3 ms·

>>IBM has been historically a Linux contributor. Maybe, but IBM has been historically a for profit enterprise, required to appease investors every quarter (or

>>IBM has been historically a Linux contributor. Maybe, but IBM has been historically a for profit enterprise, required to appease investors every quarter (or the CEO goes, stock crashes etc.) They may have contributed to projects to then sell services, but make no mistake, IBM has their own interests at heart, not yours.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
Are RedHat not a for profit enterprise required to appease investors? They're also a publicly traded company - and part of the S&P 500 even!
torstenvl 8y ago
> Maybe, but IBM has been historically a for profit enterprise... So has RedHat.
this_user 8y ago
You do realise that a lot of Linux kernel development is being done by for profit enterprises, don't you? None of these companies are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they have a vested interest. Linux is at the heart of possibly the majority of modern IT infrastructure. Besides,IBM/RH are by not even the largest contributors. Intel does more than both of them combined, and then you have other heavyweights like Google who have an interest (notably through Android) in keeping the project going. Even if IBM were to pull out for some reason, there are more than enough others who could pick up the slack.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Not just "a lot." Over 90% of contributions come from developers who are hired by companies to contribute to the Linux kernel: https://thenewstack.io/contributes-linux-kernel https://thenewstack.io/contributes-linux-kernel. Intel and Redhat each contribute more than all the individual contributors put together.
jotm 8y ago
I see way too many good open source projects relying on donations, and they are not doing well. Nothing wrong with making money, or rather, it's an essential part of life (for better or worse).

3 ms·

>>IBM has been historically a Linux contributor. Maybe, but IBM has been historically a for profit enterprise, required to appease investors every quarter (or

by onetimemanytime 8y ago

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
Are RedHat not a for profit enterprise required to appease investors? They're also a publicly traded company - and part of the S&P 500 even!
torstenvl 8y ago
> Maybe, but IBM has been historically a for profit enterprise... So has RedHat.
this_user 8y ago
You do realise that a lot of Linux kernel development is being done by for profit enterprises, don't you? None of these companies are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they have a vested interest. Linux is at the heart of possibly the majority of modern IT infrastructure. Besides,IBM/RH are by not even the largest contributors. Intel does more than both of them combined, and then you have other heavyweights like Google who have an interest (notably through Android) in keeping the project going. Even if IBM were to pull out for some reason, there are more than enough others who could pick up the slack.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Not just "a lot." Over 90% of contributions come from developers who are hired by companies to contribute to the Linux kernel: https://thenewstack.io/contributes-linux-kernel https://thenewstack.io/contributes-linux-kernel. Intel and Redhat each contribute more than all the individual contributors put together.
jotm 8y ago
I see way too many good open source projects relying on donations, and they are not doing well. Nothing wrong with making money, or rather, it's an essential part of life (for better or worse).