Slashdot Mirror
Big Names Dominate Open Source Funding
jones_supa writes: Network World's analysis of publicly listed sponsors of 36 prominent open-source non-profits and foundations reveals that the lion's share of financial support for open-source groups comes from a familiar set of names. Google was the biggest supporter, appearing on the sponsor lists of eight of the 36 groups analyzed. Four companies – Canonical, SUSE, HP and VMware – supported five groups each, and seven others (Nokia, Oracle, Cisco, IBM, Dell, Intel and NEC) supported four. For its part, Red Hat supports three groups (Linux Foundation, Creative Commons and the Open Virtualization Alliance).
It's tough to get more than a general sense of how much money gets contributed to which foundations by which companies – however, the numbers aren't large by the standards of the big contributors. The average annual revenue for the open-source organizations considered in the analysis was $4.36 million, and that number was skewed by the $27 million taken in by the Wikimedia Foundation (whose interests range far beyond OSS development) and the $17 million posted by Linux Foundation.
It's tough to get more than a general sense of how much money gets contributed to which foundations by which companies – however, the numbers aren't large by the standards of the big contributors. The average annual revenue for the open-source organizations considered in the analysis was $4.36 million, and that number was skewed by the $27 million taken in by the Wikimedia Foundation (whose interests range far beyond OSS development) and the $17 million posted by Linux Foundation.
I'm assuming that's original Nokia and not the cut-off body part that had been assimilated.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
The whole widget is made of a stack - you need not only the OS, but also the hardware, the applications, the internet connection, etc. Since one customer pays one price for the whole widget, there is only so much monopoly profit that can be extracted from them, and so if there are multiple monopolies in the stack (for example, Microsoft vs. Intel), they must fight eachother for profit share.
Thus it makes perfect sense that primary beneficiaries of open source (other than the users, of course) are the other monopolists - Intel, IBM, Google, Oracle, Samsung, etc.
Why is it that RMS is quick to call all proprietary software unjust, and yet gives a free pass to chipmakers for not publishing their masksets? Is concealing chip designs not also unjust? Look who's paying who. It's all infighting about distribution of the monopoly rents. No one's hands are clean.
Not a long time ago, I was just a normal internet user that surfed various news sites like Sladshdot, reddit, or wsj.com. I read a story, perhaps clicked onto some links it contained, and I was mostly happy with my life.
Then, one day, I surfed Slashdot. It was one of those days you will remember for the rest of your life. So, as I surfed Sladshdot, the title of a story got my attention. I read the summary. The topic seemed interesting, so I decided to read further. I read:
Read on below for the rest what Bennett has to say.
Usually I don't read first line of a story which contains the user who has submitted it. On that day, I didn't neither. As I've only read that bottom line, I asked myself: who is this misterious Bennett? I decided to click onto the "Read the comments" link to read more of the story that was, as it seems, written by some Bennett. During reading, I was already impressed by the clear and detailed but still concise structure of the text. As I finished reading, I was convinced it was the best story I've ever read on Sladshdot, or any comparable news site. I asked myself: perhaps this misterious Bennett has contributed more frequently than just once?
To find that out, I went to Sladshdot's search bar and searched for "Bennett". I clicked the second entry, and it began with:
Frequent contributor Bennett Haselton writes
I searched for the "Read on" line, and I was happy when I found it. As it seemed, he was a frequent contributor. However the story was on a topic completely unrelated to the topic of my article. Would the other article still be as insightful as the first? And the other stories in the search result? Would they be also by Bennett? Or someone else? I decided first to be happy to have found such an insightful article, and decided to make a photograph of me, before I read the second story.
I still have that photograph of me and I can see the hope and the satisfaction in my eyes, the hope that the other stories are also written by this brilliant author called Bennett, and the satisfaction of having read such an insightful article. As I've read the first couple of stories by Bennett, I couldn't believe what my eyes saw: all the stories were as insightful or even more insightful than the original story I read. I asked myself whether the spectators in the Globe theatre would have felt the same way when they watched a piece by shakespeare: Witnessing history of writing. I realized Bennett is one of histories great writers.
