Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Novell Rises to Second Highest Linux Contributor

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the putting-yourself-out-there dept.

Software 135

eldavojohn writes "Which companies contribute the most to the Linux kernel? Well, The Linux Foundation released their results and Novell's contributions have gone up 250% (from 3.6% of all contributions to 14.4% of all contributions) to put them at #2 behind Red Hat. This chart also illustrates just how widely Linux is modified by the community and not just a handful of developers/companies. You can find more coverage on blogs and the original report."

cancel ×

135 comments

Now if they would just opensource edirectory (0, Flamebait)

Trigun (685027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942438)

But that would be like shooting themselves in the foot.

Re:Now if they would just opensource edirectory (4, Interesting)

10scjed (695280) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942554)

Never gonna happen, here's a quote from Stafford Masie [boycottnovell.com] (now with Google, I believe, but at the time he was the guy defending the Microsoft-Novell deal) regarding Novell's mixed source philosophy...

...Y'know, we're a Linux company, we do identity management, but we're a Linux company. Identity management, there's so much happening there to open source alot of the APIs, which we've already done, the only thing we haven't open-sourced in the identity world is kinda our directory, and I can tell you what, we probably won't, because again - the same reason alot of proprietary vendors wont take their big software and unwrap it, like I've always said- if you unwrap this baby its ugly, people will run away, ok, there's certain proprietary software that you never want anyone to look at...
Inspires confidence, no?

Open it or port it. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943276)

Novell is not a "Linux company". Novell is a proprietary company attempting to market themselves as a "Linux company".

Novell has some good products. But they will not port them to Debian/Ubuntu. Nor will they Open them.

Re:Open it or port it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22943490)

Please show me how much luck you have had in porting RHN subscription/satellite server to Debian. As well, I would like to see how well Red Hat Cluster Server works on Gentoo, as well as getting that supported so that you can have a manager sign off on a $90,000 hardware budget for the machines in this business case.

Re:Open it or port it. (3, Insightful)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943536)

What exactly does Novell have that you actually want to run on Ubuntu?

Yast2 has been GPL'd, same for the Apparmor stuff which Ubuntu now USES in fact.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is, most of the stuff Novell releases is GPL'd or otherwise open sourced.

Re:Now if they would just opensource edirectory (1)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22944240)

I can see a plethora of reasons not to open something, but ugly code isn't one of them. Ugly, embarrassing code is a reason to either do a major rewrite at the cost of paying employees more in the short term or to open it and get a free (albeit slow) rewrite at the cost of long-term profit because some people won't mind waving goodbye to (24-hour) support (from people who are actually paid to care).
Another model that comes to mind is charging extra for the source and giving discounts for useful contributions. Then again, there's likely a few flaws in this since I just came up with it while writing this.

Re:Now if they would just opensource edirectory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22943010)

Not gonna happen, but not for the reasons explained by the OP - but rather because it contains licensed technologies such as encryption technologies from RSA Data Security.

Captain Conspiracy Time (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942444)

I am reminded of the $350 Million that Microsoft paid Novell last year [slashdot.org] and must wonder if the 200% increase in sales that Novell reports can be linked to that?

I also must wonder if Novell's only intent is to stay a key part of Linux to maintain this Microsoft partnership?

Or if Microsoft is urging them to become an even bigger player so that Microsoft can feel like and threaten people that Microsoft owns even more of the Linux kernel, not just the vague patent threats? One of the articles mentions this notion of not 'owning the source code' but rather 'owning the source of the code.' Could this be Microsoft's new target?

Then there's the super fun idea that Novell is putting in source code from Windows that Windows "accidentally" gave Novell which does several things at once. It justifies Novell's payment for protection from Microsoft litigation, it hobbles their competitors in the Linux realm and it gives Microsoft the power to go after any user or company using Linux with the 'stolen' code. It would also tie up Linux for a bit until that mess was sorted out.

I mean, since Novell's already demonstrated they're Microsoft's bitch and admitted it [slashdot.org] what is preventing any of the above whacked out theories from being true?

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (4, Insightful)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942524)

Linus and the kernel hackers are free to reject any and all code that comes from Novell. If you (or any other person in the community) want the power to reject kernel code, become a kernel hacker. Until then, nobody but the kernel hackers and the submitters have a say in the matter, really...

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (3, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942808)

Right. And Linus has explicitly said that he will not be taking any steps to prevent the poisoning that the GP described. He makes big speeches about it. Solaris anyone?

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22943426)

If Sun were to re-license opensolaris under the GPL version 3, I'd switch all my systems to it in a heartbeat.

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22945846)

TURD is licensed under GPL v3.

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 6 years ago | (#22944776)

Wow, can you link to some proof or something? An example or quote possibly?

Even Better... (Re:Captain Conspiracy Time) (2, Insightful)

EXTomar (78739) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942902)

That is totally true but even because of the GPL you are not forced to accept any GPL code either. If there is a specific patch in the Linux kernel you don't want to have you can remove it for your own builds. This is one of the big benefits of GPL code. You are free to take it or free to leave it. Even if Novel is being nefarious, Linus and the other kernel hackers miss it, you are under no obligation to agree to use their GPL code.

Re:Even Better... (Re:Captain Conspiracy Time) (4, Insightful)

ischorr (657205) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942986)

True, though not terribly feasible if other changes have dependencies on the code you don't want. Especially when the changes themselves aren't easily compartmentalized, and the changes themselves are changed over time. You can't just say "I want to build a kernel that excludes these 1000 changes". You'll end up with something that won't compile, and won't be trivial to make work.

If you want to create (and possibly maintain) a forked version of kernel without the offending changes, fine, but that may be an unfeasibly large amount of work, especially considering the number of changes they make.

Re:Even Better... (Re:Captain Conspiracy Time) (2, Informative)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#22944638)

Fortunately there are large companies who dedicate resources to managing which code they do and don't want in their kernel.

It might be too hard for your average roll-your-own-kernel type, but for most users who are using a kernel provided by their distribution, these kinds of shenanigans shouldn't affect them much because Red Hat is going to do the hard work of stripping the offending code out.

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (3, Funny)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942960)

Linus and the kernel hackers are free to reject any and all code that comes from Novell.

Right. And therefore, presumably, the GP's concerns are without foundation, since it will be a simple matter to grep for the string SEKRIT MS PATENTED CODE: DO NOT USE in the comments.

I'm surprised no one has seen it before, really.

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (1)

centinall (868713) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943420)

It's one thing to reject code. It's another to know whether the code is protected by a patent.

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (1)

bbsguru (586178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942528)

I'm not saying this is connected, but I saw 3 black helicopters at the Provo airport last week. How about this one: maybe the contribution of material to open source projects is being done because, um, that's how the system works. Nah, couldn't be that!

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22942650)

What? That's preposterous! It must involve Sony, Microsoft and the RIAA. I bet you're a Scientologist.

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943128)

Or a Nazi [wikipedia.org] , or perhaps he's just new here [wikipedia.org] . I bet his pants are very baggy [answers.com] .

You can make up a LOT when you don't know anything (2, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942658)

for instance, here's a statement with no basis in fact, and based on pure distrust and speculation:
Then there's the super fun idea that Novell is putting in source code from Windows that Windows "accidentally" gave Novell

Pure paranoia only serves to hurt everyone, and doesn't help anyone (except maybe Microsoft).

These arguments are starting to sound like a "who's the alien shape shifter?" speech by the guy who's lost it in your average bad sci-fi show.

Re:You can make up a LOT when you don't know anyth (3, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943252)

These arguments are starting to sound like a "who's the alien shape shifter?" speech by the guy who's lost it in your average bad sci-fi show.

Yeah, and it's usually the first guy to ask that question who turns out to be the alien... waitaminute...

OMG, eldavojohn is submitting Windows code to the Linux kernel! Burn him!

GPL v3, v2 (1)

monkeyboythom (796957) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942698)

what is preventing any of the above whacked out theories from being true

Easy peasy...if Novell drops code that infringes upon MS code, Novell can be sued for knowingly violating the GPL. Yes, the end result may be code rewrites in the kernel, but no Linus user will be held accountable for Novell's mistakes. So does Novell want to cut its own throat? Maybe someone higher up is willing to take that chance and cash out from the fire sale. But then again with Sarbanes-Oxley lurking out there, this could quickly blow up in Microsoft's face (as being the driving force of corporate malefeasance.)

Re:GPL v3, v2 (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#22945082)

"no Linus user will be held accountable for Novell's mistakes"

Please stop using Linus (srsly, he's gotta be tired already), and consider using Linux instead. It won't complain about your choice of filesystem, nor will it go behind your back and rant on mailing lists.

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (1)

brouski (827510) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942704)

I mean, since Novell's already demonstrated they're Microsoft's bitch and admitted it [slashdot.org] what is preventing any of the above whacked out theories from being true?

Lack of evidence?

Novel is fighting SCO, and SCO is Microsoft's tool (1)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942740)

Why waste time on conspiracies when MS is attacking Linux in plain sight?

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (3, Insightful)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942750)

A)There is almost certainly code in Linux that Microsoft has patents to. The simple reason being that software patents are so inane and ambiguous that there's certainly code in ANY large piece of software that Microsoft has patents to.

B)It would only affect jurisdictions that recognize software patents.

C)It would be a very high-risk way to achieve your goals since you have to trust a third party which could potentially reveal your clandestine operations, if Microsoft wanted to do this it would be easier to make the contribution as a random individual, thus making it harder to track it back to Microsoft.

