Myth of Linux Hobby Coders Exposed

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."

Comments

how is OSS protected? specifically!

[yagu]

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).

Re:how is OSS protected? specifically!

[flood6]

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.

Re:how is OSS protected? specifically!

[lheal]

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.

Re:how is OSS protected? specifically!

[swillden]

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.

Re:how is OSS protected? specifically!

[Tassach]

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.

Romatic vision

[MikeCapone]

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...

PHBs will always get it wrong.

[rice_burners_suck]

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.

Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but...

[skazatmebaby]

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.

What a joke of an article

[xintegerx]

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.)

Mixed Message

[Salamander]

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.

What is being exposed?

[misleb]

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

Enterprise-like development? I don't think so.

[LordNimon]

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!

Re:Selected Instances

[imsabbel]

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?

Re:Selected Instances

[prodangle]

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.

Re:Really.

[LnxAddct]

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