to spell out (yet again) that OSS for the average programmer involved with either using OSS software or contributing to it doesn't stand much chance from profiting from it.

      Another question -- forgive me -- what if the OSS outdoes itself? Meaning does such a damn good job at writing OSS clones of all the useful software in the world to the point that the need for professional software engineers is diminished?

      Will OSS put me out of work, eventually?

    6. Re:Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it can teleport the food eight feet, I'd be especially impressed.

    7. Re:Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      by skazatmebaby (110364)

      Hey, shouldn't yer nick be like "skaZEETYEmebaby"?...

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    8. Re:Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... by skazatmebaby · · Score: 1

      The program has been in development a long time. I wouldn't be surprised. It's got a kitchen sink, I'm fairly certain.

      --

      Dada Mail - Program, Art Project or Absurdity?

    9. Re:Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... by skazatmebaby · · Score: 1

      I work on it three weeks straight and then I don't for three months. My career path, if you can call it that, is being an artist, which doesn't pay much. If a hobby pays for my career, so be it :)

      I don't have any official training in this stuff, nor do I have any educational credentials to back myself up. I think they call it being a, "hacker". I don't really immerse myself into the culture of the Nerd, although it's fun to watch :)

      --

      Dada Mail - Program, Art Project or Absurdity?

    10. Re:Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... by skazatmebaby · · Score: 1

      I live very simply - no family (fairly young), not many material goods, most of what I have has been inherited from friends or found - I dished out for a laptop a year and a half ago - paid cash. Most of my valuables are memories.

      Basically, I attempt (although I am not perfect) to live this way sustainably. It isn't for everyone, but that's completly a different topic.

      I think the general model for software is it not having any real value in of itself, but the services that you can provide for it, like support, is where the money is going to be. That's if this whole patent thing stops being so silly.

      In this case, it makes sense to work with code that's Open Source - other people may, on the rare day, peep your code and do free work for you. If your code is of any heft, no one's going to be a master at it in an evening. Be friendly and people will join you instead of forking off.

      I mean, are you going to hire some guy who's read all of David Foster Wallace's and has a pretty good idea what's going on in his literature for a college level course on him (just go with my little story...), or are you going to hire David Foster Wallace himself?

      --

      Dada Mail - Program, Art Project or Absurdity?

    11. Re:Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... by skazatmebaby · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if I'm familiar with that reference, but it's from a fairly geeky one, if you geek on literature or... whatever that part of research that deals with written language is that has thus escaped me...;

      "skazat" is Nadsat - the "A Clockwork Orange" teen talk. It means, "to say". So the whole thing goes like this,

      Talk to me, baby.

      or something...

      --

      Dada Mail - Program, Art Project or Absurdity?

    12. Re:Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... by temcat · · Score: 1

      "Skazheetye" is an imperative mode from the verb "skazat" when politely (as in You vs thou) addressing a person in Russian.

    13. Re:Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure if I'm familiar with that reference, but it's from a fairly geeky one, if you geek on literature or... whatever that part of research that deals with written language is that has thus escaped me...; "skazat" is Nadsat - the "A Clockwork Orange" teen talk. It means, "to say". So the whole thing goes like this, Talk to me, baby. or something...

      Groovy. Makes sense then. I was thinking it was a direct reference to the Russian verb "to tell" (as the other poster noted). Most of the Clockwork Orange slang was based on Russian. e.g. the word "nadsat" is the Russian literal equivalent of the english "teen", as the numbers 11-19 in Russian are basically the words for 1-9 with the ending "nadsat" tacked on. Anyway, rambling on....

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  12. Slashdotted, heres the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Imagine the birth of Linux Latest News about Linux -- thousands of renegade hackers coding in the dark in their parents' basement to create the open-source operating system. You would have to ask yourself: Are the world's biggest companies wise to build the future ofcomputing Latest News about computing on this basis?

    Thing is, it didn't happen like that, though the urban legend continues to this day, and I get asked about it all the time. My job is to run the Open Source Development Labs Latest News about Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) where the original creator of Linux -- Linus Torvalds -- works. The myth of the hacker Latest News about hacker is just that, a myth. Let me explain:

    A 'Small Poll'

    As most followers of the story know, the Linux operating system that runs in all kinds of computers and devices today -- from IBM Latest News about IBM mainframes and Motorola Latest News about Motorola cell phones Latest News about cell phones to TiVo Latest News about TiVo boxes -- didn't start out as a commercial venture. It was merely an idea on Torvalds' keyboard when he was a Finnish university student way back in 1991. His original e-mail solicitation for help was quite humble:

    A D V E R T I S E M E N T
    From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)

    Newsgroups: comp.os.minix

    Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?

    Summary: small poll for my new operating system

    Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT

    Organization: University of Helsinki

    Hello everybody out there using minix -

    I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons) among other things). I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work. This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-) Linus (torvalds@kruuna.helsinki.fi)

    PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs. It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.

    Corporate Pedigree

    Fourteen years later, the combination of the right idea, the right leadership, and the Internet have made Linux perhaps the most successful open-source software project ever. To this day, Linux benefits from the contributions of computer hobbyists, corporate developers, and everyone in between.

    Hackers of all stripes and motivations can, thanks to the Internet, download the Linux kernel, modify and customize it any way they like, and "give" their changes back to the Linux development community. One of the greatest strengths of the open-source software process is this "give back" mechanism by which the software continuously improves.

    But the romantic notion that Linux is the product of a freewheeling, loosely affiliated band of thousands of independent hackers collectively turning their backs on the status quo is no longer an accurate description of the Linux community -- and hasn't been the case for many years.

    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 Latest News about HP, IBM, IntelRelevant Products/Services from Intel, Novell Latest News about Novell, Oracle Latest News about Oracle, Red Hat Latest News about Red Hat and Veritas Latest News about Veritas, among many others.