D)Hurting Linux would hurt Novell eventually. They may have been stupid to sign that agreement with Microsoft, but they do know VERY well what happened to SCO. Since the patents would only gain them anything in countries that recognize them, and as they have a potential to lose their business everywhere that does not, it would be an extremely high risk move.

E)IBM, RedHat etc doesn't need to prove Microsoft was behind the scheme to retaliate. Should Microsoft use software patents against Linux, either directly or by proxy, they could sue Microsoft over other patents ( and as per "A" they certainly do have the means to do so ). It would be enough that they strongly suspect Microsoft is in the background to trigger mutually assured destruction, and Microsoft knows this.

Essentially, the day Microsoft decides to use software patents against Linux is the day you know they are so desperate they have nothing left to lose. So far they are mainly using patent FUD, but when the empire eventually does crumble they will certainly try, other companies will retaliate, and the collateral damage will be huge.

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943118)

To respond:

A) if they don't sue soon, then it won't matter, will it? I don't believe they do; they just rattle swords well
B) oh yeah, juridictions that support sotware patents.... let' say some 590M users in US, Japan, Canada, etc?
C) we agree that patent baiting through Novell would be beyond explosive
D) MS fears and deals with all competitors eventually, but they've softened on Linux because they're still getting loads of server revenues, so it's not so bad for them, especially with the DOJ looking over their shoulders.
E) we agree.

Don't be so sure the sabres won't be rattled by MS again soon, though. They do it for practice.

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (1)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 6 years ago | (#22944094)

D)Hurting Linux would hurt Novell eventually. They may have been stupid to sign that agreement with Microsoft, but they do know VERY well what happened to SCO. Since the patents would only gain them anything in countries that recognize them, and as they have a potential to lose their business everywhere that does not, it would be an extremely high risk move.

Actually, I tend to view Darl McBride's "set the controls for the heart of the sun" strategy as increasing the plausibility of the conspiracy theories. I mean prior to SCO I'd have tended to assume that CEOs as a class were A) looking out for the best interests of their company and B) not clinically insane. In retrospect, Darl's actions suggest that these may not be entirely safe assumptions.

It seems to me that there are parallels here with a disease. Think about the first doctor to encounter the black death. I imagine he might have thought that those buboe things would clear up themselves, given time. But I bet the second time he saw those symptoms he took them a lot more seriously.

We've seen one staunch Linux company implode by adopting an obviously foolhardy course that benefited no one by Microsoft. Now we find Novell displaying apparently similar symptoms. We'd be foolish ourselves not to consider the possibility that they may have contracted the same malady.

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22942992)

The standard doctrine of unclean hands would protect Linux from any such suit, should the crazy conspiracy of Novell injecting Microsoft written code into linux be actually true.

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (4, Insightful)

sentientbrendan (316150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943002)

I wish your post was labeled +5 "funny" instead of "interesting" which indicates that people take the idea seriously.

The idea that Novell is going to seed "microsoft" code into Linux is ridiculous on the face of it. You can't just copy paste windows device driver code into Linux and expect it to work... and windows coding styles vs linux coding styles are so different that it would be obvious in an instant if such a thing happened.

Seriously, not everything that Microsoft does is part of some big conspiracy to eat your babies. I think the reasoning behind their partnership is fairly clear.

Linux *does* have a strong position in the server market, and for practical reasons Microsoft *has* to be able to interoperate with at least *some* Linux distros. This isn't a position that they are super happy to be in, and the fact that they made this deal to support operation with Suse should be seen as a *victory* by Linux in the marketplace.

Microsoft is trying to do damage control by positioning some Linux vendors as partners instead of competitors. If Linux becomes any more successful than it is, you can expect to see Microsoft try to make deals with other Linux vendors like Red Hat, to try to insure that Linux is used in *conjunction* with Microsoft server products, rather than risk having Microsoft be cut out of the market entirely.

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (4, Insightful)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943564)

Linux *does* have a strong position in the server market, and for practical reasons Microsoft *has* to be able to interoperate with at least *some* Linux distros. This isn't a position that they are super happy to be in, and the fact that they made this deal to support operation with Suse should be seen as a *victory* by Linux in the marketplace.

And you would be right, if you weren't totally wrong, this is no victory for Linux, if anything it is a point of shame, all the little interoperability Novell won by this was coming anyways after the recent fight the EU got with MS (ask samba) All Novell has made is make a deal that allows MS to portray themselves as owners of all the Linux IP and forces Linux (SLED) users to pay a MS tax, not to mention that Novell has mostly become MS' personal bitch after it. With all the Silverlight debacle and the OOXML debacle for which Novell is a big responsible for what just happened with ISO recently.

Not to forget that the reason Novell helps Linux so much is because it gives them a free platform where they can build the MONO dependent OS they would love to see.

