Slashdot Mirror
Novell Rises to Second Highest Linux Contributor
eldavojohn writes "Which companies contribute the most to the Linux kernel? Well, The Linux Foundation released their results and Novell's contributions have gone up 250% (from 3.6% of all contributions to 14.4% of all contributions) to put them at #2 behind Red Hat. This chart also illustrates just how widely Linux is modified by the community and not just a handful of developers/companies. You can find more coverage on blogs and the original report."
But that would be like shooting themselves in the foot.
I am reminded of the $350 Million that Microsoft paid Novell last year and must wonder if the 200% increase in sales that Novell reports can be linked to that?
I also must wonder if Novell's only intent is to stay a key part of Linux to maintain this Microsoft partnership?
Or if Microsoft is urging them to become an even bigger player so that Microsoft can feel like and threaten people that Microsoft owns even more of the Linux kernel, not just the vague patent threats? One of the articles mentions this notion of not 'owning the source code' but rather 'owning the source of the code.' Could this be Microsoft's new target?
Then there's the super fun idea that Novell is putting in source code from Windows that Windows "accidentally" gave Novell which does several things at once. It justifies Novell's payment for protection from Microsoft litigation, it hobbles their competitors in the Linux realm and it gives Microsoft the power to go after any user or company using Linux with the 'stolen' code. It would also tie up Linux for a bit until that mess was sorted out.
I mean, since Novell's already demonstrated they're Microsoft's bitch and admitted it what is preventing any of the above whacked out theories from being true?
My work here is dung.
that this F/OSS stuff is actually working... that would just ruin everything. If this keeps up where will it stop? Baseball players playing for the love of the game? Backyard engineers reporting on bad levees? Damnit, this will ruin everything.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I may get b$tch slapped for this, but isn't this primarily as a result of them acquiring SuSE? Having been a Linux user for some eight years, and a SuSE user for seven years and twelve months, I've always considered SuSE at the forefront. As a matter of fact ther reason I switched was because my version of Redhat at the time had limited driver support. SuSE on the other hand had a full line of Xwin drivers.
Novell produces one of the most popular linux distros out there. Is it really surprising to anyone they contribute a lot of changes? Sure they've made a pact with the "devil" but there is no indication they are getting out of linux anytime soon.
Just kinda curious about how many of these contributors fix small problems for incompatible hardware and or changes to gcc?
Fixing a warning message, allowing it to compile with the changes to gcc etc. would probably make up a large part of the changes.
Novel contributes 8.9% of the changes to the kernel, not 14.4%.
That's funny, I don't see Microsoft on that list anywhere...
-- Alastair
What about all the code that IBM stole from SCO and stuffed into the kernel?
I see a lot of posts here treating Novell with suspicion (maybe even well-deserved) about their contributions. For my part, however, I would like to thank Novell as one of the many users directly benefiting from their support. It's no good to vilify Novell, then demand that the support open source, and decry them when they do. If it turns out later that there was something foul going on, then we can go back to vilification. For now, though, they have done well and helped us all out. Hence, once again, thank you, Novell.
#define DRM chmod 000
Microsoft: "So, can we get an ISO standard on a kernel? MS Linux, yah, we're certified."
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
How much of this contributed code is 'Microsoft interoperability' code that will later be used to "prove" that Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents?
What I found equaly interesting in the report is the lack of mention of Dell and Ubuntu in the list. From most estimates Ubuntu leads the pack as far as desktop installs are concerned, and Dell had promised better driver support for their Linux PCs.
With more talk of desktop Linux these days, and a small but real increase in desktop market share (as reported from web stats), you would think some of that would be reflected in kernel development. But it looks as though big business and expensive hardware is still the main motivator in the business world.
Good, bad..they're the ones with the code.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
for instance, here's a statement with no basis in fact, and based on pure distrust and speculation:
Then there's the super fun idea that Novell is putting in source code from Windows that Windows "accidentally" gave Novell
Pure paranoia only serves to hurt everyone, and doesn't help anyone (except maybe Microsoft).
These arguments are starting to sound like a "who's the alien shape shifter?" speech by the guy who's lost it in your average bad sci-fi show.
