From: joe mcguckin <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <email@example.com> Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers <firstname.lastname@example.org>, TUHS main list <email@example.com>, Douglas McIlroy <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 16:02:02 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <36A1FADC-560D-47D2-9F0C-401A1B4E1655@via.net> (raw) In-Reply-To: <YPCNnL4TLkLWqmFa@mit.edu> [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3956 bytes --] I remember going to one of those cattle-call hiring events. I wanted to speak with the Intel compiler guy and when I got up to him, all he said was “Ganapathi”. I actually knew who/what hw was talking about. So, has Intel killed their own compiler toolset? Joe McGuckin ViaNet Communications email@example.com 650-207-0372 cell 650-213-1302 office 650-969-2124 fax > On Jul 15, 2021, at 12:33 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 11:07:10AM -0400, Clem Cole wrote: >> In fact, [I can not say I personally know this - but have read internal >> memos that make the claim], Intel pays for more Linux developers and now >> LLVM developers than any firm. What's interesting is that Intel does not >> really directly sell its HW product to end-users. We sell to others than >> use our chips to make their products. We have finally moved to the >> support model for the compilers (I've personally been fighting that battle >> for 15 years). > > That claim is probably from the data collected from the Linux > Foundation, which publishes these stats every year or two. The most > recent one is here: > > https://www.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020_kernel_history_report_082720.pdf > > The top ten organizations responsible for commits from 2007 -- 2019: > > (None) 11.95% > Intel 10.01% > Red Hat 8.90% > (Unknown) 4.09% > IBM 3.79% > SuSE 3.49% > Linaro 3.17% > (Consultant) 2.96% > Google 2.79% > Samsung 2.58% > > "None" means no organizational affiliation (e.g., hobbyists, students, > etc.) "Unknown" means the organization affiliation couldn't be > determined. > > For more recent data, if you look at the commits for the 5.10 release > (end of 2020), the top ten list by organizations looks like this: > > Huawei 8.9% > Intel 8.0% > (Unknown) 6.6% > (None) 4.9% > Red Hat 5.7% > Google 5.2% > AMD 4.3% > Linaro 4.1% > Samsung 3.5% > IBM 3.2% > > For the full list and more stats, see: https://lwn.net/Articles/839772/ > >> So back to my basic point ... while giving the *behavior* a name, the *idea >> *of "Open Source" is really not anything new. > > I do think there is something which is radically new --- which is that > it's not a single company publishing all of the source code for a > particular OS, whether it's System/360 or the PDP-8 Disk Operating > System, or whatever. > > In other words, it's the shared nature of the collaboration, which > partially solves the question of "who pays" --- the answer is, "lots > of companies, and they do so when it makes business sense for them to > do so". Intel may have had the largest number of contributions to > Linux historically --- but that was still 10%, and it was eclipsed by > people with no organizational affliation, and in the 5.10 kernel > Huawei slightly edged out Intel with 8.9% vs 8.0% contributions. > > I completely agree with you that one of the key questions is the > business case issue. Not only who pays, but how do they justify the > software investment to the bean counters? Of course, the "Stone Soup" > story predates computers, so this certainly isn't a new business > model. And arguably the X Window Systems and the Open Software > Foundation also had a similar model where multiple companies > contributed to a common codebase, with perhaps mixed levels of > success. > > The thing which Linux has managed to achieve, however, is the fact > that there is a large and diverse base of corporate contributions. > That to me is what makes the Linux model so interesting, and has been > a reason for its long-term sustainability. > > Other companies may have been making their source code availble, but > the underlying business model behind their "source available" practices > was quite different. > > Cheers, > > - Ted [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 8933 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --] _______________________________________________ COFF mailing list COFF@minnie.tuhs.org https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-18 6:32 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top [not found] <email@example.com> [not found] ` <CAKH6PiVCjo3YnTZUVYOCDeffQ6POVwGAQA1QMR9UinkfGn+AmQ@mail.gmail.com> 2021-07-15 6:33 ` Michael Kjörling 2021-07-15 20:44 ` Derek Fawcus 2021-07-15 15:07 ` Clem Cole 2021-07-15 19:33 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2021-07-15 20:30 ` Clem Cole 2021-07-16 1:58 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2021-07-16 2:14 ` George Michaelson 2021-07-16 18:02 ` Grant Taylor via COFF 2021-07-17 4:09 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2021-07-17 6:30 ` [COFF] " Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via COFF 2021-07-17 12:37 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2021-07-17 13:30 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via COFF 2021-07-18 3:29 ` [COFF] [TUHS] " Grant Taylor via COFF 2021-07-18 3:42 ` David Arnold 2021-07-18 4:01 ` Grant Taylor via COFF 2021-07-19 13:41 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2021-07-19 14:50 ` Clem Cole 2021-07-19 17:38 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2021-07-19 19:33 ` John P. Linderman 2021-07-19 20:21 ` Clem Cole 2021-07-20 1:05 ` Grant Taylor via COFF 2021-07-19 20:08 ` Clem Cole 2021-07-20 0:55 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2021-07-18 6:44 ` Andy Kosela 2021-07-16 16:11 ` Jonathan Corbet 2021-07-15 23:02 ` joe mcguckin [this message] [not found] <alpine.BSF.firstname.lastname@example.org> [not found] ` <213a4c11-3ab2-4b4a-8d6b-b52105a19711@localhost> [not found] ` <CAE49LGn-gY9eikkwUgS+i3p=ZQV+gk_3BJ5V4_6B4HPbdyRuZw@mail.gmail.com> 2021-07-14 15:01 ` Clem Cole 2021-07-14 17:40 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2021-07-14 17:50 ` Larry McVoy 2021-07-14 18:28 ` Clem Cole 2021-07-14 20:03 ` John Cowan
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=36A1FADC-560D-47D2-9F0C-401A1B4E1655@via.net \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).