Linux may not represent the future of all computing, but it sure provides a compelling example of what a dedicated community can accomplish.
With over 1,000 developers actively working on the Linux kernel, representing some 200 different corporations, Linux is an exceptional example of the power of open-source communities, and also speaks to the value of groups like the Linux Foundation that help to shepherd it.
Jonathan Corbet, in conjunction with the Linux Foundation, has co-authored a report focused on who writes Linux code (PDF). I reported last month on a piece of the report's data.
As a reminder, Red Hat remains the top contributor to the Linux kernel, writing 12.3 percent of the kernel, though Intel (6.9 percent) is making a concerted effort to catch up.
Beyond these headline numbers, however, the Linux Foundation's report offers some intriguing data:
- Since 2008, the number of individual developers has increased by 10 percent, "reflecting the ubiquity of Linux across industries," according to the report.
- More than 70 percent of total contributions to the kernel come from "sponsored developers" (i.e., those paid to do Linux development by Red Hat, IBM, Novell, Intel, Oracle, and others).
- 2.7 million lines of net-new lines of code have been added since April 2008, with an average of 10,923 lines of code added each day (nearly triple the rate in 2008). According to the Linux Foundation, this represents a "rate of change larger than any other public software project of any size."
- Equally important as adding to the kernel's size, however, is the fact that an average of 5,547 lines are removed every day, keeping the code lean and relevant.
(Credit:
Linux Foundation)
Clearly, the Linux kernel process is doing something right, given the amount of developers it is able to accommodate, without losing its quality advantages (or its customers). Importantly, expertise in Linux translates into a fatter paycheck, too: up to 50 percent bigger.
Small wonder, then, that Microsoft continues to fret about competition from Linux: competing with Linux effectively represents competing with the entire software and hardware industries...all at once.
Not even Redmond in its prime would want that fight.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
In 2007 Red Hat stood on top of the Linux kernel contributor list with room to spare. At 12.7 percent of the Linux kernel contributed by Red Hat (measured in terms of lines changed), IBM was the runner-up at a comparatively distant 5.9 percent. In 2008, Red Hat slipped a little but maintained the top spot (11.2 percent), with Novell making a burst into second place at 8.9 percent.
In 2009, things get more interesting, with Intel making a serious challenge to claim the top spot in Linux kernel contributions.
Red Hat, Novell, and IBM all have substantial software businesses, with heavy investments in Linux, so it makes sense that they'd contribute heavily to the Linux kernel. But according to new data Jonathan Corbet of LWN.net announced at the Ottawa Linux Symposium on Wednesday, Intel has surged from 2.3 percent in 2007 to 4.1 percent in 2008 to 6.9 percent in 2009.
(Credit:
Jonathan Corbet (LWN.net))
Red Hat still sits atop the corporate pile of contributors with 12.3 percent, but within the next two years it's possible that we'll see Intel top it. Since Corbet last compiled his kernel data in 2008, 2,559 developers added 4.8 million lines of code. Among the 339 employers found in Corbet's data, Intel ranks second.
This really is remarkable. Why is a hardware company, albeit one with significant software assets, making such an earnest effort to contribute to open-source software?
Intel's commitment, as Dirk Hohndel, Intel's chief Linux and open-source technologist, told me, signals Linux's critical importance to a broad community:
It's a sign of the strength of the Linux community that contributors come from all sorts of places. This shows how important Linux is.
Yes, but why Intel? Suffice it to say, Intel doesn't account for its Linux development as "charitable giving."
Indeed, John Treadway suggests that "at the very least [Intel's kernel development] means Intel-based platforms will continue to have the advantage," because presumably Intel chips inside servers, Netbooks, desktops, mobile phones, and more will run Linux as well or better than they do Windows.
Intel's Linux commitment, in short, could be a hedge on its longstanding partnership with Microsoft.
Or maybe it's more. For years Intel made a fortune buddying up with Microsoft in the so-called Wintel duopoly. The problem with this pairing is that Microsoft's portion of the pie cuts into Intel's to an ever-widening degree. And it's not just Microsoft: the more an original equipment manufacturer spends on software the less is left over for Intel's hardware.
So, as SAP's Dirk Riehle remarks, Intel's Linux strategy frees up more money to spend on its chips, a theme Riehle has touched on before with reference to IBM's commitment to Linux.
Watch for Intel to further increase its commitment to Linux, paying more and more developers like Jeff Dike to give lots of software away.
This makes the developers happy, but it also makes Intel happy. The more great open-source software out there, the more money is available to buy Intel hardware. Microsoft is the casualty, but that's business. One company's complement is another company's core. That's the way open-source capitalism works.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
No surprise, but Red Hat remains the top corporate Linux kernel contributor, as reported by SDTimes. As I've reported before, Red Hat is the top Linux contributor by a wide margin, with IBM, the next biggest corporate contributor, coming in nearly seven percentage points behind Red Hat.