As I've finished reading all contributions by Bennett Haselton on Sladshdot, I went back to the first Bennett story, and read them a second time. I sat three days straight, missing all social events during that span, only reading Bennett's stories, and reading them again and again. During that time my eyes opened to the fact that my whole life, I've known nothing. Bennett's stories explained every aspect of very complicated things in such detail, that I formed something in my mind. First, I couldn't describe it what it was, but years later I know that, for the first time of my life, I formed something called "opinion" on a topic. Previously, I've only adopted opinions from others, but Bennett's stories enable people to make their opinions for themselfes, to form them. With his stories, Bennett gives you the material to form your own opinion on your own. I know you will say that you can form your opinion on your own, and that you don't need Bennett for that. I
disagree with you. What you call opinion, is in reality just ideology you imitate from others. You don't form your opinions, you don't have them.
Every time Bennett writes a new story on Sladshdot, I take a free day and spend it reading the story
Thank you for your interest in joining the Gay Wigger Association of DICE* (GayWAD)! GayWADs worldwide are happy that you'd like to become part of our
constantly enlarging member ship (come sail away 8====D~)
Unlike other geek fraternities that you might have heard about, GayWAD accepts members of all races, creeds, and colors. We don't even have a technical inclination requirement. As our founders stated in the Annals of GayWAD, Chapter 1: "You don't have to be a geek, as long as you like it Greek." They were, of course, referring to the penis in anus style of sexual relations. Don't despair, as attaining full fabulous lifetime status in GayWAD is easy. The only prerequisites for membership in Gay Wigger Association of DICE* are that you meet all of the following conditions:
To submit your Gay Wigger Association of DICE* Membership Application, simply do nothing. Congratulations, you're now a GayWAD!
If you require a specific membership number for purposes such as framing, docking, or prestigious inclusion upon your business cards and resume, please take down this number: 69.
Optionally, you may complete the following survey by replying to this post, indicating affirmative responses with an X in each appropriate box:
GayWAD Membership Survey (OPTIONAL)
[ ] I am gay
[ ] I am a wigger
[ ] I have used SLASHDOT BETA to find a sex partner
After completion of this optional survey, your Slashdot post ID shall serve as your unique Gay Wigger Association of DICE* membership ID.
Your GayWAD membership kit** is on its way.
* GayWAD is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by DICE.
** GayWAD membership kit no longer includes HIV self-test catheter.
Concentrating on the money these big corporations give to Open Source foundations and ignoring the salaries they pay to dedicated Open Source developers is a ridiculous comparison -- a drop in a bucket.
You mean to say that the people with the most money are the ones donating the most to fund open source development?
The average annual revenue for the open-source organizations considered in the analysis was $4.36 million, and that number was skewed by the $27 million taken in by the Wikimedia Foundation
Then compute the median. That's standard practice if an outlier disrupts the mean. It's not like this is rocket science.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Open Sourcers suck at the teat of Money!!!!!!! You think you can do open source things in your garage anymore? You're dreaming, loser.
Well, I for one am amazed.
Those with more money can afford to give more? What an outstanding deduction, truly worthy of Sherlock Holmes.
Next you'll be telling us that unemployed people very rarely contribute financially.
Blimey, whatever next.
That's right. Me, for example. My job is to maintain and improve some software my employer uses, and help others in the organization learn to use it. Since the software system is open source, all of my bug fixes and many of the improvements I do are sent back upstream. (Some aren't generally purpose, but are specific to my employer and their needs.)
Money is not the point. Folks like Intel contribute HUGE chunks of employee work to drivers and the code base. This means that Linux, Windows and others all run well on Intel Silicon. The total investment is likely 20x or 100x more than their cash contribution.