Reply to post: Re: "No paradox"

OK, team, we've got the big demo tomorrow and we're feeling confident. Let's reboot the servers

Doctor Syntax Silver badge

Re: "No paradox"

"Are you sure? Actually, RedHat was the only one to become really profitable - many other distro that tried the same path failed"

There's usually an annual report with a break-down by the main individual submitters and the associated companies where they can be identified. For 2017 "none" and "unknown" together amount to 12.3% whicn means that 7/8ths of Linux kernel development is by developers sponsored by identifiable companies or "consultants" (3.3%) which I take to mean contractors paid for out of funds contributed by the Linux Foundation (itself sponsored by big companies).

Intel comes top at 13.1%. Red Hat is the next at 7.2%. AMD and other semiconductor manufacturers add at least another 10.2. SUSE and Canonical add 4% on behalf of other distros. Google adds 3%, whether this is on behalf of Android or their data centre operations isn't stated but Facebook also add 0.9% which I take to be data cantre oriented. IBM is 4.1%

So, yes, the Linux kernel is mostly if not entirely built by contributions from a whole spread of businesses who have interests in having their products run on it or having their products at least in part based on it. The notion of it being built by a load of teenagers in their bedrooms is a complete fiction no matter how many people want you to believe that.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon