Re: [HACKERS] BSD vs. GPL

Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Consider Redhad, Caldera, etc.  They are adding value "on top of"
> the OS, but the kernel is pretty much the same for all of them.  In
> fact, aside from some tweaks, they really aren't involved in
> enhancing the lower levels of Linux, and economically, they really
> can't.  They could put 100 programmers on it, but once they do a
> release, all their competitors have all their enhancements, and the
> economic benefit of those 100 programmers is gone.  Sure, Linux is
> better for it, but those 100 programmers aren't seeing an increased
> sales rate to pay their salaries.

But Bruce, you're uninformed.  Heck, you're dead wrong.  The two
organizations you name, and more besides do work on the Linux kernel.
A lot.  I realize that you're not deeply connected in the Linux
community, so you may not realize much of this, but the simple fact is
that RedHat and others do exactly what you say they don't.

Caldera has contributed significantly to both the PPP code and IPX
code in the Linux kernel.  They've developed a SYSV Streams emulation
(that Linus doesn't want in the main kernel :-), and some other stuff.

RedHat employs Doug Ledford who works on (and has put a *lot* or work
into) the Adaptec 7XXX driver.  They employ Dave Miller who works on
both multi-arch issues and oversees (and codes a fair portion) of the
TCP networking.  They (through his consulting firm) employ Alan Cox,
who is often regarded as Linus' right-hand man, and was responsible
for seeing the 2.0.36 and 2.0.37 stable kernels to release, plus
whatever other scut jobs are out there.  I believe RH also employs
Stephen C. Tweedie, who does major work on the ext2 fs, including
adding journaling.

In fact, one could argue that if the people RedHat pays to work on the
kernel disappeared, work on the kernel would suddenly get an awful lot
slower.

SUSE employs Andrea Arcangeli, who is doing a ton of work on the Linux
VM system.  SUSE has also developed X servers which they then
contrib'd back to XFree86.org, which arguably benefits even more
people since XF86 works on the *BSDs (including BSD/OS, no?) (and
which, since XF86 is under the MIT license, someone could then take
and make proprietary...fair?).

So, in light of these new facts, would you like to reassess your
assessment?

Mike.