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!

[Wesley Felter]

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

Re:how is OSS protected? specifically!

[LnxAddct]

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

Re:how is OSS protected? specifically!

[Cecil]

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.

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...

Selected Instances

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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.

renegade prgrammers

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

True, but ...

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

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/

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.

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

[ThousandStars]

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?

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.)

Linux in professional hands?

[mr_majestyk]

Make no mistake, Linux is in professional hands

yeah, like these guys.

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!