Microsoft is trying to do damage control by positioning some Linux vendors as partners instead of competitors. If Linux becomes any more successful than it is, you can expect to see Microsoft try to make deals with other Linux vendors like Red Hat, to try to insure that Linux is used in *conjunction* with Microsoft server products, rather than risk having Microsoft be cut out of the market entirely.
Novell apologetic is harming FLOSS like no other wrong attitude, the deal has only been negative for Linux, period. You may try to make it look like something good or proof of Linux success, as a matter of fact it does prove MS was really afraid of FLOSS, however the rresult of the deal has only been a negative effect after another. BTW redhat has multiple times stated they actually got dignity and they won't make such deals with MS.

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (1)

idiotein30 (1266562) | more than 6 years ago | (#22944654)

What happens if MS just buys Novell, it's fairly cheap for MS http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NOVL [google.com] , and given the results I'm not sure shareholders would turn down a nice offer from Redmond. This way MS WOULD appear on the kernel contributors list, which would seriously coolify them...

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (1)

kahrytan (913147) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943454)

I am reminded of the $350 Million that Microsoft paid Novell last year [slashdot.org] and must wonder if the 200% increase in sales that Novell reports can be linked to that?
 
Does anyone remember Microsoft's $300 million investment into Apple Computer, Inc back in the 90s? It is probably same motives then as it is today.

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943666)

Then there's the super fun idea that Novell is putting in source code from Windows that Windows "accidentally" gave Novell which does several things at once. It justifies Novell's payment for protection from Microsoft litigation, it hobbles their competitors in the Linux realm and it gives Microsoft the power to go after any user or company using Linux with the 'stolen' code. It would also tie up Linux for a bit until that mess was sorted out.

The origin of source code in Linux can be traced. If Microsoft and Novell were doing what you are suggesting, then this could be traced back and courts would simply throw out Microsoft's claims. And if Microsoft kept spreading FUD about it, one could get a declaratory judgment.

Re:Captain Conspiracy Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22944572)

Linux tards, WoW inhabitants are not able to understand, because usually sex-deprived people don't think very well, but Microsoft OWNS Novell, Microsoft OWNS SUSE, and Microsoft is using it to buy the whole Linux community, including your heroic Linus that has sold his soul to Microsoft's cash long time ago.
This is the old way: if you cannot win, buy them and close them. Cisco did that many times.
So, soon you will be seeing Windows Ubuntu, losers... All proprietary...

Depends where you get your information. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22942514)

Another source [yahoo.com] cites them as being like fifth...

shhhhhhh be quiet, don't tell anyone (4, Funny)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942516)

that this F/OSS stuff is actually working... that would just ruin everything. If this keeps up where will it stop? Baseball players playing for the love of the game? Backyard engineers reporting on bad levees? Damnit, this will ruin everything.

all because of SuSE ? (1)

Brigadier (12956) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942530)



I may get b$tch slapped for this, but isn't this primarily as a result of them acquiring SuSE? Having been a Linux user for some eight years, and a SuSE user for seven years and twelve months, I've always considered SuSE at the forefront. As a matter of fact ther reason I switched was because my version of Redhat at the time had limited driver support. SuSE on the other hand had a full line of Xwin drivers.

Re:all because of SuSE ? (1)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942662)

I may get b$tch slapped for this
OK, prepare yourself.

First, Novell announced their acquisition of SUSE in 2003, the same year that that they bought Ximian. At this point, its difficult to tell which acquisition is responsible for more of their GNU/Linux work.

Secondly, from the article: "while Novell has jumped from an anemic 3.6 percent in 2007 to a robust 8.9 percent in 2008". Which means that their recent surge in productivity has nothing to do with their acquisitions of SUSE or Ximian. It has to do with their allocation of resources to their GNU/Linux software development divisions.

Thirdly, I'm not sure what "forefront" means (does that just mean you like it?), but availability of drivers in a default install is not necessarily a sign of internal development. Its a sign of their ability to include more drivers in their default installation (this should be unsurprising). It can also be a sign of a companies willingness to include proprietary or legally encumbered drivers in their pool. While it might mean that they are doing more in-house driver development, that is usually not the case.

Fourthly, what the heck is with "b$tch"? The '$' sign is substituted for 'S', not 'I'. And that practice is annoying even when done correctly. Where you perhaps thinking of "b!tch"?

Re:all because of SuSE ? (1)

a whoabot (706122) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942712)

"Fourthly, what the heck is with "b$tch"? The '$' sign is substituted for 'S', not 'I'. And that practice is annoying even when done correctly. Where you perhaps thinking of "b!tch"?"

Sometimes people put various characters to censor a swear word. Like "S#%T!" etc. Perhaps he just used one $ for this purpose.

Re:all because of SuSE ? (1)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942988)

True enough, but when one changes only a single letter (or the word is too short), one usually chooses the appropriate symbol to replace that character. For instance, one would never see "A!!". It would always be filtered "A$$". Alternatively, an asterisk (*) can be substituted for a single letter; e.g. Un*x (in that case, to bypass trademark infringement). As in your example, random characters are usually only used when they fill the entire interior (and that interior is more than 1 character long) of the word: e.g. F#%K!

Re:all because of SuSE ? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942766)

Back in the day (from my recollection) SUSE would develop X drivers and then release them to others with a delay. They were indeed at the forefront of X drivers for a while, and it was because of effort they did.

Re:all because of SuSE ? (2)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942924)

Interesting. Is this still the case today?

Of course, this is immaterial to the subject at hand; in general, X drivers are implemented in userspace rather than the kernel. Did they also develop kernel drivers frequently?

Frankly, I would love to see statistics from the Linux Foundation on Linux contributions going back a decade or so. Also, I would definitely love a breakdown of the kernel sections to which each company contributed. My guess is that these days, many of those piddly 0.3-0.7% contributions are from hardware manufacturers supporting their own hardware. The large software company contributions are probably more feature and performance oriented, like schedulers, virtual machines, etc.

Re:all because of SuSE ? (2, Interesting)

samkass (174571) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942952)

I'd just like to point out with some minor amusement that for those RMS followers who love to prepend "GNU/" to the front of the Linux OS's name, this is one case in which it's inappropriate no matter which side of that fence you fall. We're talking about Linux kernel contributions.

Re:all because of SuSE ? (2, Informative)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943046)

Yes, you are correct; my mistake. The fact that these were exclusively kernel contributions was momentarily lost on me.

Its worth noting, however, that the Linux kernel as it stands simply doesn't work with any compiler other than GCC. Have you every read the kernel source code? Fully 20% of the damn thing is GCC-specific preprocessor directives (I might be exaggerating a bit). I think that at one point, there was an effort to make it compile with the Intel compiler (which, performance-wise, it much superior to GCC), but I haven't heard about it since; I'm sure that it failed. Either way, Linux, even the kernel itself, wouldn't exist without the foundation provided by GNU packages. I have no interested in referring to the kernel itself with the "GNU/Linux" moniker, but I just find it interesting how important the GNU platform really is.

Re:all because of SuSE ? (2, Insightful)

Samrobb (12731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22944294)

Its worth noting, however, that the Linux kernel as it stands simply doesn't work with any compiler other than GCC.

May have been true once, but it hasn't been for a long time. I recall seeing news about using Intel's [intel.com] compiler to build a Linux kernel years ago. More recently, Rob Landley's been doing some work with tinycc [landley.net] to get it up to snuff for kernel compiles, with the goal of generating a system that can "...completely rebuild itself, under itself, without any gnu code on the hard drive."

Re:all because of SuSE ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22945302)

there was an effort to make it compile with the Intel compiler (which, performance-wise, it much superior to GCC)

I don't think the Intel compiler is superior to GCC at all. We tested it a while back and it was absolutely abysmal at vector processing on anything other than an Intel processor. Heard rumours it was de-tuned on purpose to shaft AMD. Stick with GCC unless you know for sure that the target has an Intel CPU.

Re:all because of SuSE ? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22942968)

Fourthly, what the heck is with "b$tch"? The '$' sign is substituted for 'S', not 'I'. And that practice is annoying even when done correctly. Where you perhaps thinking of "b!tch"?
Hey, this is someone who either thinks there are more than 12 months in a year or that 8 years is different than 7 years 12 months. Hey, I'm 6', but you're only 5'-12"

Re:all because of SuSE ? (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942710)

and a SuSE user for seven years and twelve months
Would you venture so far as to say you've been a SuSE user for eight years?

Re:all because of SuSE ? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942954)

Well, to be fair, the twelve moths were all February, so not quite eight years.

Re:all because of SuSE ? (1)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943520)

and a SuSE user for seven years and twelve months
Would you venture so far as to say you've been a SuSE user for eight years?
*Woooosh*

And this is shocking? (1)

sjbe (173966) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942538)

Novell produces one of the most popular linux distros [novell.com] out there. Is it really surprising to anyone they contribute a lot of changes? Sure they've made a pact with the "devil" but there is no indication they are getting out of linux anytime soon.

Re:And this is shocking? (4, Insightful)

cerelib (903469) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942748)

Novell produces one of the most popular linux distros [novell.com] out there. Is it really surprising to anyone they contribute a lot of changes?


It is not surprising that the two are connected, nor is it neccessary, but it should be applauded when such a correlation appears. If we look at Ubuntu/Canonical for instance, by your standards, they should be pretty high on the list, right? In fact, they do not even appear on this list. Even Mandriva makes an appearance at 0.4%. Note that I do not know if Debian or Ubuntu developers fall into the Other or Unknown categories, but Debian exists as an organization and Canonical is a company, so I would expect them to be represented somehow, at least a footnote, if their contributions were of a sufficient size to make this list. I do not expect that every distro should employ kernel hackers. Ubuntu is more focused on user experience than kernel level features. So they do play a key role in the development of Linux as a complete operating system. My point here is that distributing a popular distro does not mean you develop a proportional share of the Linux kernel, or any linux software. Luckily, open source software enables and encourages such contributions back to the community. So don't say, "Well, given their size and profits, Novell should be doing that", instead say, "Kudos to Novell for giving back proportionaly to their success".

