On Feb 2, 10:12 am, Hadron <hadronqu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Idealism and FOSS, buddies to the end
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> But in the real world the GREAT MAJORITY of OSS contributors are
> gainfully employed by CLOSED SOURCE SW houses. If they weren't closed
> source then their competitors would steal their code and ideas and force
> them into bancruptcy. Think Peter Koehlmann, Linonut, Omer etc. You get
> the picture.
Hadron is correct. Only about 14% of the code comes from individual
contributors.
Other major contributors include Red Hat, IBM, and SGI.
There are some good reasons why companies will support a non-profit
organization rather than working with a publicly held corporation.
The most important is what happened with Microsoft and SCO. In the
case of Microsoft, IBM helped fund the development of MS-DOS and OS/2,
and were indirectly responsible for Windows NT, since Microsoft had
embezzled both staff and intellectual property from OS/2 for Windows
3.1 and Windows NT. Yet IBM lost total control of the intellectual
property, and eventually, was forced to stop marketing OS/2 because of
Microsoft's pressure on retailers.
In the case of SCO, IBM had been a major contributor to UNIX, and had
helped to fund the development of most of the GUI interfaces used by
SCO, as well as other enhancements and tools. Yet a few years later,
as a result of stockholder and proxy control shifts, IBM found
themselves being sued by SCO for use of intellectual property they had
helped develop. In fact, it turns out that SCO was trying to sue IBM
for using it's own intellectual property, contributed to SCO.
A non-profit organization tends to be more easily managed and
regulated. They depend on ongoing support from the benefactors, and
profit isn't their primary moment.
> Think of it like there being something 700 different Linux distros, but
> only one or two really work properly and are properly looked after. The
> ones making income of course.
There are only about 100 Linux distros. A Linux distribution is easy
to make. The source code is available via version control systems.
Distributions are created for specific markets, or specific types of
functions. Some are designed for very small or older computers.
Others are designed to be as functional as possible. Some are
oriented toward particular countries.
Many distributions start out with the expectation that they will plug
into the source trees, compile the code, publish their distribution,
and make $millions. Often, after a few people have downloaded the
applications and things aren't working right, they find out that while
creating a Linux distribution is easy, testing and supporting it takes
a lot more work.
Other distributions start much like Linux, with a group or company
putting together a CD that can be used to meet that groups needs, but
then leaks out into other groups with similar needs. Suddenly, the
distribution spreads and people are willing to help support the
distribution.
Very often, what distinguishes a distribution is the defaults. The
distributions are often described as variants of other well known
distributions such as Red Hat, Debian, or Ubuntu. They have a
"gimmick" such as "Looks like Windows" (Linspire), or a 3D interface,
or using KDE instead of GNOME as the default desktop, or dozens of
other options. Some distributions will also have some distribution
specific management tools.
Most of the major distributors are also contributors to the OSS
projects themselves. They contribute funding, even part-time staff,
and other resources to these projects.
Many OEMs also contribute funds and resource to OSS projects as well.
IBM, HP, Dell, Sony, Acer, and Toshiba have all contributed funding
and other resources to Linux and OSS developers.
Rex
|
|