    And the process they follow to build Linux looks almost exactly like the software-development steps that their em

    1. Re:Slashdotted, heres the article by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Parent is a troll, read the last line.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Slashdotted, heres the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make no mistake, Linux is in deep shit.

      MOD THIS BIATCH DOWN!!

      +3 my ass.

    3. Re:Slashdotted, heres the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's obviously a comment by the anonymous poster, using a communications technique called sarcasm. Ya dumbass.

    4. Re:Slashdotted, heres the article by X0563511 · · Score: 1
      At least he/she should have seperated the line from the article somehow.
      <blockquote>
      isn't painful. Neither is
      <i>
      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:Slashdotted, heres the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This is all great, but I'm looking for the latest news. Clue me in.

    6. Re:Slashdotted, heres the article by psyon1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was thinking maybe the poster copied and pasted from some web page that had links in place.

    7. Re:Slashdotted, heres the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I *LOVE* it!!! I mirrored the article, changing words in it, and get modded UP, and people who point it out get modded as TROLLS!!!

      I Love slashdot!

    8. Re:Slashdotted, heres the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, time for some anti-slash...

  13. What a joke of an article by xintegerx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.)

    --

    Cover your eyes and click this link!
    1. Re:What a joke of an article by RagingR2 · · Score: 1

      Your comparison with swimming is kinda useless. The news is clearly not that the top 25 contribute more than the next 25 -- the news is that these 25 contribute *considerably* more.

      So the news is that unlike the romantic picture of 1000's of hobbyists providing comparable amounts of time and effort to make Linux possible, the main force behind Linux is actually a fairly small group of people.

      The guy's point is clearly NOT that hobbyism doesn't play a role with Linux. Sure, these 25 may be hobbyists as well, but they are professionaly trained hobbyists, and they certainly don't work in sloppy basements.

    2. Re:What a joke of an article by sloanster · · Score: 2, Informative

      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. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

    3. Re:What a joke of an article by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      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, yes. But not necessarily paid kernel/OSS developers.

    4. Re:What a joke of an article by Oloryn · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

    5. Re:What a joke of an article by swillden · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:What a joke of an article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll, see user's history.

  14. Like enterprise software has been made for years, by Telastyn · · Score: 1

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

    Though the terribly underfunded budget is still there...

  15. More tnan 90% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    More than 90% of the top 25 coders are employed at major IT shops - so, more than 22.5 of them.

    If they were all employed by major shops, then presumably one would just say "the top 25 coders are employed by major IT shops".

    This leaves either 23 or 24 of them. What's wrong with precision? Why not say "23 (or 24) of the top 25 contributors are employed at major IT shops"? Is "over 90%" supposed to sound bigger or something?

    1. Re:More tnan 90% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 23 or they would have said "over 95%"

    2. Re:More tnan 90% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      my guess is the 24th guy is only employed part-time

    3. Re:More tnan 90% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and flips burgers to fill in the rest of it

  16. Mixed Message by Salamander · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
    1. Re:Mixed Message by nycbicyclist · · Score: 0
      "They're becoming a business competing with other businesses, and that doesn't grant much moral high ground."

      Are they really becoming "a business," i.e., a single monolithic entity? I thought many of the people involved in open source software were competing with each other. Besides, this is about more than the motivations of the individual players. You have to look at the broader framework to decide which model is better. After all, people are selfish in both capitalist and communist systems, in both free-speech regimes and closed-speech systems. The question is which system leads to the better result given the basic human clay.

      I don't have any problem with dispensing with moralizing, but I do think it's perinent to ask which leads to the greater dissemination of knowledge -- closed or open software?

    2. Re:Mixed Message by mikefe · · Score: 1

      Why does the act of being paid to work on Free Software have anything to do with the moral argument of Free Software?

      Just because money is being exchanged, does that mean your words become less convincing?

      Now, if you are talking to a Linux Kernel hacker and they are saying that there is no better system, you then you can take their words with a grain of salt. There are other OSes that are better at certain things, for instance plan9. Though many of them are mainly focused on research.

      Just like the four octal unix permissions system. It is not the best. There are other systems that can do more, like ACLs. It just so happens that most (though certainly not all) of the things needed to be done with permissions can be done with the octal unix permissions and the simplicity of the system has many arguments in its favor.

      Though if someone argues that octal permissions are the best, that should be taken with a grain of salt.

      --
      There: Something at a specific location.
      Their: Owned by someone.
      Please make sure your english compiles.
    3. Re:Mixed Message by Salamander · · Score: 1
      Why does the act of being paid to work on Free Software have anything to do with the moral argument of Free Software?

      It doesn't affect the moral argument for free software in general, but it most certainly does affect how people portray their own role or motivations. A guy who makes money as a programmer, writer, and speaker on a topic should not be assumed to be doing so for any reason that wouldn't be familiar to Bill Gates. Many of these "top 25" have never shown any particular sign of ever having been less self-interested than anyone who works on proprietary systems. Linux just happened to be the project that satisfied their self-interest, for reasons that had to do with predecessors' generosity rather than their own. As I said, there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't create any moral high ground.

      Just because money is being exchanged, does that mean your words become less convincing?

      No, but it's one less reason why their opinions beyond the purely technical should not be considered any more convincing than anyone else's.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
    4. Re:Mixed Message by Salamander · · Score: 1
      Are they really becoming "a business," i.e., a single monolithic entity?

      Does it matter whether a monolithic or legal entity? Would it have made a difference if I'd said they're in business instead of a business? You're absolutely right that it's about the motivations of the invididual players...and it's about how those motivations are often misrepresented. Whether they work for one company or several, whether they compete or cooperate with one another, those individuals are driven by the same motivations as the proprietary programmers they often look down on. Many open-source programmers would switch to proprietary software in an instant under the right circumstances, and in the past many have done so. What keeps them in open source is often not their principles but the fact that their qualifications are tied to software that they've been able to work on because someone else allowed them to. They get more or better job offers to work on open source, so that's what they do.

