[TUHS] [COFF] 386BSD released
joe mcguckin
joe at via.net
Fri Jul 16 09:02:02 AEST 2021
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 at 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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20210715/5d18f6a1/attachment.htm>
More information about the TUHS
mailing list