[PLUG] Microsoft - Key Linux contributor!
http://www.cio.in/news/microsoft-counted-key-linux-contributor-245792012 Just numeric illusion I suppose. Mayuresh ___ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List
Re: [PLUG] Microsoft - Key Linux contributor!
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mayuresh mayur...@acm.org wrote: http://www.cio.in/news/microsoft-counted-key-linux-contributor-245792012 Just numeric illusion I suppose. Why? If they contributed those many changes to the kernel, then so be it - they deserve to counted as a contributor. It is what it is. Kaustubh Mayuresh ___ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List -- Kaustubh Gadkari ___ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List
Re: [PLUG] Microsoft - Key Linux contributor!
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:59:39PM -0600, Kaustubh Gadkari wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mayuresh mayur...@acm.org wrote: http://www.cio.in/news/microsoft-counted-key-linux-contributor-245792012 Just numeric illusion I suppose. Why? If they contributed those many changes to the kernel, then so be it - they deserve to counted as a contributor. It is what it is. No problems with that. (Look I am not a stereotype MS basher.) All that I mean is the numbers do not necessarily indicate _intent_ to contribute. You might patch a thing n times just because it broke n times, does not make you a better contributor than someone who contributed fewer times though with better quality and functionality. Just the count is not a measure of intent. They are unlikely to be doing it to help Linux/OSS prosper or something. They contributed to areas where they had a business interest. Hence I called it an illusion. The fact that it helped Linux is anyway most welcome. Mayuresh. ___ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List
Re: [PLUG] Microsoft - Key Linux contributor!
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Mayuresh mayur...@acm.org wrote: No problems with that. (Look I am not a stereotype MS basher.) All that I mean is the numbers do not necessarily indicate _intent_ to contribute. This is an interesting way of putting it. The numbers for everyone would indicate that they see significant business value (economic drivers) in contributing to the enhancement of the kernel. For some it could be getting things to be interoperable, for others it might be to do innovation and, then again, there is a strong overlap between those two perspectives. You might patch a thing n times just because it broke n times, does not make you a better contributor than someone who contributed fewer times though with better quality and functionality. Just the count is not a measure of intent. The count is a measure of investment. And, for publicly traded large corporations, making significant investments means a policy shift. It wasn't that long ago that the current CEO considered Linux a disease (I think it was 'cancer' as was told). Cut to today, it does make for a different picture. They are unlikely to be doing it to help Linux/OSS prosper or something. They contributed to areas where they had a business interest. Hence I called it an illusion. If you see that the business interest actually translates into requiring to contribute kernel code, aren't they anyway enhancing the kernel ? -- sankarshan mukhopadhyay http://sankarshan.randomink.org/blog/ ___ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List
Re: [PLUG] Microsoft - Key Linux contributor!
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Mayuresh mayur...@acm.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:59:39PM -0600, Kaustubh Gadkari wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mayuresh mayur...@acm.org wrote: http://www.cio.in/news/microsoft-counted-key-linux-contributor-245792012 Just numeric illusion I suppose. Why? If they contributed those many changes to the kernel, then so be it - they deserve to counted as a contributor. It is what it is. No problems with that. (Look I am not a stereotype MS basher.) All that I mean is the numbers do not necessarily indicate _intent_ to contribute. You might patch a thing n times just because it broke n times, does not make you a better contributor than someone who contributed fewer times though with better quality and functionality. Just the count is not a measure of intent. I think the count _is_ an intent to contribute. MS engineers might have contributed several patches for one bugfix/improvement - I haven't read the changelogs. But, the point is, so what? If it is an area of the kernel that needed fixing/improving and the MS engineers did it, then it needs to be acknowledged. Sometimes a fix/improvement happens incrementally. The MS fixes were certainly not because of MS' love of all things FOSS - in fact, they were almost certainly driven by their economic baseline. Why does that make their kernel contributions bad (for the lack of a better word)? They are unlikely to be doing it to help Linux/OSS prosper or something. They contributed to areas where they had a business interest. Hence I called it an illusion. RedHat is a $1bn+ company. It is also one of the largest kernel contributors. Their existence is dependent on the kernel and the system built around it working. Would you argue that their contributions are an illusion, since their contributions are driven by the economic baseline as much as the need/want to evangelize FOSS? My point is, the contributions are there, they were vetted by the head honchos in charge of the kernel and they help enhance the kernel. IMHO, MS's intentions are immaterial. Kaustubh The fact that it helped Linux is anyway most welcome. Mayuresh. ___ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List -- Kaustubh Gadkari ___ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List
