Slashdot Mirror
How Google Uses Linux
postfail writes 'lwn.net coverage of the 2009 Linux Kernel Summit includes a recap of a presentation by Google engineers on how they use Linux. According to the article, a team of 30 Google engineers is rebasing to the mainline kernel every 17 months, presently carrying 1208 patches to 2.6.26 and inserting almost 300,000 lines of code; roughly 25% of those patches are backports of newer features.'
Try iotop.
http://guichaz.free.fr/iotop/
Funnily enough the roads were there before the cars.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Yes, they do. Since they use older kernels and have... unique... needs, they aren't a huge contributor like RedHat, but they do a lot.
During 2.6.31, they were responsible for 6% of the changes to the kernel.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Andrew has been doing a large amount of kernel work for some time now, before his employment with Google. Note that the 6% figure is under non-author signoffs - people that patches went through, instead of people who actually authored them. Heck, even I submitted a patch that went through Andrew once (and I've submitted like 5 patches to the kernel). Andrew does a lot of gatekeeping for the kernel, but he doesn't write that much code, and he certainly doesn't appear to be committing code written by Google's kernel team under his name as a committer.
Google isn't even on the list of actual code-writing employers, which means they're under 0.9%. I watched a Google Tech Talk about the kernel once (I forget the exact name) where it was mentioned that Google was (minus Andrew) somewhere in the 40th place or so of companies who contribute changes to Linux.
Google is responsible for a tiny part of kernel development last I heard, unfortunately.
I don't know that much about google's private modifications, but the question of "what to give back" does not always have a clear default answer. I've modified lots of OSS in the past and not given it back, simply because my best guess was that I am the only person who will ever want feature x. There's no point in cluttering up mailing lists or documentation with something extremely esoteric. It's not because I'm lazy or selfish or greedy -- sometimes the right answer is to just keep things to yourself. (Of course, there are times when I've modified something hackishly, and had been too lazy or embarrassed to send it back upstream :)
Perhaps google answers this question in a different way than others would, but that doesn't necessarily conflict with "the spirit of OSS", whatever that might be.
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.