Re:And this is shocking? (1)

sjbe (173966) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943006)

It is not surprising that the two are connected, nor is it neccessary, but it should be applauded when such a correlation appears.
Agreed, though I never implied any causation between the two. I simply said it shouldn't be surprising that they contribute a lot.

If we look at Ubuntu/Canonical for instance, by your standards, they should be pretty high on the list, right? In fact, they do not even appear on this list.
Canonical may or may not contribute. The data presented (if true) says little about the matter one way or the other. Around 25% of contribution are either from individuals or from unknown groups. Also this data is just for kernel contributions. It's quite possible that they don't contribute much to the kernel but instead contribute elsewhere. There are plenty of projects in need of work in the open source world besides the kernel.

My point here is that distributing a popular distro does not mean you develop a proportional share of the Linux kernel, or any linux software.
Exactly. Distro makers sometimes contribute a lot and sometimes don't. All I said was that it shouldn't be surprising that a maker of a popular distro happens to also contribute a lot of code to the kernel.

Small Changes due to Hardware Incompatibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22942552)

Just kinda curious about how many of these contributors fix small problems for incompatible hardware and or changes to gcc?
Fixing a warning message, allowing it to compile with the changes to gcc etc. would probably make up a large part of the changes.

Re:Small Changes due to Hardware Incompatibility? (1)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943296)

Here you go:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6.24.4 [kernel.org]

- One warning message was fixed (but not a compiler warning if that was what you ment).
- Two problems with new gcc versions were fixed.

But I don't understand what is wrong with fixing small errors or warnings. I have seen old projects that produce so many warning messages that it is impossible to spot the dangerous warnings from there. I actually started fixing warnings from one of these programs and find out fatal errors that could have caused program crash on quite normal error situations. So IMHO fixing warnings is just as important as fixing any other errors.

Correction (1)

JeepFanatic (993244) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942558)

Novel contributes 8.9% of the changes to the kernel, not 14.4%.

Missing? (4, Funny)

AJWM (19027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942562)

That's funny, I don't see Microsoft on that list anywhere...

But but but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22942564)

What about all the code that IBM stole from SCO and stuffed into the kernel?

Congratulations, Novell. (5, Insightful)

cgranade (702534) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942584)

I see a lot of posts here treating Novell with suspicion (maybe even well-deserved) about their contributions. For my part, however, I would like to thank Novell as one of the many users directly benefiting from their support. It's no good to vilify Novell, then demand that the support open source, and decry them when they do. If it turns out later that there was something foul going on, then we can go back to vilification. For now, though, they have done well and helped us all out. Hence, once again, thank you, Novell.

dear god (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942614)

Microsoft: "So, can we get an ISO standard on a kernel? MS Linux, yah, we're certified."

yea, but (0, Flamebait)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942620)

How much of this contributed code is 'Microsoft interoperability' code that will later be used to "prove" that Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents?

Re:yea, but (1)

seriesrover (867969) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942736)

Well, you could research it and provide evidence for your accusations...

Re:yea, but (0)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943730)

Last I checked, legitimate questions didn't require proof for them to still be valid..

No Desktops (1)

ianare (1132971) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942626)

What I found equaly interesting in the report is the lack of mention of Dell and Ubuntu in the list. From most estimates Ubuntu leads the pack as far as desktop installs are concerned, and Dell had promised better driver support for their Linux PCs.
With more talk of desktop Linux these days, and a small but real increase in desktop market share (as reported from web stats), you would think some of that would be reflected in kernel development. But it looks as though big business and expensive hardware is still the main motivator in the business world.

Re:No Desktops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22942654)

Huh? We are talking about contributions to the Linux code tree, not the install base

Re:No Desktops (1)

ianare (1132971) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942742)

Did you read my comment? No, you didn't. Here it is again:

With more talk of desktop Linux these days, and a small but real increase in desktop market share (as reported from web stats), you would think some of that would be reflected in kernel development.

Re:No Desktops (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942868)

the absence of ubuntu/canonical is slightly weird indeed.
now dell, i don't know how many of the drivers they develop internally, maybe drive by dell has pused, for example, broadcom up in the list ?

But, but..Novell is EVIL!!! (2, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942642)

Good, bad..they're the ones with the code.

Now if only.... (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942664)

...opensuse 10.3's autoyast would properly configure networking on a dell 860 or 2950.

and...