      If someone paid me to add particular features to Linux or Apache or Samba, would that make me a nobler person than someone who got paid to do equivalent work on closed-source competitors? The project would not be open source because of me, and my contributions wouldn't be open source because of me. In fact I've written code that was later open-sourced by IBM, but at the time I wrote it it was for profit and under contract and most proprietary. Did my contribution suddenly gain a new moral dimension when someone I never met decided to open-source it? If I were paid to work on it again because I know more about it than anyone else, would I get an Official Open Source Hero badge? No, I'd still be doing it for the same reasons as before, which are the same reasons that many professional Linux hackers do what they do. No better, no worse.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
    5. Re:Mixed Message by geekee · · Score: 1

      Altruism is a myth. People act in their own self-interest. Linux became usable when companies saw some self-interest in paying people to work on it.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
  17. Myth of the Linux OS. by Rahga · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Ingenious... too bad that...

    1) There's no such thing as the "Linux OS"... There's the Linux kernel, where many developers arte full-time employees of large corporations.

    2) Outside of the Linux kernel, there's a ton of people who work in software but spend their hobby time working on software that is important or popular but NOT something that a large corporation would hire employees to build. Ok?

    Take your opinion and shove it, Mr. Journalist. :)

  18. oh, boy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wait 'till I tell my mother...

  19. In other news... by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:In other news... by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

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

      Fully Employed. As in, ELSEWHERE. Duh.

    2. Re:In other news... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "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 seriously.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  20. Linux in professional hands? by mr_majestyk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Make no mistake, Linux is in professional hands

    yeah, like these guys.

    1. Re:Linux in professional hands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is awesome. Check out the turtleneck on the dude on the right. How do the chicks withstand it?

    2. Re:Linux in professional hands? by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      The hair! It scares me!

      --
      Be relentless!
    3. Re:Linux in professional hands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice that short fat guy, walking around with a bag full of diapers or something?

    4. Re:Linux in professional hands? by booms · · Score: 1

      I forgot I even had that picture in my gallery. Thanks for reminding me. :)

    5. Re:Linux in professional hands? by booms · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm a fan of the guy with the propeller cap. Thanks for not perpetuating a stereotype buddy!

  21. open source business by microbee · · Score: 1

    Yes, it's just a new business model by which those companies can profit. And open source developers are just doing a paid job. There is no ethical difference between "open source" and "proprietary" programmers. I'd love to be open source developer too, as I'm paid the same and my work gains more visibility. :)

  22. The Ubiquitous PHB by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    The myth discussed in this article is really intended for a bunch of PHBs and people who aren't that technically inclined,

    Technically? How about even literate enough to read?

    who believe that Linux is a toy used by rogue hackers to break into peoples' Windoze boxes and steal their social security numbers...

    Possibly not helped when advocated in front of PHB by someone with the hygene of a troll (under bridge variety, not intended as flamebait, I've seen the error of my own approach in pushing these things)

    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.

    Some of it isn't. Some of the public domain is only so good and not supported, or worse, poorly coded. I truly love people who place code or examples in the public domain, I do it myself and will be launching an open source project this fall, but lack of documentation or easy to follow coding style can spell doom.

    Heck, I had a bitch of a selling job on coding a tiny server app in C on an HP 9000 (mostly because we didn't do any C coding in house) because of considerable belief at a couple levels that anything coded in house, in C, by a Linux geek, would not be reliable or secure!

    Of course, once it was up and running it hummed right along in the background with nary a glitch and everyone promptly forgot about it.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:The Ubiquitous PHB by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1
      ... Some of the public domain is only so good and not supported ...

      I meant whoever said Linux is public domain. Obviously it's not. It's copyrighted and protected by the same laws that will protect Microsoft Longtooth, it and when it's released. (Of course, by then quantum computing will be the norm, and Microsoft will have to delay Longtooth even longer to make it work on quantum computing processors, while Linux will have long had support for them. And PHBs will still think that Microsoft is the way to go.)

    2. Re:The Ubiquitous PHB by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Funny
      by then quantum computing will be the norm, and Microsoft will have to delay Longtooth
      Microsoft WANTS quantum computing. Like Schrodinger's cat, if the machine looks like its crashed, just turn the MONITOR off and on again - 50-50 chance that next time you look, it's actually still running. Of course, if it IS running and you blink, it may NOT be running when you open your eyes.

      How this is different from today is left as an exercise for the reader.

  23. yeah, been a victim of that legend. by Mark19960 · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:yeah, been a victim of that legend. by Fred+Foobar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps they meant "hacker" in the correct, original sense. Maybe they know the difference between "hacker" and "cracker".

      --
      It was a really good paper.
  24. linux coders != OSS coders by mph_az · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure what this says about the larger OSS world (if it says anything at all). Linux is, of course, huge in the enterprise (eg the use of LAMP) so it follows that a large part of Linux is developed and added onto by corporations. However, is the same true once you branch out and look at OpenBSD or FreeBSD (NetBSD is largely developed by a company whose name I forget at the moment)? What about X.org and KDE?

    Of course, I have to applaud anything that acts as a slap upside the head to computer ricers (CFLAGS JUST KICKED IN, YO!) who think they're 1337 because they compiled all of gentoo that they're mega-kewl coders.

    1. Re:linux coders != OSS coders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, I have to applaud anything that acts as a slap upside the head to computer ricers (CFLAGS JUST KICKED IN, YO!) who think they're 1337 because they compiled all of gentoo that they're mega-kewl coders.

      What the hell are you talking about? What are you applauding which acts as a slap? What an inane post. Why do I keep reading this goddamned website...

    2. Re:linux coders != OSS coders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good question; why are you inside reading a shitty nerd site on a friday night instead of going out and either partying or hitting up on girls?

