Slashdot Mirror
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."
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).
... debunking the Didiot and Endrools of the world..
What a shame.
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!
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.
have just been pwn3d.
No longer can anyone use the geek in their basement argument.(I know I know, im generalizing, so sue me)
Damn them renegade prgrammers, they have been the bane of my life for many many years!
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.
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?
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.
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?
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!
Only without the unreasonable demands by product management or the impossible to fille promises of salespeople.
Though the terribly underfunded budget is still there...
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?
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.
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
Make no mistake, Linux is in professional hands
yeah, like these guys.
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. :)
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
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.
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.
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
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...
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
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...
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
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.
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:
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:
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
...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! --
"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
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...
This article is not for slashdotters who already know this. This is just to counter FUD that OSS is created by inexperienced kids.
Better a renegade programmer than a redneck DBA. Or something.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
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:
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.
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.
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.
Everybody knows that The SCO Group created Linux
Oh, wait...
I certainly found the read short but it was not that interesting. The goddamn server is /.ed!
You can't handle the truth.
It isn't true that we ALL live in our parents basements...
...Some of us live in our parents attics.
This is all great, but I'm looking for the latest news. Clue me in.
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.
Yeah...
In fact, if I had to guess...I'd say somebody is suffering from some real insecurity problems. Poor, poor Stuart Cohen.
They are not really fully engaged to the project. Which myth is worse....?
Next thing you will be telling me is that they also have girlfriends.
My Weblog
...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.
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
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.
Well, I assume that programmers have to eat, too.
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
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.
Yeah, I was thinking maybe the poster copied and pasted from some web page that had links in place.
...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.
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....
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.
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.
Because the one example you give doesn't work. Maybe the Linux kernel team isn't the only one that needs better QA?
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.
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
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.
Why doesn't it flag these incompatible versions then? Post's point stands as far as I can see.
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.
---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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?)
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.
Quick, what's 90% of 25?
I guess that one guy is fully employed only part-time.
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
Well, that much is well known.
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
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