WTF is the point of copying autoyast user scripts to a location on the hard drives to run from...if they unmount the #!@$!@#$ install media (CD here) before they do the #!$#@!$ copy????

Where is Canonical? (2, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942670)

Where is Canonical on that list? Or rather, are they represented there at all? I would think that at the very least they would get money from Dell to fix a few things. Slashdotters often like to bash RedHat for shedding their free desktop division, but the love for Canonical seems endless.

Re:Where is Canonical? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22942774)

Canonical's contributions aren't to the kernel. All the good desktop/usability stuff they are doing happens outside the kernel. Their contributions are nevertheless important to FOSS.

Re:Where is Canonical? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942886)

I hear from a lot of people (I haven't investigated this myself) that a lot of their usability contributions all happen downstream, and so take longer, or don't at all, to go back upstream and be echoed out to other distributions.

Re:Where is Canonical? (1)

bfields (66644) | more than 6 years ago | (#22944652)

"Canonical's contributions aren't to the kernel." That's over-generalizing a bit; try this:

$ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
$ cd linux-2.6
$ git log --author="canonical.com\|ubuntu.com" | git shortlog
and you'll see some contributions, though not as many as from Novell/Suse.

The authors of this paper are basically doing a souped-up version of the above, extracting author/committer information from the git history. (Though with some specialized scripts, and after having done a lot of work to track down author affiliations in case where people post from different addresses, misspell their names, etc., etc.)

Re:Where is Canonical? (1)

Kennon (683628) | more than 6 years ago | (#22944918)

Novell invests heavily in the development of Gnome AND KDE. Not to mention that they own a couple huge user space projects like AppArmor, Evolution , mono, Compiz, Tomboy, F-Spot and dump tons of code at big projects like OpenOffice and Xen. To excuse Canonical for not contributing much to the kernel is giving them a free pass IMHO.

Novell, Microsoft, and Crispin Cowan (1)

SEMW (967629) | more than 6 years ago | (#22945902)

Novell ... own a couple huge user space projects like AppArmor...
Hmmm; I didn't know that. Anyone know if there's any link to the fact that the original developer of AppArmor has now defected to Microsoft [msdn.com] ?

Re:Where is Canonical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22942854)

Is it possible that the kernel is "good enough" for desktop use or even that application development is just a much higher priority? Canonical certainly doesn't need to contribute much to the Linux kernel specifically to support the open source community.

Re:Where is Canonical? (3, Informative)

apokryphos (869208) | more than 6 years ago | (#22944210)

Ubuntu is mainly a packaging and marketing distribution (packaging Debian's package snapshots), and not really a big contributor to new technologies or upstream free software so much like Red Hat or SUSE. So I don't think they employ any kernel developers at all. And no, it's not like Ubuntu has many desktop developers rather than low-level developers (as the comments below suggest) -- I think they only employ three desktop developers (who mainly work on packaging anyway as I recall), in contrast to SUSE's very many desktop developers [opensuse.org] in OO.o (something like 15 there alone), KDE, GNOME, etc.

In fact, the reality is also that Canonical's only other big flagship product, Launchpad, is completely proprietary.

so (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22942692)

Novell is dead...they will be lucky to stay alive thru this year

Re:so (1)

apokryphos (869208) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942798)

Which part of them making huge profits with Linux, supporting the FOSS community more and more by the day (like this story), lead you to think that?

Where's Google? (2, Insightful)

skydude_20 (307538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942724)

Or do they keep all their advances to themselves?

It's Just The Jernel (1, Insightful)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942756)

The kernel is just one part of Linux, and that's all this report covers. One might as well divine the direction of the automotive industry by dissecting a transmission.

Re:It's Just The Jernel (1, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942820)

The kernel is all of Linux(tm).

Actually they're in 4th place (2, Interesting)

edxwelch (600979) | more than 6 years ago | (#22942948)

Number one is some company called "none", followed by "unknown" and Red Hat is 3rd

Two things strike me from this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22942970)

Two interesting things to look at here. Firstly is Ubuntu/Canonical is not even on the list. Lots of happy userland additions come from them, but apparently little in the kernel front.

Secondly, Broadcom with 350+? Is this the same Broadcom who have the reputation of the worst supported wireless cards out there, who even release new cards without Linux drivers. Maybe they might want to shift their efforts to something somewhat more visible for their company.

Re:Two things strike me from this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22943110)

They must be from the school of thought where the more lines of code uploaded = the better their software is.

How comprehensive is this list? (2, Informative)

keithjr (1091829) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943122)

The top two "contributors" on the list are "None" (13.9%) and "Unknown" (12.9%).

Regarding the former, I think it is very much worth noting, more than Novell's increased contributions, that so much is still being done by independent contributors. As for the latter, what exactly does that mean? How can we not know where changes come from. That's a bit disconcerting.