      Why are you indoors and reading on a friday night? Good question, loser-boy.

  25. What is being exposed? by misleb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    --
    "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  26. Re:Like enterprise software has been made for year by kma · · Score: 1

    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...

  27. Well, there's two things... by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  28. Shhhh! by photon317 · · Score: 1


    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 by some smart guy in mom's basement, and the collaborator they hired is there to make sure their needs are met, they feel like they're getting a good deal, and they are. When they realize what's really going on, they'll throw a shit fit because they can't fathom the idea that they are collaborating with their competitors for mutual benefit.

    --
    11*43+456^2
  29. So Linux is not bizarre after all by khaladan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  30. 90% of them are fully employed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut up! Mom might stop doing my wash.

  31. Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by LordNimon · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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!

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    1. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try NetBSD and watch the build process fly by with hardly any warning (aside from some imported GNU stuff).

      Why is it that you get at least a handfull of warning about implicit casts or incompatible pointer types and what not when compiling the latest GNU shit?

    3. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it doesn't make with the DEFAULT config, then that's a problem with the default configuration and his point stands!

    4. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by LordNimon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you get a 2.6 kernel from a distro, they've already applied all sorts of patches to fix bugs like this one. I'm talking only about the stock kernels that are released by Linus et al. And I should not have any mutually exclusive features turned on because I did "make defconfig", which is supposed to be a tested, standardized configuration.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    5. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by nycbicyclist · · Score: 0

      So there is quality control being done, but it's being done by the distributions. I'm not familiar with commercial software companies, but wouldn't you see the same sort of division of labor there? (That is, some people good at coding and others at putting the code through its paces?) The same thing (I would argue) is going on, but in a more distributed and arbuably more transparent manner.

    6. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I dunno. I run Slack and have never had any problem going to kernel.org and grabbing one.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by WMD_88 · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.
    8. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 2, Informative

      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 conditions like that.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    9. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by jemfinch · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      Looking for a Python IRC bot?
    10. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by halosfan · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, in the traditional Unix world outside of Linux there really is such thing as sensible default options, even for a thing as "low-level" as the kernel.

      Actually, I knew I was going to fall in love with OpenBSD the moment I read this entry in the FAQ:

      5.6 - Why do I need a custom kernel? Actually, you probably don't.

      --
      My only problem with Microsoft is the severity of bugs in their software.
    11. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by swillden · · Score: 1

      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 are Red Hat's "crash test dummies" (not that it isn't a very usable distribution).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you were using an unsupported version of gcc.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    13. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      That's silly. It shouldn't fail to build in the default configuration, even if the resulting kernel image wouldn't make much sense.

      But in this case I think the OP was using an unsupported version of gcc.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    14. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by iwbcman · · Score: 1

      Brilliant.

      What a dweeb

      Now once you have gone and gotten the correct glibc header files and taken another shot....then we can talk about professionalism....

      The first insult was in the article itself which negated the differences between hackers who after years of hacking have convinced corporations that opensource is profitable for them and who are now gainfully emplyoed doing what they want to do and 'enterprise' coders who signed away their souls when they signed the dotted line.

      Then you come along and due to your error you attack the 'professionalism' of hackers....give me a break...

    15. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by Hosiah · · Score: 1

      I put on a blindfold and stood outside this morning, and the sun did not rise. That *proves*, absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the sun is broken, and God is a lousy engineer. Next, I will prove the world is flat, by walking off a building and pointing to the edge on my way down...

    16. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by LordNimon · · Score: 1

      What version of Linux were you running when you compiled it? I was running Suse 9.2.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    17. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by WMD_88 · · Score: 1

      Slackware 10.0, with the kernel.org 2.4.29.

    18. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by omb · · Score: 1
      The problem with your vision is that you _dont_have_any_.

      If you are pulling the GIT HEAD from kernel.org you (are) assumed to (a) know what you are doing and (b) expect surprises and (c) contribute a patch, or at least a sane bug report to fix what you find

      If you don't like that use RedHat, SuSE, Debian, ... where someone who has a clue has already done regression testing and maybe pay your $50, or download say Fedora Core for free

      But please stop wasting everyones time, and trolling because you dont understand the difference between the development edge and that which is fit for the newby

      I know this was a troll, but I say again, _NO_NORMAL_USER_ needs or should use 'bleeding edge' kernels, _ALL_ respectable distros have stable kernels, and build all the applications too, so unless you want to help test, are witing kernel code or need to understant the kernel internals; go away and keep quiet!

    19. Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      Non-Technical Linux user should have no need of Unix shells and everything should be GUI based. They most likely would run Linspire instead of Fedora. Linspire does not install the typical CLI tools that Linux uses, and everything is installed via the Click N Run interface. The downside is that they have to pay $5/month to download updates and F/OSS software as a subscription, but they are paying for the conveneince of doing so. It is a smart business plan, and Linspire gets $60 a year in subscriptions from their members, and $50 for the core OS. Every once in a while, Linspire offers free downloads via BitTorrent, but not free subscriptions.

      I ran Linspire for a while, I learned how to activate the apt-get function to download the CLI software, GCC compiler, RPM installer, etc. Only the Click N Run function saw that the libraries I had installed do not match the ones in their database (too new) and tried to uninstall them. It was funny as I saw a picture of a guy hung by his underwear as an error message. I went to KNOPPIX after that, and then later Fedora.

      I've had a history of problems with different Linux distros, but on a positive note I am learning how to fix various things that go wrong in Linux.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  32. Who says they don't live in basements? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...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.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Who says they don't live in basements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're hardcore when even if you own a house, you live in its basement.

  33. What he fails to mention by nate+nice · · Score: 1

    "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.

    --
    "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
  34. Just as the saying goes by TCM · · Score: 1

    Better a renegade programmer than a redneck DBA. Or something.

    --
    Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
  35. Re:What is being exposed? your ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    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.

