4 ms·

Glad to see that they're planning on contributing more to the upstream. But considering the size and budget of Google, and the amount of free work they're getti

Glad to see that they're planning on contributing more to the upstream. But considering the size and budget of Google, and the amount of free work they're getting from the Debian community, it would be utterly irresponsible not to. Not blaming the team that's doing this good work though - I'm sure they're working hard enough as it is.

ryanobjc 4y ago
I think there's a big misunderstanding as to what exactly gLinux _IS_. Nearly every large company I've worked at worked hard to standardize the dev environment. Ensuring the right set of dev tools (and more) is available on every machine. It's not as simple as 'apt-get install build-essential' and you're done. For example many large companies use perforce, which also has a licensing requirement. Google in particular has a large set of custom binaries, remote file systems, unified login (think krb but maybe not exactly that), unified management, etc, etc. That is what gLinux is. This isn't something you're going to want or need. In fact it doesn't even run outside of the Google hard wired VLANs really (for setup). There are a LOT of net benefits for much of google to being on gLinux. It means, for example, that nearly every product works on Linux - google docs, spreadsheet, meet, etc. That's a huge win. Not only that, they are on par with Windows or Mac support (thanks browser as a platform).
- Zhyl 4y ago
  While this is true, I think a consumer gLinux (i.e. a Debian spin with support from Google) would be more appealing to Vendors than Ubuntu and similar just because of brand recognition. I think Google had the opportunity to accidentally displace some of the Windows monopoly, not by doing a land grab a la ChromeOS or Android, but instead by just releasing a version of something they use themselves which would be appealing to like minded developers and companies that would follow Google's 'stamp of approval'.
baby 4y ago
Open source = no strings attached. I don’t get the shaming of big users of open source. (And if we really want to get there: chrome, android, angular, etc.)
- mantas 4y ago
  Legally - yes. Morally.. not exactly. And shaming one of very few ways to tell big users that it'd be damn nice to chip in here and there.
  - izacus 4y ago
    Last time I checked most of popular OSS projects were predominantly developed by developers at big users on company time. So I don't get this shaming?
    - paskozdilar 4y ago
      It can certainly seem that way with all the companies pretending to be free-software-friendly, but I don't think the percentage is that significant. If you have any hard data you're willing to share, I'd be grateful for it.
      - fauigerzigerk 4y ago
        This survey certainly doesn't answer all questions, but I think it does show that corporate funding of FOSS development is significant: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020FOSSContributorSurveyReport_121020.pdf https://www.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020FOSSC... The Linux kernel is mostly funded by a few large corporations: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/175919-who-actually-develops-linux-the-answer-might-surprise-you https://www.extremetech.com/computing/175919-who-actually-de... Clearly, corporate funding is concentrated in a few large projects, which inevitably means that there will be volunteers out there who carry a huge burden keeping critical smaller projects going.
        paskozdilar 4y ago
        Thanks for the links. > Figure 4 shows the employment status of the survey respondents. The overwhelming majority are employed full-time. The next two most popular answers were self-employed/freelancer or full-time student. This makes sense as most of the skills necessary to contribute to FOSS are highly valued in today’s job market (programming, technical documentation, etc.). The way I understand this is that most contributors are employed full-time, not that most contributors are employed to work on free software full-time.. > In aggregate, of 577 survey respondents, 48.7% said they are paid for time spent on open source contributions by their current employer, 2.95% said another party pays them, 4.33% said they are not paid because their employment contract prevents them from accepting payment for open source development, and 44.02% said they are not paid for any other reason. So almost half of all contributors are actually paid to work on free software projects full-time. That is a fairly high number, but I feel it's still not that overwhelming. > Clearly, corporate funding is concentrated in a few large projects, which inevitably means that there will be volunteers out there who carry a huge burden keeping critical smaller projects going. I suppose it's just basic economy - a piece of software that solves a general problem (e.g. a kernel) will be used by more people then software that serves some specific purpose (e.g. text editor). But it seems to me that in no way is free software dependent on any company funding - that are more then enough hackers out there to keep the thing going, even if every company in the world decided to pull the plug at once.

