# 75% of Linux code now written by paid developers



## kid41212003 (Jan 24, 2010)

> 75% of Linux code is written by paid devs
> Written by Nedim Hadzic
> Friday, 22 January 2010 12:11
> 
> ...



http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/17365/1/

http://apcmag.com/linux-now-75-corporate.htm


----------



## Kreij (Jan 24, 2010)

Wow! So people want to get paid for the work they do in order to do things like eat and have shelter.

Is there no shame?


----------



## btarunr (Jan 24, 2010)

So what if they were paid to do it? Most Linux distros are still free, Linux (as in the kernel), is free.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 24, 2010)

No, it's just they will need to get back the money somehow, and that's mean we "_might_" see Linux (paying version) on Walmart's shelve next to Windows and Mac OS.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 24, 2010)

kid41212003 said:


> No, it's just they will need to get back the money somehow, and that's mean we "_might_" see Linux on Walmart's shelve next to Windows and Mac OS.



IT stores do keep boxes of Mandriva and RHEL. Paid Linux has existed all along. Nothing new.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 24, 2010)

Oh.. I thought they only sell to cover the cost for the disc itself, and the inside content is still free... =/


----------



## btarunr (Jan 24, 2010)

kid41212003 said:


> Oh.. I thought they only sell to cover the cost for the disc itself, and the inside content is still free... =/



No, enterprises buy copies of Red Hat, Novell, etc., which are paid. It's just that RHEL and Novell don't come with gay client licenses, and are cheaper than Windows Server. The paid version of Mandriva has proprietary stuff. Xandros, Linspire, etc have forever tried not to call themselves "distros" since their paid (proprietary/ commercial / profit-seeking) products. 

Linux is a free kernel. But that does not mean everything to do with Linux has to be free and open-source.


----------



## Melcar (Jan 24, 2010)

They sell the support mostly.  While most desktop distros come "as is" and the user has Google for support, some (like enterprise level distros or the ones you buy at your local IT store) have costumer service networks that you can use.


----------



## Kreij (Jan 24, 2010)

It is my understanding that what the companies that sell paid versions are charging for is the media and packaging, any proprietary content and tech support (which many corporate customers want). I don't think they can charge for the Kernel (Open Source Licensed).

I could be wrong.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 24, 2010)

i'm surprised anyone is surprised by this .. are there people who think linux coders are tibetan monks who sit in dark caves with hamster wheel powered computers ? 

it is just smart to cash in on the knowledge you taught yourself over many years

i also find it interesting that the author at fudzilla talks about "Linux has gotten a total of 2.8 million lines of code" suggesting it is a product like ms windows that is entirely made up from a single codebase. the original source correctly refers to kernel though


----------



## Melcar (Jan 24, 2010)

People tend to associate Linux with an OS, like say Fedora or Ubuntu, which by and large are community efforts.  However, Linux is the kernel itself, and lots of people depend on a working and well maintained Linux kernel.  Firms like Intel, AMD, nvidia, HP, among others, are constantly contributing code to the kernel and have developers on their payroll who work on Linux.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 24, 2010)

terrible article. is the author referring to just the linux kernel or what? obviously people get paid to code the operating system...


----------



## hat (Jan 24, 2010)

Damn, and here I thought Linux was written by a bunch of 30+ year old basement dwellers.


----------



## regexorcist (Feb 1, 2010)

I'm glad someone ELSE is paying them to do it. 

By the way... Hi everyone, I'm new here


----------



## TIGR (Feb 1, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> are there people who think linux coders are tibetan monks who sit in dark caves with hamster wheel powered computers ?



 They're not?!

But anyway, I've always been under the impression that the only costs in Linux are for packaging and support. Although they may divert income from those things to pay programmers. I didn't think the intellectual property itself could, by law, be "sold." Am I mistaken?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 2, 2010)

other than a few distros like red hat, you can download and install it free of charge. that also gives you access to whatever open source apps there are. of course you can pay for apps that are created to run on linux.

this is why the article is terrible. ubuntu is created by an organization called canonical. they have lead developers and programmers that DO get paid. they can be paid to create a free operating system because they also sell other services to other organizations! because ubuntu is open source, anybody can improve upon it, including the kernel. those people are generally not paid, and do it because they enjoy coding and want to contribute the community. fedora is similiar in that it is a bleeding edge version of red hat. it is completely free to install and use and tear apart and people test it and write code for it to improve it for free. suse is run by novell which is owned my microsoft. so consider suse a way for a company like microsoft to have some intellectual capital in the open source game. they pay their developers and basically try and sell suse as an open source option to clients who cant afford the software but can afford some sort of service agreement.


----------



## regexorcist (Feb 2, 2010)

It was only a year ago that some of these "*paid*" developers were layed off...

http://www.freetechie.com/blog/novell-to-layoff-opensuse-personnel/


----------



## digibucc (Feb 2, 2010)

they think that because devs get paid a living wage that refutes the argument.  the point is the software is (mostly) released free, and has the FREEDOM to be edited if you so wish,  

even if microsoft stopped paying all their devs today, even if they started giving windows away free - it's still closed code and not FREE!!

looks like someone doesn't even understand the point... (not you op


----------



## regexorcist (Feb 2, 2010)

I don't believe that the GPL or FOSS was ever in question or the issue here.

