Practical Technology

for practical people.

April 1, 2008
by sjvn01
0 comments

Q: Who Really Creates Linux? A: The Enterprise

Some people are still under the delusion that Linux is written by unwashed hackers living in their parents’ basements whose only social life is playing D&D and having flame wars over IRC (Internet Relay Chat) about whether vi or EMACS better and debating Picard versus Kirk. Nothing, nothing could be further from the truth.

The LF (Linux Foundation) has just released a new report, “Linux Kernel Development: How Fast It is Going, Who is Doing It, What They are Doing, and Who is Sponsoring It.” This comprehensive study of the last three years of Linux kernel development, from version 2.6.11 to 2.6.24 releases, reveals that the average Linux developer is being paid by a major corporation to develop Linux.

To be exact, between 70 and 95 percent of Linux developers over the last three years have been paid to work on Linux. According to the report, “More than 70 percent of total contributions to the kernel come from developers working at [such companies as] IBM, Intel, The Linux Foundation, MIPS Technology, MontaVista, Movial, NetApp, Novell and Red Hat.”

Over the years, the number of Linux developers has been increasing. Version 2.6.11 had only 483 programmers whose code actually made it into the kernel. The latest kernel, 2.6.24, had 1,057 developers. Over the last three years, 3,678 programmers have had their work included in Linux’s core.

That said, the report also stated that “despite the large number of individual developers, there is still a relatively small number who are doing the majority of the work. Over the past three years, the top 10 individual developers have contributed almost 15 percent of the number of changes and the top 30 developers have contributed 30 percent.”

In fact, the top five developers, Al Viro (1.9 percent of the total percentage of changes to the kernel); David Miller (1.8 percent); Adrian Bunk (1.7 percent); Ralf Baechle (1.6 percent); and Andrew Morton (1.5 percent), alone accounted for 8.5 percent of Linux’s recent code changes.

Of all the developers, 74.1 percent work on Linux for their companies. Of the rest, many programmers?12.9 percent with unknown employers?made 10 changes or less to the kernel. Only 13.9 percent of developers were clearly working on Linux as a hobby.

So, while Linux does have a substantial contribution being made to it by amateurs, the vast bulk of it is being written by corporate programmers. The companies that are building Linux, in order of their contributions to the kernel, are:

1) Red Hat, 11.2 percent
2) Novell, 8.9 percent
3) IBM, 8.3 percent
4) Intel, 4.1 percent
5) LF, 3.5 percent
6) SGI, 2.0 percent
7) MIPS Technology, 1.6 percent
8) Oracle, 1.3 percent
9) MontaVista, 1.2 percent
10) Linutronix, 1.0 percent.

In addition, consultants’ efforts have counted for 2.5 percent of the total work on Linux.

The authors of the study, Linux kernel developers Jonathan Corbet and Greg Kroah-Hartman, and Linux Foundation Director of Marketing Amanda McPherson, also note that, “What we see here is that a small number of companies are responsible for a large portion of the total changes to the kernel. But there is a ‘long tail’ of companies which have made significant changes.”

They also point out in the study that “none of these companies are supporting Linux development as an act of charity; in each case, these companies find that improving the kernel helps them to be more competitive in their markets.”

Besides Linux distributors, like Red Hat, Novell and MontaVista, where the profit motive is clear, the study also finds that “companies like IBM, Intel, SGI, MIPS, Freescale, HP, etc. are all working to ensure that Linux runs well on their hardware. That, in turn, makes their offerings more attractive to Linux users, resulting in increased sales.”

Other businesses that work on developing Linux, “like Sony, Nokia, and Samsung ship Linux as a component of products like video cameras, television sets, and mobile telephones. Working with the development process helps these companies ensure that Linux will continue to be a solid base for their products in the future.”

