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."

24 of 252 comments (clear)

  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 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
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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"?
  2. 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!
  3. 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.

  4. 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 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.

  5. 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 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.

  6. 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?

  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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?
  15. 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

  16. 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?)