ryanobjc 4y ago

I think there's a big misunderstanding as to what exactly gLinux _IS_. Nearly every large company I've worked at worked hard to standardize the dev environment. Ensuring the right set of dev tools (and more) is available on every machine. It's not as simple as 'apt-get install build-essential' and you're done. For example many large companies use perforce, which also has a licensing requirement. Google in particular has a large set of custom binaries, remote file systems, unified login (think krb but maybe not exactly that), unified management, etc, etc. That is what gLinux is. This isn't something you're going to want or need. In fact it doesn't even run outside of the Google hard wired VLANs really (for setup). There are a LOT of net benefits for much of google to being on gLinux. It means, for example, that nearly every product works on Linux - google docs, spreadsheet, meet, etc. That's a huge win. Not only that, they are on par with Windows or Mac support (thanks browser as a platform).

Zhyl 4y ago
While this is true, I think a consumer gLinux (i.e. a Debian spin with support from Google) would be more appealing to Vendors than Ubuntu and similar just because of brand recognition. I think Google had the opportunity to accidentally displace some of the Windows monopoly, not by doing a land grab a la ChromeOS or Android, but instead by just releasing a version of something they use themselves which would be appealing to like minded developers and companies that would follow Google's 'stamp of approval'.

baby 4y ago

Open source = no strings attached. I don’t get the shaming of big users of open source. (And if we really want to get there: chrome, android, angular, etc.)

mantas 4y ago
Legally - yes. Morally.. not exactly. And shaming one of very few ways to tell big users that it'd be damn nice to chip in here and there.
- izacus 4y ago
  Last time I checked most of popular OSS projects were predominantly developed by developers at big users on company time. So I don't get this shaming?
  - paskozdilar 4y ago
    It can certainly seem that way with all the companies pretending to be free-software-friendly, but I don't think the percentage is that significant. If you have any hard data you're willing to share, I'd be grateful for it.
    - fauigerzigerk 4y ago
      This survey certainly doesn't answer all questions, but I think it does show that corporate funding of FOSS development is significant: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020FOSSContributorSurveyReport_121020.pdf https://www.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020FOSSC... The Linux kernel is mostly funded by a few large corporations: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/175919-who-actually-develops-linux-the-answer-might-surprise-you https://www.extremetech.com/computing/175919-who-actually-de... Clearly, corporate funding is concentrated in a few large projects, which inevitably means that there will be volunteers out there who carry a huge burden keeping critical smaller projects going.
      - paskozdilar 4y ago
        Thanks for the links. > Figure 4 shows the employment status of the survey respondents. The overwhelming majority are employed full-time. The next two most popular answers were self-employed/freelancer or full-time student. This makes sense as most of the skills necessary to contribute to FOSS are highly valued in today’s job market (programming, technical documentation, etc.). The way I understand this is that most contributors are employed full-time, not that most contributors are employed to work on free software full-time.. > In aggregate, of 577 survey respondents, 48.7% said they are paid for time spent on open source contributions by their current employer, 2.95% said another party pays them, 4.33% said they are not paid because their employment contract prevents them from accepting payment for open source development, and 44.02% said they are not paid for any other reason. So almost half of all contributors are actually paid to work on free software projects full-time. That is a fairly high number, but I feel it's still not that overwhelming. > Clearly, corporate funding is concentrated in a few large projects, which inevitably means that there will be volunteers out there who carry a huge burden keeping critical smaller projects going. I suppose it's just basic economy - a piece of software that solves a general problem (e.g. a kernel) will be used by more people then software that serves some specific purpose (e.g. text editor). But it seems to me that in no way is free software dependent on any company funding - that are more then enough hackers out there to keep the thing going, even if every company in the world decided to pull the plug at once.