AccountKiller
...opensuse 10.3's autoyast would properly configure networking on a dell 860 or 2950.
and...
WTF is the point of copying autoyast user scripts to a location on the hard drives to run from...if they unmount the #!@$!@#$ install media (CD here) before they do the #!$#@!$ copy????
Where is Canonical on that list? Or rather, are they represented there at all? I would think that at the very least they would get money from Dell to fix a few things. Slashdotters often like to bash RedHat for shedding their free desktop division, but the love for Canonical seems endless.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Easy peasy...if Novell drops code that infringes upon MS code, Novell can be sued for knowingly violating the GPL. Yes, the end result may be code rewrites in the kernel, but no Linus user will be held accountable for Novell's mistakes. So does Novell want to cut its own throat? Maybe someone higher up is willing to take that chance and cash out from the fire sale. But then again with Sarbanes-Oxley lurking out there, this could quickly blow up in Microsoft's face (as being the driving force of corporate malefeasance.)
Or do they keep all their advances to themselves?
Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
Why waste time on conspiracies when MS is attacking Linux in plain sight?
The kernel is just one part of Linux, and that's all this report covers. One might as well divine the direction of the automotive industry by dissecting a transmission.
Which part of them making huge profits with Linux, supporting the FOSS community more and more by the day (like this story), lead you to think that?
That is totally true but even because of the GPL you are not forced to accept any GPL code either. If there is a specific patch in the Linux kernel you don't want to have you can remove it for your own builds. This is one of the big benefits of GPL code. You are free to take it or free to leave it. Even if Novel is being nefarious, Linus and the other kernel hackers miss it, you are under no obligation to agree to use their GPL code.
Number one is some company called "none", followed by "unknown" and Red Hat is 3rd
Two interesting things to look at here. Firstly is Ubuntu/Canonical is not even on the list. Lots of happy userland additions come from them, but apparently little in the kernel front.
Secondly, Broadcom with 350+? Is this the same Broadcom who have the reputation of the worst supported wireless cards out there, who even release new cards without Linux drivers. Maybe they might want to shift their efforts to something somewhat more visible for their company.
The top two "contributors" on the list are "None" (13.9%) and "Unknown" (12.9%).
Regarding the former, I think it is very much worth noting, more than Novell's increased contributions, that so much is still being done by independent contributors. As for the latter, what exactly does that mean? How can we not know where changes come from. That's a bit disconcerting.
That explains why for the first time ever (over 10 years) that I booted a kernel that froze my machine.
I think it's kind of a shame that Novell is doing so poorly. They actually had *negative* income in 2007, and are still largely making their money from selling *netware* despite all their Linux investments.
A lot of the stuff they are working on is pretty cool, especially Mono.
However, I think it's clear that there just isn't room in the market place for another distro.
These arguments are starting to sound like a "who's the alien shape shifter?" speech by the guy who's lost it in your average bad sci-fi show.
Yeah, and it's usually the first guy to ask that question who turns out to be the alien... waitaminute...
OMG, eldavojohn is submitting Windows code to the Linux kernel! Burn him!
The enemies of Democracy are
Novell is not a "Linux company". Novell is a proprietary company attempting to market themselves as a "Linux company".
Novell has some good products. But they will not port them to Debian/Ubuntu. Nor will they Open them.
Interesting...so what you're saying is that paying developers produces more usable code for the kernel? But I thought we were supposed to hate these companies that profiteer off our beloved egalitarian operating system.
If you can't find a real troll, just mod down whoever you don't agree with!
is material that can be used by anyone but Novell?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I'm not certain that this is a bad thing. Not certain. It might be a good thing. Perhaps.
OTOH, it makes me more interested in OpenSolaris, and it makes me wish the Hurd people would stop starting over from scratch. It also makes me more interested in BSD, even though I prefer the GPL.
Sun has talked about releasing OpenSolaris under GPL3. If they do, I'm going to be VERY interested.