The article brings to light, the fact that most of the 
new Linux (kernel) development has been submitted by 
professional  programmers, dispelling the myth that
an army of non-paid programmers from all over the world
build Linux for the love of FOSS.

I do believe this army exists, but more prevalent in 
user applications than in kernel development.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 2, 2010)

regexorcist said:


> I don't believe that the GPL or FOSS was ever in question or the issue here.
> 
> The article brings to light, the fact that most of the
> new Linux (kernel) development has been submitted by
> ...



any educated person knows that people were paid to develop linux and are paid in greater numbers now because of the wide variety of flavors. it is only a myth to children who still believe there is a santa clause.


----------



## regexorcist (Feb 2, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> any educated person knows that people were paid to develop linux and are paid in greater numbers now because of the wide variety of flavors. it is only a myth to children who still believe there is a santa clause.



You're correct, Easy Rhino...
The Article Title is 





> 75% of Linux code is written by paid devs


and as I said it brings this fact to light, but it's ashame that we don't have numbers
on FOSS user applications. With over 20,000 FOSS apps in Debian repository
and many more on sourceforge, I would expect that most of the smaller projects
are from independent writers or small groups. I myself have attempted to help
a few projects through testing and I wasn't paid  . 

Now about Santa, you're just being funny right??
(Ha! Ha! Ha!) no santa... be serious, of course there is a santa 


Here is an interesting read: (dated 2006)
*Proposal to fund Debian reveals debate about developers' motivations*
http://www.linux.com/archive/feed/57294


----------



## Kreij (Feb 2, 2010)

I guess I don't even understand why this is news worthy.
TPU is a website that give you the latest news and information ... for free !
But some members of the staff are compensated for their effort.
Does that somehow make it less viable or less trustworthy?

Your call.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 2, 2010)

Kreij said:


> I guess I don't even understand why this is news worthy.
> TPU is a website that give you the latest news and information ... for free !
> But some members of the staff are compensated for their effort.
> Does that somehow make it less viable or less trustworthy?
> ...



exactly. it is as if the author of the article is trying to discredit the open source movement...


----------



## TIGR (Feb 2, 2010)

Well said Kreij.


----------



## r9 (Feb 2, 2010)

Yes software is free but to find some one to set it up for you costs money. Microsoft is trying to convince us that if you buy their software with just the plain logic you could set it your self.


----------



## digibucc (Feb 2, 2010)

good point r9, hadn't thought of that part  too true...


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Feb 4, 2010)

Novell is owned by MS? Am I in the wrong universe?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 4, 2010)

pr0n Inspector said:


> Novell is owned by MS? Am I in the wrong universe?



apparently not fully owned, but enough that MS can tell Novell what to do all the time.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Feb 5, 2010)

Kreij said:


> I guess I don't even understand why this is news worthy.
> TPU is a website that give you the latest news and information ... for free !
> But some members of the staff are compensated for their effort.
> Does that somehow make it less viable or less trustworthy?
> ...


----------



## Clement (Feb 16, 2010)

kid41212003 said:


> http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/17365/1/
> 
> http://apcmag.com/linux-now-75-corporate.htm



This doesn't make much sense at all...the writer is suggesting that we would rather not pay for a product that WORKS!



Melcar said:


> People tend to associate Linux with an OS, like say Fedora or Ubuntu, which by and large are community efforts.  However, Linux is the kernel itself, and lots of people depend on a working and well maintained Linux kernel.  Firms like Intel, AMD, nvidia, HP, among others, are constantly contributing code to the kernel and have developers on their payroll who work on Linux.



Not to mention the contributions of computers such as Road runner. 



r9 said:


> Yes software is free but to find some one to set it up for you costs money. Microsoft is trying to convince us that if you buy their software with just the plain logic you could set it your self.



If you are a Microsoft engineer this may be true.

Next thing you know we'll have an amendment where people can sue claiming ignorance...


----------



## gregzeng (May 30, 2010)

The comparison is with Android, OS X, M$ Window$ operating syatems, which are usually considered 100% paid code-hackers.

Wikipedia says that OS X comes from BSD, which comes from UNIX. Linux is also derived from Unix.

The poor quality of Linux apps (coding, usability, range, flexibility & depth) is not because of the Op sys, but the Enterprise-only focus of Linux.

Linux has no equivalent to Dragon Naturally Speaking, CIVILIZATION 4 (human evolution simulator), Omnipage (OCR 99% accurate) nor Servant Salamander (most powerful file manager EVER) - my most used apps).  

So Linux is for Wikipedia-editing, web browsing & messaging IMHO.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 30, 2010)

gregzeng said:


> The comparison is with Android, OS X, M$ Window$ operating syatems, which are usually considered 100% paid code-hackers.
> 
> Wikipedia says that OS X comes from BSD, which comes from UNIX. Linux is also derived from Unix.
> 
> ...



linux is for server administration, web hosting, audio and video production, large scale image rendering...the list goes on. just because it doesnt do what you need it to do doesnt reduce it wikipedia editing.


----------