Re:How comprehensive is this list? (1)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943406)

I think I understand it.
  • None: It is known that the contributor is not affiliated with any company
  • Unknown: It is unknown if the contributor is affiliated with a company or not
It's not that they don't know who's contributing... they just don't know if the person contributing works for a company. Or... they know that the person works for a company but they don't know if company is supporting that particular contribution. Remember, the table was showing companies, not people.

That explains it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22943140)

That explains why for the first time ever (over 10 years) that I booted a kernel that froze my machine.

Novell (4, Interesting)

sentientbrendan (316150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943160)

I think it's kind of a shame that Novell is doing so poorly. They actually had *negative* income in 2007, and are still largely making their money from selling *netware* despite all their Linux investments.

A lot of the stuff they are working on is pretty cool, especially Mono.

However, I think it's clear that there just isn't room in the market place for another distro.

Re:Novell (3, Insightful)

apokryphos (869208) | more than 6 years ago | (#22944088)

Actually, Novell reported huge increases quarter-over-quarter growth [reuters.com] in their Linux business. Something like 200% year-over-year in the SUSE Linux part. Even if some other parts of their business are doing badly, it's pretty clear that their Linux business is on the rise and has been for some time. Which is great for Novell and great for free software (as they have hundreds of engineers working upstream).

Re:Novell (1)

sjwest (948274) | more than 6 years ago | (#22944102)

Yes I was once a happy suse client (when it was german) but our days of paying Novell have past. While not everybody in Novell is evil, i'd rather not support a company that does the evil deal with Microsoft.

All our servers are now Debian. Most clients - Ubunto/Debian.

Money Makes A Difference (2, Insightful)

Kashra (1109287) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943446)

Interesting...so what you're saying is that paying developers produces more usable code for the kernel? But I thought we were supposed to hate these companies that profiteer off our beloved egalitarian operating system.

How much of that (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 6 years ago | (#22943532)

is material that can be used by anyone but Novell?

Can they be trusted? How are the changes vetted? (4, Interesting)

HiThere (15173) | more than 6 years ago | (#22944372)

I'm not certain that this is a bad thing. Not certain. It might be a good thing. Perhaps.

OTOH, it makes me more interested in OpenSolaris, and it makes me wish the Hurd people would stop starting over from scratch. It also makes me more interested in BSD, even though I prefer the GPL.

Sun has talked about releasing OpenSolaris under GPL3. If they do, I'm going to be VERY interested.

If Linux were under GPL3, I wouldn't be worried about Novell. It isn't. The language of the GPL is equivocal in terms of what it means WRT patents. I think it means that if you can't distribute something legally and allow those who receive it to also distribute it, then you don't have the right to distribute it. Unfortunately, it's not totally clear about this. It was written before software could be patented, and it certainly didn't contemplate patents like a patent on adding 2 + 2 in Basic. (That particular one is harmless...but it's a magnificent example of the kind of foolish stuff that's allowed to be patented.) So the writing of the GPL frequently used general terms. Terms which apply with equal force to trademarks, copyrights, and patents, even though all are very distinct in their limitations and powers. As a result, it allows patents to be used in most places that it allows trademarks to be used. UGH!!! A sensible interpretation of the GPL would, indeed, mean that the GPL3 was unnecessary. I don't feel like I can count on the courts coming to a sensible interpretation in any reasonable amount of time.

So I trust GPL3 code coming from Novell. Other code...leaves me hesitant.

This is sort of like how I feel about Mono. I'm not certain it's booby-trapped, but I can't tell, so I'd rather avoid it. I'm risk averse. I know it. I've always been risk averse. To me, trusting Novell looks like excessive risk. I *hope* their code is being thoroughly vetted by those who know better than I do what's dangerous. I fear it isn't.

Re:Can they be trusted? How are the changes vetted (1)

Mr.Ned (79679) | more than 6 years ago | (#22945206)

"It [the GPL] was written before software could be patented, and it certainly didn't contemplate patents like a patent on adding 2 + 2 in Basic."

GPLv2 was from the early 90s. The Free Software Foundation has been working against software patents longer than that - one of the classic cases RMS cites is from the mid-80s of the FSF trying to create a compression program that doesn't use a patented algorithm.

Re:Can they be trusted? How are the changes vetted (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 6 years ago | (#22945342)

My mistake. It thought it was earlier. Certainly it was before software patents had become as abusive as they now are (or at least before they were as blatantly abusive).

Still, this only increases my admiration for the foresight of RMS.

Why isn't google on this list? (1)

Scott BaioWulf (540526) | more than 6 years ago | (#22944400)

I'm surprised to see that Google isn't on this list. Android, Goobuntu, GFS... Why aren't they contributing this back into the main tree? Doesn't Andrew Morton work there? What does he do all day? Chris DiBona? Google has linux repositories and plenty of open source projects. Is this simply a case where code from Google isn't being attributed to them and instead is filed under unknown? Anyone, Bueller?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...