If Linux were under GPL3, I wouldn't be worried about Novell. It isn't. The language of the GPL is equivocal in terms of what it means WRT patents. I think it means that if you can't distribute something legally and allow those who receive it to also distribute it, then you don't have the right to distribute it. Unfortunately, it's not totally clear about this. It was written before software could be patented, and it certainly didn't contemplate patents like a patent on adding 2 + 2 in Basic. (That particular one is harmless...but it's a magnificent example of the kind of foolish stuff that's allowed to be patented.) So the writing of the GPL frequently used general terms. Terms which apply with equal force to trademarks, copyrights, and patents, even though all are very distinct in their limitations and powers. As a result, it allows patents to be used in most places that it allows trademarks to be used. UGH!!! A sensible interpretation of the GPL would, indeed, mean that the GPL3 was unnecessary. I don't feel like I can count on the courts coming to a sensible interpretation in any reasonable amount of time.
So I trust GPL3 code coming from Novell. Other code...leaves me hesitant.
This is sort of like how I feel about Mono. I'm not certain it's booby-trapped, but I can't tell, so I'd rather avoid it. I'm risk averse. I know it. I've always been risk averse. To me, trusting Novell looks like excessive risk. I *hope* their code is being thoroughly vetted by those who know better than I do what's dangerous. I fear it isn't.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I'm surprised to see that Google isn't on this list. Android, Goobuntu, GFS... Why aren't they contributing this back into the main tree? Doesn't Andrew Morton work there? What does he do all day? Chris DiBona? Google has linux repositories and plenty of open source projects. Is this simply a case where code from Google isn't being attributed to them and instead is filed under unknown? Anyone, Bueller?
"It [the GPL] was written before software could be patented, and it certainly didn't contemplate patents like a patent on adding 2 + 2 in Basic."
GPLv2 was from the early 90s. The Free Software Foundation has been working against software patents longer than that - one of the classic cases RMS cites is from the mid-80s of the FSF trying to create a compression program that doesn't use a patented algorithm.
My mistake. It thought it was earlier. Certainly it was before software patents had become as abusive as they now are (or at least before they were as blatantly abusive).
Still, this only increases my admiration for the foresight of RMS.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Another big portion is companies like Novell contract themselves to other companies to do their kernel development for them. AMD, for example, pays Novell to do their kernel work for them. This isn't an uncommon practice, since RedHat also gets money from other companies to do their development work in the kernel. But when it comes down to it, the actual "originator" of the code or concept may not be Novell or RedHat, but they're the email address getting merged on the Signed-off-by: lines, which isn't a big deal.
I don't see this as anything evil or underhanded, being a network stack hacker myself. The kernel maintainers and core contributers are far from stupid and gullible, and will *not* accept anything if they see proprietary undertones. I'm also sure they're putting a bit more scrutiny into reviewing patches from Novell just because. But the bottom line is more people are working on the kernel, trying to make it better, which is the end-goal. It really, in my mind, doesn't matter who is doing it, just as long as it's getting done and done well.
...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock smoking teabaggers!
They employ folks like Ben Collins and Tim Gardner on their kernel team. In the past they have employed folks who now work in Red Hat's kernel teams. However their main objective seems to be stabilisation, security and integration of 3rd party drivers not yet in mainline tree rather than brand new developments.
The nature of Novell's relationship and agreements with Microsoft, the way it advertises its wares to customers ('do you want the product that is compatible with Windows or the one that isn't ?'), its love of all things Microsoft and Anakin de.. err Miguel de Icaza; these things are more than enough for me to want to scrutinize every line of code that comes out of Novell. The entire free software world should be duly concerned. And yes, I'd support the Linux kernel moving to GPLv3, absolutely.
I'm a newley converted Gentoo fan. I love the emerge command. However, a project for work that I'm spearheading, is a Linux desktop project, so we can be ready to continue business in 2012 when MS ends extended support of XP, and still be functional. I've tested about 6 different distro's so far, and functionality out-of-the-box...so far SUSE is winning hands down. (in a business environment). It's the first distro I've tested that was able to authenticate to an Active Directory domain, straight out of the box, no configuration. (granted, the shares didn't map correctly...but the point is, I could logon, because I had a valid AD account.) I've got a few more distros to test, but right now, SUSE has become a very strong contender.
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.