    It turns out that some people employed by Novell, IBM, and RedHat are actually paid to do just that. These corporations have an interest in what goes on in the kernel.

  36. idiots? by Erris · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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. 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 are. That's in sharp contrast to the commercial world where turds like Bill Gates had enough money at birth to bully dummies into dumpsters for code or buy it for his vaults.

    The statement "Stuart goes on to explode the myth of renegade prgrammers 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." Is an interesting turn of events if true. Just a few years ago these were the numbers:

    • While 50% were IT professionals, 47% of free programmers expected no financial reward for their work. The overwhelming reason was to gain experience, teach and learn how to do things. The actual motivating factors did not change much between those paid and those not paid to make software.
    • 40% spent less than five hours a week on their software. I might spend that much time reading the news.
    • Most projects have few members. Not everything is like Mozilla or the Linux kernel. Most don't even have the 90 or so programmers the GNU debugger has. With projects like KDE making it easy to produce beautiful and functional GUI programs, it's likely that more small projects will come into popular use.

    The bottom up nature of free software is a very real and welcome departure from "traditional," 1980s, NDA encumbered, commercial software development. While it's great to have companies supporting various projects, I doubt seriously they will be able to match the creativity of the world at large in numbers or range of applications. The best thing that companies can do is to free their people and let them solve their problems as they please. Free software environments are far richer, more pleasing and of higher quality than those put together traditionally. The "renegade" programmer sharing his information and scratching itches is what makes this possible and that's what free software is all about.

    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...

    Well then, I'm not so worried by the DDoS on the article that's kept me from reading it.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  37. that's just a stereotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't even *have* a basement. Sheesh.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I have to debug the driver for the memory controller on my 64-way Xeon box. Then, Mom wants me to do the dishes. You'd think the $10,000 checks I give her each month would get me out of doing that stuff...

  38. There is more to it than the 25 core coders by NextGaurd · · Score: 1

    Much of the power comes from the thousands of others who review the code aqnd find problems. Even more comes from the open source nature that makes addons and extensions possible to a greater extent.

  39. Well duh by aCapitalist · · Score: 1

    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.

  40. SCO Created It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Everybody knows that The SCO Group created Linux

    Oh, wait...

  41. A short but interesting read. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

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

    --
    You can't handle the truth.
  42. Why Always The Bottom? by __aanmcy3303 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

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

  43. Hmm Complier version platform. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some version of GCC are forbinden to be used with partical versions of Linux. You just try building a kernel 2.0.0 on a modern GCC it will not build.

    Basicly I could give you a turbo C++ compiler and tell you to build linux and it would not work.

    quality assurance (QA) team. http://ltp.sourceforge.net/ The linux test project. The autoscripts that do a whole pile of tests on the kernel to make sure it builds right and does not have defects.

    Ie your fault needs to be added to the test kit.

    Without a GCC version no one can tell if you are just building it with the wrong GCC.

    Testing is improving. Its better than Microsofts. Less flaws get past on most of the time.

    1. Re:Hmm Complier version platform. by teslatug · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't it flag these incompatible versions then? Post's point stands as far as I can see.

  44. OK... answer these: by fitten · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  45. Damned statistics by Porter+Doran · · Score: 0

    Ninety percent of the "top twenty-five"? That has got to be one of the most ridiculous manipulations of statistics I've seen. Twenty-five is not a pool large enough to be exemplar of anything. And who decides the "top"?

  46. Meaning by PepeGSay · · Score: 1

    They are not really fully engaged to the project. Which myth is worse....?

  47. Yeah right by slam+smith · · Score: 1

    Next thing you will be telling me is that they also have girlfriends.

    --
    My Weblog
    1. Re:Yeah right by r2q2 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Linus is already married, maybe he gave them hints in the source code?

      --
      My UID is prime is yours?
    2. Re:Yeah right by r2q2 · · Score: 1

      Supposedly linus is already married, maybe he gave them hints in the source code?

      --
      My UID is prime is yours?
    3. Re:Yeah right by matthewcharlesgoeden · · Score: 1

      dewd, i quoted this on my blog --> fscklaw.com. seriously, hilarious!

  48. You cannot have my mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...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 world of intellectual property.

    When the laws are unjust, the just become outlaws.

    1. Re:You cannot have my mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, what is your mind worth. Just be glad somebody bought it.

    2. Re:You cannot have my mind... by alder · · Score: 1
      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.
      Well, then you become the statistical one who represent a "fact", for the management, that the system works, and maybe even right. And then those of us who refuse to sign such an atrocious agreement get "Everybody else signed and did not have a problem with it. What is wrong with you?" response.
    3. Re:You cannot have my mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See now look at this interesting tidbit. Here we have this troll that is ranting at a purported free software devloper that he should be glad to be bought because his mind is worthless.
      Well the first thing this reminds me of is that comment in the Slashdot user page where is says,

      "You most likely are not so interested in yourself,"

      This struck me as bizarre from the first time I saw it and I've noticed other people have commented on it as well. And here is a good place to show how this attitude of dissinterest in oneself is not really in the spirit of free software, it's in the spirit of a vicious troll.
      I'll point it out again later until we eventually get the text on that page changed.

    4. Re:You cannot have my mind... by Cecil · · Score: 1

      Here we have this troll that is ranting at a purported free software devloper that he should be glad to be bought because his mind is worthless.
      Well the first thing this reminds me of is that comment in the Slashdot user page where is says...

      Which brings me to my next point: Don't smoke crack!

      --
      Random and weird software I've written.
  49. Moderators don't like being corrected here. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    There are a lot of moderators using their modpoints to make a statement instead of posting. It's also clear that a lot of moderation goes on without reading the article within the context of the thread in which it appears.