Greg Kroah-Hartman, a Novell employee and prominent Linux kernel developer, recently called out Red Hat's contributions (good) but has taken far too much time to criticize Canonical, creator of the popular Ubuntu Linux distribution, and its apparent dearth of contributions (not-so-good).
Mark Shuttleworth defends Canonical's contributions to Linux, and I tend to side with him on this. He writes:
We focus most of our effort on integration. Our competitors turn that into "Canonical doesn't contribute" but it's more accurate to say we measure our contribution in the effectiveness with which we get the latest stable work of upstream, with security maintenance, to the widest possible audience for testing and love. To my mind, that's a huge contribution.
Canonical contributes significantly to the ease of use of (desktop) Linux, and recently upgraded its efforts. These are important contributions.
Regardless, as I wrote back in 2006 when Oracle tried to undermine Red Hat by offering a competing Linux distribution without matching its ambition with Linux kernel contributions, those who contribute most profit most, at least when selling a Linux distribution. In open source, it matters a great deal that you not only offer source code, but also that you're the source of the code.
Those who contribute have the closest thing to "control" that true open-source communities provide. This is a key source of pricing power.
For those outside the open-source world, it often comes as a surprise to find out that it's extraordinarily difficult to become a significant contributor to the Linux kernel or other open-source projects. The reason? Unlike a company where all you need is an employee badge to start contributing to its code, in serious open-source projects you need to demonstrate years of competent coding to even get an invitation to the party.
Linux Torvalds, founder of Linux, walks through the process in a recent interview:
It's definitely not easy to become a 'big contributor.' For one thing, the kernel is quite complex and big, and it inevitably simply takes time to learn all the rules -- not just for the code, but for how the whole development environment works. Similarly, for a new developer, it will take time before people start recognizing the name and start trusting the developer to do the right things....
The worst thing anybody can do is to study the kernel alone and try to learn things in private, and then, however many months later, present all the established kernel developers with a big patch that just comes out of the blue. That's just going to be frustrating for everybody.
And just in case would-be contributors were hoping for an warm, encouraging environment....
... Read moreInsisting that they have "repeatedly found them to be detrimental to Linux users, businesses, and the greater Linux ecosystem," today the Linux kernel community has started petitioning for open-source modules and open-source drivers for the Linux kernel.
Such modules negate the openness, stability, flexibility, and maintainability of the Linux development model and shut their users off from the expertise of the Linux community.
The Linux Foundation, led by Jim Zemlin, has issued a statement in favor of the Linux kernel developers' position. It's unclear why the kernel developers decided to speak out now, though the Linux Foundation indicates that the developers have been subjected to a steady barrage of questions on the topic for years. Apparently, they finally got sick of it.
... Read more
One year ago, Linux kernel development was almost predominately Red Hat's game. Today, Red Hat's lead has dipped considerably, according to a report just released by the Linux Foundation.
Red Hat continues to contribute/sponsor 11.2 percent of the Linux kernel's development, down from 14.4 percent in 2007, while Novell has jumped from an anemic 3.6 percent in 2007 to a robust 8.9 percent in 2008.
(Credit:
Linux Foundation)
Perhaps not surprisingly, Novell's share of the Linux market has grown considerably in that same time, with Novell reporting a 200 percent increase in its Linux business over the past year.
So, while Novell crows about its rise in revenue market share in the Linux market, it's the company's development market share that I view as the true leading indicator of its business. Linux sales are up 200 percent, while Linux development is up 250 percent. See a correlation?
In open source, it's all about "owning" the source of code, not necessarily the source code.
Importantly, it's not just Novell and Red Hat who contribute. As detailed statistics demonstrate, the Linux kernel is perhaps the world's largest, most distributed development effort, reflecting its increasing importance to an ever-widening array of disparate parties:
... Read more
(Credit:
Greg Kroah-Hartman)
I'm not sure how I missed this presentation when it was first delivered in 2006, but I'm grateful to Digg for resurfacing it. In it Greg Kroah-Hartman, a Linux kernel developer employed by Novell, identifies and debunks a range of myths about Linux kernel development. It makes for excellent, insightful reading.
Among other salient points, I particularly liked Greg's swatting down of the myth that suggests Linux lacks support for disparate devices. The exact opposite is true, as Greg points out:
[W]e support more things than anyone else. And more than anyone else ever has in the past. Linux has a very long list of things that we have supported before anyone else ever did....
... Read more
- prev
- 1
- next
