From: joe mcguckin <joe@via.net>
To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers <coff@tuhs.org>,
TUHS main list <tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>,
Douglas McIlroy <douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu>
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
joe@via.net
650-207-0372 cell
650-213-1302 office
650-969-2124 fax
> On Jul 15, 2021, at 12:33 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> 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] <7wtukxtgag.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
[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.2.21.9999.2107140824460.15723@aneurin.horsfall.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 \
--to=joe@via.net \
--cc=coff@tuhs.org \
--cc=douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu \
--cc=tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).