    I recently linked to a Democracy Now! episode which provided some background on the thread's main topic--Giuliana Sgrena's rescue by Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari. At the time I posted, nobody else had linked to Sgrena talking about the situation in her own words; an obviously relevant and informative pointer which somehow merited being modded down from 1 point to 0 points as "overrated". Given the amount of time this has persisted, I can only imagine that this post has gone through metamoderation as well and its score has remained intact.

    And posts about the moderation system are almost always modded down. Moderators don't like to be criticized or identified. I'm not new here, but it's a shame more moderators aren't correcting mis-moderation. If you become a moderator, please consider reading all of the posts and moderating by reading posts in context.

    --
    Digital Citizen
    1. Re:Moderators don't like being corrected here. by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      Actually, "Overrated" and "Underrated" moderations can't be metamoderated. A lot of people with mod points have recognized this and are exploiting it...I think making a rule that a post had to be at a score of two or less to be "Underrated" and two or more to be "Overrated" would help fix this.

      I also think it would be nifty if a moderator could add a comment, visible to the original poster and metamoderators, to explain why a particular post was marked a certain way. Allowing, or even requiring, this would force people to really think things through before they turn down someone's volume or give them an amplifier.

    2. Re:Moderators don't like being corrected here. by timster · · Score: 1

      As someone who gets mod points often I have to say that complaints about moderation are almost always offtopic on the face of it. The moderation system is usually not the topic.

      Personally I never use "overrated" at all, and it's pretty much obviously wrong to use such a mod on a post that is not at least a 2. I don't believe in offtopic on meta-slashdot threads like Slashback or polls.

      People complain about moderation all the time, and those of us who have been around for a while were tired of it about a week after the system was introduced. As I write, the comment that your parent was complaining about is a 5, so both the parent and your post look a little out of place. Often mods that seem unfair are for some subtle reason actually fair (an old troll for instance) and often mods that really are unfair are corrected after a while.

      I'm not claiming that moderation is rational -- often I feel that comments I write which are interesting and insightful are ignored or worse, while tripe that I come up with on a whim shoots up to 5. But the moderation system has been wildly successful in doing what it was intended to do: turn down the volume on the noise and turn up the signal, without imposing totalitarianism. The fact that some signal is lost is essentially inevitable, I'm afraid.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
  50. (OT) Request: Help From Moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would someone with points mind going back and modding the following page-widening posts into oblivion? Those of us browsing with smaller screens would appreciate it. Thanks.

  51. With bul^H^H^Harticles like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are still people that think that the GNU part of GNU/Linux is redundant and everyone knows the real story.

  52. Newsflash... programmers eat food! by autophile · · Score: 1
    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 also turned to a much more experienced community of developers to help him, many of whom already work for the world's largest I.T. companies.

    Well, I assume that programmers have to eat, too.

    --Rob

    --
    Towards the Singularity.
  53. Cohen has financial and institutional interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stuart Cohen has a financial and institutional interest in projecting a professional image of Linux. He is trying to discredit the hacker image of Linux so that more big corps will support OSDL. What he doesn't mention is that many of those top 25 developers probably got started working on Linux as a hobby, then got hired up by big companies after they proved their worth. And I wonder how many of them are still working on Linux as a hobby since their official job is something different? If you looked at all the projects out there, you will probably find more hobbyists. I know I certainly am a hobbyist and I suspect the vast majority are hobbyists. And we want to be called "hackers" not "professionals"! The latter implies "corporate drone" in my mind, whereas the former is much cooler. A "professional" OS could never generate the passion and dedication of a "hacker" OS in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't spend hours of my free time hacking on a "professional" OS. So Mr. Stuart Cohen take your corporate message and shove it.

  54. Trolltalk huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trolling for moderators to waste mod points?

    1. Re:Trolltalk huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, some pizzaface is crapflooding the forum with page-wideners and other assorted annoyances. Hopefully with enough downmods he'll get IP-banned.

  55. Eight feet's just an appetizer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    I code the project that feeds me eight feet from my bed

    That's remarkable! Do you produce some kind of servant or cooking robot?

    Actually he's Jeffery Dahmer's kid brother. When he's done chowing down on the eight feet, he'll start on the four heads.

  56. Really. by headkase · · Score: 1

    ...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.

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:Really. by LnxAddct · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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 to be put together. Anyway, anyone working on any such projects knows exactly what they can't talk about and exaclty what they can. Oh and one more thing to keep in mind in case you ever are talking to someone with some level of clearance, it is their job to tell you when to stop and their job to control what they answer. Often times I find when I'm talking to people about what I do they'll ask something and then be like "I'm sorry I shouldnt have asked that" implying that they did something wrong, and I always politely respond "Don't worry about, you can ask whatever you want, it is my job to tell you when enough is enough".
      Regards,
      Steve

  57. You mean.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the myth of renegade hackers coding in their parent's basements to create the Linux OS

    Nobody else here lives with their mom?

  58. i've been saying this for a year now by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    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

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  59. It only makes sense. by stealth.c · · Score: 1

    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.

  60. Re Linux Newbie? by kupci · · Score: 1
    Basicly I could give you a turbo C++ compiler and tell you to build linux and it would not work.

    Very true. For example, KDE builds with a specific versions of Qt and gcc compilers, if you are using Visual C++, you will even need the right fixpack.

    Without a GCC version no one can tell if you are just building it with the wrong GCC.

    Possibly, here's a link that might be useful, here the user is trying to build Linux and complains that it throws the 'conflicting types' error, and this didn't happen with the distros. Turns out the distros use the older, slower gcc-3.3 compilers. That is why sticking with one of the distros, might be a better idea. Otherwise you can try hitting the various support web sites.

