From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 6059 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2021 06:32:49 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 18 Jul 2021 06:32:49 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 584A29C81A; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 16:32:48 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 461B49C81B; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 16:32:39 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 1EAA09C7F1; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 09:15:01 +1000 (AEST) X-Greylist: delayed 761 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at minnie.tuhs.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 09:15:00 AEST Received: from smtp2.via.net (smtp2.via.net [157.22.3.6]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27B6F9C7F0; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 09:15:00 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail.via.net (mail.via.net [157.22.3.34]) by smtp2.via.net (8.15.2/8.14.1-VIANET) with ESMTPS id 16FN2EMh022204 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 15 Jul 2021 16:02:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.2 at smtp2.via.net Received: from [209.81.2.65] ([209.81.2.65]) by mail.via.net (8.15.2/8.14.1-VIANET) with ESMTP id 16FN2DfB023400; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 16:02:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.2 at mail.via.net From: joe mcguckin Message-Id: <36A1FADC-560D-47D2-9F0C-401A1B4E1655@via.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\)) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 16:02:02 -0700 In-Reply-To: To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (smtp2.via.net [157.22.3.6]); Thu, 15 Jul 2021 16:02:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 18 Jul 2021 16:32:22 +1000 Subject: Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released X-BeenThere: coff@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: Computer Old Farts Forum List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers , TUHS main list , Douglas McIlroy Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3420869915375235678==" Errors-To: coff-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "COFF" --===============3420869915375235678== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C84D3385-597E-49D9-BCE0-E95C12D1189A" --Apple-Mail=_C84D3385-597E-49D9-BCE0-E95C12D1189A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 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=20= was =E2=80=9CGanapathi=E2=80=9D. 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 wrote: >=20 > 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). >=20 > 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: >=20 > = https://www.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020_kernel_history_rep= ort_082720.pdf >=20 > The top ten organizations responsible for commits from 2007 -- 2019: >=20 > (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% >=20 > "None" means no organizational affiliation (e.g., hobbyists, students, > etc.) "Unknown" means the organization affiliation couldn't be > determined. >=20 > 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: >=20 > 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% >=20 > For the full list and more stats, see: = https://lwn.net/Articles/839772/ >=20 >> So back to my basic point ... while giving the *behavior* a name, the = *idea >> *of "Open Source" is really not anything new. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Other companies may have been making their source code availble, but > the underlying business model behind their "source available" = practices > was quite different. >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > - Ted --Apple-Mail=_C84D3385-597E-49D9-BCE0-E95C12D1189A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 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 =E2=80=9CGanapathi=E2=80=9D.

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

= --Apple-Mail=_C84D3385-597E-49D9-BCE0-E95C12D1189A-- --===============3420869915375235678== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KQ09GRiBtYWls aW5nIGxpc3QKQ09GRkBtaW5uaWUudHVocy5vcmcKaHR0cHM6Ly9taW5uaWUudHVocy5vcmcvY2dp LWJpbi9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2NvZmYK --===============3420869915375235678==--