It’s not just IT companies these days that are working on improving Linux. For example, the study’s writers state that “The 2.6.25 kernel will include an implementation of the PF_CAN [Controller Area Network] network protocol which was contributed by Volkswagen. PF_CAN allows for reliable communications between components in an interference-prone environment?such as that found in an automobile. Linux gave Volkswagen a platform upon which it could build its networking code; the company then found it worthwhile to contribute the code back so that it could be maintained with the rest of the kernel.”

So since your typical Linux developer is more likely to be a full-time, upper-middle class software engineer, why does the FUD about Linux developers still hang on? McPherson believes it’s because “it’s difficult for most people to get their minds around competitive mass collaboration. It’s obviously a huge shift from the command and control models of old. Most people seem to have a hard time understanding that companies will pay people to work on software that their competitors use and profit from.”

McPherson continued: “People are still stuck in the zero sum game of the past. But now, with papers like this, they can see that companies who support open source actually profit through a shared R&D cost. The myth persists but as open source is becoming more common than proprietary development; I think you’ll see a shift in understanding.”

A version of this story was first published in Linux-Watch.

March 31, 2008
by sjvn01
1 Comment

Is Microsoft really any more trustworthy?

Lately, Microsoft has been trying really, really hard to appear as open source’s best friend. All I can say is: “With friends like these, who needs enemies?”

Microsoft has been making all these wonderful promises of opening up APIs and protocols. The company just forgot to mention that it is only obeying the orders of the European Union court system.

If someone stole from you, and the courts ordered them to pay you back, how would you feel about them holding a self-serving press conference to tell you how generous they are? Or, as Michael Tiemann, head of the Open Source Initiative and a Red Hat executive, put it in an OSI blog posting on March 30th, Microsoft’s new weapon against open source: stupidity.

You see some people still believe that Microsoft offering patented protocols under “reasonable and non-discriminatory terms,” or “for free for noncommercial use without fear of lawsuits” is somehow some kind of olive branch to the open-source community.

As Tiemann put it: “A free-of-cost license that prohibits commercial use is useless to open-source developers. And therefore I cannot understand why anybody would think that Microsoft is doing the open-source community any favors.”

He’s got that right.

When Microsoft’s general counsel, Brad Smith, talked about a bridge between Microsoft and open source at the recent Open Source Business Conference in San Francisco, it sounded good. The line that engineers could more done with these issues than lawyers ever could was one calculated to warm the hearts of the open-source community.

There’s just one problem. Microsoft still holds the threat of patents over any commercial use of its intellectual property. Microsoft still won’t say what patents it claims are used in Linux. Microsoft still tries to fog up the fact that it’s been required to open up, for example, its network file protocols to Samba.

Microsoft seems to have pulled every dirty trick in its book to get Open XML turned into an OSI standard. To sum up, Microsoft is still not trustworthy.

I know some people, such as Jason Perlow at ZDNet, believe that you can trust Microsoft, at least as long as you keep a close eye on them, and that Microsoft is beginning to see the advantages of working with, rather than against, open source.

I don’t buy it. I’m certain there are some engineers at Microsoft who would have no problem working together with open-source developers. But I also believe that, so long as Steve Ballmer heads the company, Microsoft will never be a real partner for open source. Or, for that matter, that Microsoft would prove a trustworthy partner to any company not under its thumb.

Perlow compares Microsoft’s relationship to open source with the Soviet Union’s Glasnost period when it was opening up to the West for the first time. It’s a good analogy, but I don’t think it’s an accurate one. Come the day when, say, Mark Shuttleworth cribs from Reagan and demands, “Mr. Ballmer, tear down these patent walls” and Microsoft does so, then I’ll believe that the Evil Empire has changed its ways. Until then, I’m going to trust Microsoft about as far as I can throw Ballmer.

A version of this story was first published in Linux-Watch.

March 31, 2008
by sjvn01
0 comments

ISO Approves Open XML

Despite alleged voting irregularities, Microsoft’s OpenXML format for office documents seems on its way to standardization.

According to multiple observers, Microsoft’s OpenXML is on its way to becoming an ISO standard.