  61. Are you trolling? by swillden · · Score: 1

    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
    SHIPPED scripts/kconfig/zconf.tab.h
    HOSTCC scripts/kconfig/conf.o
    HOSTCC scripts/kconfig/mconf.o
    SHIPPED scripts/kconfig/zconf.tab.c
    SHIPPED scripts/kconfig/lex.zconf.c
    HOSTCC -fPIC scripts/kconfig/zconf.tab.o
    HOSTLLD -shared scripts/kconfig/libkconfig.so
    HOSTLD scripts/kconfig/conf

    [... Lots of stuff elided ...]

    UPD include/asm-i386/asm_offsets.h
    CC init/main.o
    CHK include/linux/compile.h
    UPD include/linux/compile.h
    CC init/version.o

    [... Lots more stuff elided ...]

    OBJCOPY arch/i386/boot/vmlinux.bin
    HOSTCC arch/i386/boot/tools/build
    BUILD arch/i386/boot/bzImage
    Root device is (3, 2)
    Boot sector 512 bytes.
    Setup is 2522 bytes.
    System is 1708 kB
    Kernel: arch/i386/boot/bzImage is ready
    Building modules, stage 2.
    MODPOST
    CC drivers/net/dummy.mod.o
    LD [M] drivers/net/dummy.ko
    % gcc --version
    gcc (GCC) 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-12)
    Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
    This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
    warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

    Note that if my prompts look funny it's because the lameness filter didn't like my full zsh prompts. "User fewer junk characters", it says.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    1. Re:Are you trolling? by swillden · · Score: 1

      wget http://www.kernel.org/pub/lin ux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.0.tar.bz2

      This is very odd. The slashcode appears to have inserted the anchor tags.

      wget http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux- 2.6.0.tar.bz2

      Hmmm. So it appears that slashcode tries to linkify that link, but when it's in an <ecode> entity, the anchor tags get displayed, rather than used as a link.

      I guess slashdot needs better QA, too! Of course, we already knew that.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  62. In other news... by js290 · · Score: 1

    MBA deemed to be worthless certificate degree. History majors aren't automatically qualified to run companies or lemonade stands... In other headlines, Music majors hacking for last twenty years are not really software engineers... Vi and printf's don't constitute a development environment... More obvious news as sanity returns.

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
  63. Where the Fsck does this come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the myth of renegade hackers coding in their parent's basements...

    Just where the hell does this come from, anyway? Is this Microsoft's latest way to discredit anything Linux?

    If so, you can cut it out! I am 52 years old, have owned my own house for 30 years and the only basement I work in is my own! And, yes, I have contributed to OSS!

  64. Re:Like enterprise software has been made for year by Jeremi · · Score: 1
    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 done to the main Linux branch, they have a strong incentive not to strand themselves by forking the code. That why you don't see lots of code forks (the likes of which nearly killed Unix back in the 80's and 90's) or things like web servers being compiled into the kernel -- all the companies act as checks on each other.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  65. I hope they get Linux 64-bit stable by mrm677 · · Score: 1

    I deal with an Opteron cluster of 100 nodes. The hardware is by Sun and is solid (it shipped with Solaris...we converted to Linux recently).

    The stability of Linux x86-64 is aweful. Crashes all the time and manually restarting the nodes is getting painful...luckily this is a scientific compute cluster and the apps can deal with it.

    The Sun reps recommended that, if we wanted to use Linux, that we use 32-bit until the stability increases. They say that most of their customers using Linux with Opterons are using 32-bit for the same reason.

    Frankly we are surprised, but after talking with other colleagues from elsewhere, in the high-performance computing realm, it is well known that Linux x86-64 is not there.

    1. Re:I hope they get Linux 64-bit stable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on earth did you switch to Linux? Go back to Solaris! Sheesh.

  66. Re:Like enterprise software has been made for year by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

    ---That why you don't see lots of code forks (the likes of which nearly killed Unix back in the 80's and 90's) or things like web servers being compiled into the kernel -- all the companies act as checks on each other.

    Yeah, like kHTTPd.

    The truth burns.

    --
  67. Because basements are better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't see that nasty yellow thing when you're trying to sleep.

  68. Terminology & structure: the QA is done elsewh by Jamie+Lokier · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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 that the kernel has reached a threshold of quality that you'd compare with a commercially released software product.

    It is a quality milestone of sorts, but the main purpose of 2.6.0 was to say "right, this is the point at which we commit to the feature set and are moderately happy to begin tidying the implementation".

    In other words, Linux 2.6.0 is comparable with somewhere just before alpha quality release from a QA standpoint. It's not intended for public consumption; it's not considered "ready for beta testers" at that point.

    However, so many people took it that way, which is why now we have these silly "sub-point-point" releases: 2.6.11.1, 2.6.11.2, 2.6.11-rc3, 2.6.11-rc3-bk2-aa1 etc. just to make absolutely clear that there are staged releases, which developers need due to the distributed process, but which are not considered ready for widespread testing. We're seeing longer and longer sub-point release cycles, just because there are more people involved who treat the numbers as comparable with classic software product versions. That's fine for some people, but for secondary kernel developers it's a pain.

    Linux has a multi-level QA system. The one which corresponds to a "Release" that you mean in an enterprise product is called a "Vendor Kernel" in Linux terminology. You should understand that QA is a very large part of the process of producing a "Vendor Kernel".

    In other words, you're looking in the wrong part of the system, and it's an easy mistake because the development process is so welcoming to public participation. For enterprise software style QA, look at the place in the system where that's done: the distributions.

    (That's another way the terminology is different. A "distribution" in Linux means something very different from a "distributor" in the enterprise software sense. The larger "Distribution" vendors perform a lot of QA work and also significant development - they are roughly analogous to your enterprise QA, Testing and Release Management teams. "Distributors" typically just sell stuff and provide after-sales support.)

    -- Jamie

  69. Four things by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

    Firstly, this article is just marketing crap designed to make it easier for Red Hat and other distros to sell support contracts to PHBs. Don't take it too seriously.

    Secondly, as noted by others, there are a couple of hidden assumptions in their sampling of Linux developers.

    Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, Linux represents an infinitesimal fraction of FOSS software. It's just a bloody kernel. Making generalizations about FOSS on the basis of Linux is like writing a dissertation on western literature after reading one novel.

    Fourthly, the article plainly ignores the many tens of thousands of us who are paid to do entirely different closed-source programming jobs, but who spend hours out of each day reading Slashdot and working on our own free software projects, totally unbeknownst to our employers. ;)

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  70. Existence. by unknown51a · · Score: 0

    Glad to see I don't exist. I was getting worried for a moment there.

    --
    I had an imaginary sig once, he said I was a loser and ran off.
  71. From a Script Kiddies POV by Phist · · Score: 1

    Debunking this myth is PR to make LINUX OS in particular and in general the free open source development programs it allows look professionally developed (as opposed to the nasty myth that LINUX and friends is developed by evil hackers) just like the Microsoft Enterprise, only better because it employs a wider range of developers.

  72. isnt it about time ? by krayfx · · Score: 1

    isnt it about time that someone like osdl funded by linux supporting companies - pay and have the developers working fulltime on it? at least the core technologies. there should be some support system and also decent pay packets for linux programmers, okay - not something like MS, but some money flowing in so that the core technologies, say kernel, X, and some core apps can be supported. linux isnt developed by "hippies" - as ms & thier cohorts would like to fancy it. but it ought to be partially securely structured, and partially open (-as it is now). freedom to explore, fork and whatever. somehow have the feeling that there's some structure lacking and that instead of apps taking directions - its the distributions with idealogical & labels that are forking.

  73. how kafkaesque... by Hosiah · · Score: 1

    Nothing like getting up in the morning, reading the news, and being told that you don't exist...good, can I go back to bed, now? OK, the core code of Linux is professionally developed. But many of the programs are done privately or as hobbies. Else, why is Linux released with all those compilers/interpretters for programming languages, why is Linux development such a buzzing topic on message boards, why the huge market in Linux programming books? Well, I'll go back to writing my mythological programs and posting them the code on my imaginary blog, now...I'm in good company, Richard Stallman doesn't exist, either...

  74. Yet another borken view on QA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    >In real software companies, there is a quality assurance (QA) team whose purpose is to make sure that the releases pass standardized tests.

    Garbage. QA does, guess what, Quality Assurance. The take care of the processes, including the one that coverns the test teams who, guess again what, do the tests.

    Test teams try their best to find bugs, not a way of running something without a hitch, their duty is to be trying and to find ways of breaking the software.

    As the test teams discover bugs the developers have to fix these.

    So, the team whose purpose is to make sure that the releases pass standardized tests is the release team. If people are as badly mistaken as you are, the enterprises they work at must be SCO.

    And yes, I have worked in test, QA, development, customer tests and more.

  75. Warped premise by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seems a bit weird to look at the top 25 developpers. It's normal that the ones who have more time to contribute to FOSS projects would be those who are paid to do it. The hobbyists, have a full time job to attend to. Sure, if you limit yourself to a few of the biggest projects, with the widest deployment, you are going to find a lot of "professional contributers" (by professional contributer I mean people whose job is to contribute, I don't mean to say that the others are novices to the field).

    But if you look at the thousands upon thousands of projects out there, It is unlikely that most the project maintainers are hired to do so, and much less the hordes of part-time contributers. It's a narrow-scope myth buster.

    --
    I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
  76. Shift in perception? by waffleman · · Score: 1
    Perhaps there's a shift in perception about coders and IP, such that companies are not asking to own you rather than your work for them. Or perhaps the place I work at just has a lot of O/S programmers. Don't know yet.

    I just signed on with a mid-sized software company. The IP section of the contract was specifically set up to allow coders to keep working on their home projects. They had a list of requirements such as: don't use company time, equipment, IP, market advantage, and don't compete with their product. If you meet these requirements, then anything you write is basically yours, including if you want to give it away for free or sell it commercially. I didn't have to haggle with them at all. It was great.

  77. 25 core developers, more than 90% by General+Wesc · · Score: 1

    Quick, what's 90% of 25?

    I guess that one guy is fully employed only part-time.

  78. Still Slippin Below Radar. by MrCopilot · · Score: 1
    Just because they don't know who we are, does not mean we don't know who we are.

    I've never met any kernel developers face to face. But many have exchanged Ideas/Problems/Solutions with me (even some of those in the top 25.

    Personally I like it this way. Prove yourself andyou get paid to do what you love. Before I was being paid, I was still doing what I love. Now I just have deadlines and managers.

    By the way I haven't been in my parents basement since the Apple IIc days. Before Emancipation. The basement thing I can agree is a myth.

    But I do my best work at MY home.You can bet that a few Media Players came outa somebodys basement. My two 15 yr old boys are in production on a RTS/FPS in my garage probably not OSS though. Oh wait, new Myth:

    All Proprietary software is programmed by misfit teens in a garage.

    Well all good PropSoft(TM) anyway.

    --
    OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
  79. Top 25 bodies != Majority of OSS projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not even a tiny minority. Not even for the Linux kernel. There are so many people doing kernel patches it aint even funny. This article is a prime example of lies, damned lies and statistics.
    This reminds me of the sig I've seen around here to effect that 99% of all people have more than the average number of legs. Yeah, well uh huh. Says more about stats than it does about code.

  80. "The sun never sets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the sun never sets on linux development"

    Wait a minute they get to see the light of day...
    who let the code monkeys out of the cages???

  81. Re:What is being exposed? your ignorance by misleb · · Score: 1

    Well, that much is well known.

    --
    "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  82. Good news for programmers by geekee · · Score: 1

    One perceived problem with OSS is that software given away for free would lower the monetary value of the programmer's work. The fact that most programmers are paid to work on Linux shows that successful OSS projects with be embraced by businesses as a shared resource worth investing in time and money for development.

    --
    Vote for Pedro