3 ms·
Why is that probably? What makes it probable?
by Arnt 7y ago
Why is that probably? What makes it probable?
- phaemon 7y agoBecause if you're a competent enough programmer to contribute to the Linux kernel, you're probably competent enough to get a job as a programmer.
- afiori 7y agoI believe that by "salaried employees" it was meant as "people that have linux kernel programming" in the job description.
- phaemon 7y agoYes, I think you're right. In that case, it certainly wasn't the case back when Linux started. Intel and Redhat are the biggest contributors according to the Linux Kernel Development Report from 2017: Intel 10,833 13.1% none 6,819 8.2% Red Hat 5,965 7.2% So, "none", although it's the second biggest category, only accounts for 8.2% of contributions.
- ndesaulniers 7y agoA lot of kernel developers hide who pays their bills.
- afiori 7y agoUnless they also falsely declare the employers it should not be more than 8.2%
- Avamander 7y agoDidn't he mean people paid primarily to develop for Linux, rather than people just developing also developing for Linux?
- Arnt 7y agoI see, and so you assume that that job would be the contribution. When I contributed to the kernel (in a rather minor way, I hasten to add), I was competent enough to get a job as a programmer but my job had nothing to do with the kernel. As far as I can remember that was typical for the people who contributed during the first five years or so. I didn't pay much attention after that.
- qplex 7y agoI think a straight 'no' suffices. Linux most definetly wasn't a commercial project in the early years.
- op03 7y agoBecause every company that has libraries, products, stacks, customers using Linux sooner or later runs into issues in Linux, that they can't wait around for someone else to fix. Big orgs have lots of people just working on Linux full time. They start out fixing one small thing, which then needs to be updated, optimized etc etc and then things snowball.