The three sites that have been following the International Organization for Standardization re-vote on the OpenXML standard—Command Line Warriors, Open Malaysia and ConsortiumInfo—are all reporting that, barring some unforeseen circumstances, OpenXML will become an ISO standard.

Since none of the authors at these sites is pro-OpenXML, it seems a foregone conclusion that Microsoft was successful in its OpenXML standardization efforts.

Voting on the standardization effort closed March 29. More than 80 national standards bodies had the opportunity to vote on the matter.

The ISO already had one vote on OpenXML standardization. In this vote, concluded on Sept. 4, 2007, Microsoft was defeated. However, ISO rules require that groups voting against the adoption of a draft standard also give technical reasons for disapproval. The ISO then edits the standard to reflect those concerns and holds another vote on the revised draft.

In the weeks before this second vote, the corporate fighting between Microsoft and supporters of the ODF (Open Document Format), including IBM and Sun, reached new highs. ODF is a rival document format that has already won ISO approval.

Rob Weir, an IBM performance architect, for example, pointed out that the OpenXML specification stood at 6,045 pages when first presented, which he said was simply too much for any kind of reasonable review. Weir wrote in his blog, “I don’t know anyone who really thinks the five-month review was sufficient for a technical review of 6,045 pages.”

Be that as it may, Andrew Updegrove, in his ConsortiumInfo Standards Blog, predicted on March 29, “Unless thus-far unannounced votes that were formerly ‘approve’ or ‘abstain’ switch to ‘disapprove,’ it appears that OOXML will be approved.”

There is bound to be continued controversy over the OpenXML standardization vote. Pamela Jones, editor of Groklaw, an IP (intellectual property) news site, has reported on numerous accounts of voting irregularities that favored Microsoft. So far, complaints have been raised about how the standardization vote was handled in Norway, Germany and Croatia.

As of the evening of March 30, neither the ISO nor Microsoft has issued a statement about the OpenXML vote.

A version of this story first appeared in eWEEK.

March 30, 2008
by sjvn01
0 comments

Novell strengthens Data Center Play with PlateSpin Purchase

Chances are you haven’t heard of PlateSpin. Trust me, for Novell, which purchased the enterprise data center workload lifecycle management company, this is a major step forward in moving into the data center.

PlateSpin’s software enables system administrators to move workloads between physical and virtual environments regardless of platform or operating system. It lets companies use whatever servers they already have effectively.

That’s not just hype. Before Novell came along to buy the company for $205-million in cash, PlateSpin counted Citrix, Microsoft, and Unisys as customers. It’s also noteworthy that all these major PlateSpin customers approve of this deal. This is a buyout where the customers aren’t fleeing to another vendor.

Continue Reading →

March 30, 2008
by sjvn01
0 comments

Apple TV 2.01: The Bug-fix Edition Bugged?

Apple sneaked out a new update for the Apple TV on Friday night. While, it’s mostly a bug-fix update, it does bring a handy new feature to the Apple TV as well. Well, it would be handy if it didn’t work so slowly anyway.

First, as for the bug-fixes, while Apple isn’t saying what 2.01 does, here’s what I’ve seen so far. First, the Apple TV’s hang problems seems to have been reduced. While I’ve not run into them, several people I’ve known have had the Apple TV hang when it was rendering numerous (100+) thumbnails for their Apple TV libraries. 2.01 seems to have erased this problem.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that some people are reporting that they’re losing their video connections during playback. The network connection is remaining solid, but the media playback simply drops only to be start again later without any rhyme or reason.

This is another problem I have yet to see with my Apple TVs. I have both a 40GB Apple TV and a 160GB Apple TV. The former uses a wired Fast Ethernet connection, while the latter uses an 802.11g connection. Both run off an iTunes library kept on a SimpleTech SP-U35/500 SimpleDrive 500 Hard Drive. This, in turn, sits off a Windows XP SP3 system running the latest version of iTunes.

The one new feature is that you can now view movies sorted by genre. Unfortunately, there have also been reports that switching from one movie genre view to another can take up to 15-seconds. Since, I never bothered to sort my own 50-movie collection by genre I haven’t encountered this issue.

The one completely bright spot is that, on my Apple TVs anyway, the interface seems to be working a bit more quickly.

All-in-all, this new release seems to be quite a mixed bag. Were I you, I’d hold up on upgrading for now. It seems all too likely that you’re going to run into some trouble for minimal gains. Hopefully, Apple will follow 2.01 with a 2.02 that keeps the advantages while getting rid of the disadvantages.

March 28, 2008
by sjvn01
0 comments

Red Hat posts great 2008 fiscal year earnings

Anyone under the delusion that you can’t make money from open source and Linux should have been on Red Hat’s 2008 fiscal year earnings call on March 27.

If they had been, they would have heard Red Hat executives report that the Linux giant posted net income of $76.7 million, or $0.36 per diluted share, for the year, compared with $59.9 million, or $.29 per diluted share, in the prior year.

According to the Raleigh, N.C., company’s financial statement, Red Hat‘s non-GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) “adjusted net income for the year was $152.9 million, or $0.72 per diluted share, compared to $115.9 million and $0.56 per diluted share the year before.”

The 2008 fiscal year’s non-GAAP operating cash flow totaled $71.6 million, or approximately 50 percent of revenue for the quarter and $264.3 million for the full year. At year end, the company’s total deferred revenue balance was $472.9 million, an increase of 40 percent on a year-over-year basis and 12 percent sequentially. Total cash, cash equivalents and investments as of Feb. 29, 2008 were $1.3 billion.

That number–$1.3 billion–may not be a lot to Microsoft, but by almost any other corporate standard it’s great.

During the conference call, Charlie Peters, Red Hat’s executive vice president and chief financial officer, said, “It was an outstanding year. Our annual revenue grew over 30 percent, our deferred revenue grew 40 percent, and we produced operating cash flow margins of 50 percent. The company’s performance was driven by growing demand for our open-source solutions and the convincing value which we are able to demonstrate with our customers. We are also realizing returns on the increased investment which we have made over the past year in engineering [and] sales and marketing, combined with solid execution by our associates.”

Specifically, that “increased investment” was increases in sales and marketing of 31 percent year over year while research and development costs rose 32 percent. As Peters pointed out, though the return on investment was excellent, the company still has room to grow.

Red Hat’s fourth quarter showed a company that is still growing. The financial report stated: “Total revenue for the quarter was $141.5 million, an increase of 27 percent from the year-ago quarter and 5 percent from the prior quarter. Subscription revenue for the quarter was $121.9 million, up 27 percent year-over-year and 5 percent sequentially. For the full year, total revenue was $523.0 million, an increase of 31 percent over fiscal 2007 revenue, and subscription revenue was $449.8 million, up 32 percent from the prior year.

“Net income for the quarter was $22.0 million, or $0.10 per diluted share, compared with $20.3 million, or $0.10 per diluted share, for the prior quarter and $20.5 million, or $0.10 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Non-GAAP adjusted net income for the quarter was $42.7 million, or $0.20 per diluted share, after adjusting for stock compensation and tax expenses. This compares to non-GAAP adjusted net income of $39.7 million, or $0.19 per diluted share in the prior quarter.”

The company presented great results even though Red Hat faced the unexpected resignation of its longtime CEO Matthew Szulik due to family health matters in December 2007. Under new CEO Jim Whitehurst, a former Delta chief operating officer, the company has continued to do well.

Looking ahead, Whitehurst said during the earnings call that “the momentum of open-source solutions is strong and growing, and we believe there is a significant opportunity to expand our presence with existing customers and the many companies and industries that have only just begun to adopt open-source solutions in a meaningful way.” The economy, although in a decline with such failures as the collapse of Bear Stearns, may actually be good news for open-source companies.

A version of this story was first published in Linux-Watch.