Home Page
10.15.2004 (previous | next)
Linux & Open Source

The subject of the last post, the Forum on Technology and Innovation, came to mind because I attended the Open Source Software event last July, and recently had reason to refer to the Transcript.

All the speakers were interesting, but I was particularly struck by Andrew Morton, who, as Lead Maintainer of the Linux Production Kernel, had some no-nonsense things to say about Linux, both what it is and what it is not.

Some key points:

"Nowadays, most of the core open source software developers are full-time employed professionals and contributing to public software projects is part of their job description." (Tr. 7)

During the past three years, 38,000 changes have been made in the kernel by 1,000 contributors, with half of the changes coming from a core group of 20 people. (Tr. 8) Linux has less than 100 developers who are significant contributors. (Tr. 73)

For many of the "most successful open source projects," there is not much intellectual property value involved. They represent decades old technologies, and participating companies are simply consolidating around a particular implementation so they "can concentrate their innovation, their resources, and their investment at a higher level of the software stack." (Tr. 49)

Security problems in the Linux kernel are fixed "in a flash." But generally speaking, studies indicate that resolution rates for open source and proprietary software are about the same. (Tr. 63)

The IT industry uses open source as a way of "pulling resources towards a software commons," and "the GPL is the glue there which prevents it from fragmenting" in the same fashion as the old Unix. (Tr. 66)

The risk of someone putting a malicious piece of code into the Linux kernel are almost non-existent. Nothing goes in that is not understood by Morton or one of the inner circle. (Tr. 70)

There was much more of interest in Morton's talk, and I have totally shortchanged the other participants -- Tim Sheehy of IBM; Bill Guidera of Microsoft; and Morgan Reed of ACT. The whole thing is worth looking at: four professionals talking seriously about a topic on which they are expert.

UPDATE: See the ADDENDUM to Gamesmanship, posted Oct. 18, 2004.

posted by James DeLong @ 3:06 PM | General

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)









 
IPcentral WebLog

Blog Main

IPcentral Blogosphere Archives

Search the Blog

Recent Posts
  - IP and Marginal Cost
- Academics and Copyright
- More on Jammie Thomas from DOJ
- More Studies of Downloading
- Facebook, MySpace, and Network Externalities
- Copyright and the University: An Academic Symposium
- Tyler Cowan on Chinese Movie Piracy
- More WHO Antics--Roger Bate Reports
- Patents, Meds, and the Developing World: Clips & Links
- Jermaine Dupri's Gripe with iTunes
Archives by Month
  - December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
  - (see all)
Archives by Subject
  - Academia
- Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain
- Accounting
- Analog Holes
- Antitrust
- Art
- Aspen
- Big Tent
- Biotech
- Books
- Comments from Readers
- Counterfeit
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- DMCA
- DRM & Watermarks, etc.
- Economics, Game Theory & Public Choice
- Enforcement & Remedies
- Free Culture Movement
- Games
- General
- Infrastructure
- International
- Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
- Legislation and Legislators
- Liberty and IP
- Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation
- Media: Video, Music...
- Patents
- Pharma
- Physical Property
- Prices, Terms, and Licensing
- Privacy and Security
- Radio
- Software
- Spectrum & Wireless
- Standards
- Supreme Court
- Tax-Funded IP
- Telecom
- Theft of Service
- Universities
Links
 

Site Feed

  - Atom
- RSS 1.0
- RSS 2.0
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.


 
Home Page