[Info-vax] OT(?): Linux: developed by corporates. *NOT* developed by unpaid volunteers.

[johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk]

On Saturday, 28 March 2015 18:45:49 UTC, David Froble  wrote:
> Jess Goodman wrote:
> 
> > "...bottlenecks and performance problems that were introduced when
> > the data had to be replicated..."  The obvious but unanswered
> > question is:  Why did this data have to be replicated in the first
> > place?  The answer: because there was no webserver for VMS that could
> > scale to anywhere near the performance capacity that AccuWeather
> > required.
> 
> I see this as a problem resulting from the absurd idea of "free 
> software".  Once someone gets the idea of such, then the next step is 
> "the price is right, make it work", and now you're limited to whatever 
> someone will choose to implement, without pay, on their own time.
> 
> Needless to say, that "free application" just might not be available in 
> every environment.  Or when ported to another environment, might not 
> work so well.
> 
> I'd also wonder at just what "performance capacity" is required, or 
> currently in use at for instance AccuWeather?  Why would the WASD web 
> server not satisfy that demand?  Not saying it should, just asking where 
> it might not.
> 
> I don't use a web server.  One of my shortcomings, perhaps, perhaps not. 
>   To me a web server is just a listener socket, accepting connection 
> requests, with some capability to do something with some of the data 
> sent by a client.  Perhaps over-simplified, but, that's what it does.
> 
> With sufficient specifications, I cannot see why a web server could not 
> be implemented on VMS to satisfy any requirements.  Even a large cluster 
> running multiple copies of the web server to meet the volume of 
> connection requests.  (No, I haven't volunteered to write such.)
> 
> Also, you cannot solve a problem, unless you know what the problem is. 
> I'd be curious as to where and why VMS based web servers do not satisfy 
> the requirements?
> 
> The subject interests me because a cousin of the web server, a web 
> service, has greatly influenced the applications he's working with.
> 
> In the old days, people would sit at terminals, with phones, and takes 
> customer orders over the phone.  (Dave shows his extreme age.)  We have 
> implemented "web services" and a protocol to enable customers to submit 
> orders computer-to-computer.  Again, basically a listener socket, with 
> code to process specific requests from clients.  We provide inventory 
> inquiry, process sales orders, and such.  The providers of software on 
> the other end are loving it, and have taken steps to use this 
> capability.  It actually seems to be a bit astounding, how much this has 
> changed the Codis customer's business.
> 
> Slightly off topic story.
> 
> We've been discussing how to set up things with more disaster tolerance. 
>   There have been few problems in the past, but, things can always be 
> made better.  Now, I was a bit confused with the "sudden" interest in 
> disaster tolerance.  The question was, "what happens if we lose a day's 
> work (orders)?"  I wondered what the problem was.  After all, we're 
> selling a few lawn mower parts, how much could be lost?  A couple 
> thousand dollars worth of orders?
> 
> Yesterday I brought up that very question.  The answer.  "Oh, no, the 
> customers have been expanding, a million dollar day is possible ...."
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> (Dave hits floor ....)
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> While laying on floor, stunned, Dave considers his (possibly out of 
> date) labor rates ....
> 
> Further discussion discloses that financial reporting from the GL system 
> has had to be modified to handle the greatly increased figures ....
> 
> (More thoughts on out of date labor rates ....)
> 
> Ok, enough on the story ..
> 
> But one thing is clear.  The customers have increased business greatly, 
> and part of that is because of the new web services that we've 
> developed.  It has been a real "changer" of the business.
> 
> As a simple example.  The dealers now have small systems, and usually 
> have software that provides a "parts explosion" of the products they are 
> working on.  If they select a particular product, the dealer system can 
> obtain a real time inventory availability on every distributor running 
> Codis, and let the dealer know what's available.  The dealer system can 
> then take the selected part(s) and immediately send an order to the 
> distributor, who can fill the order from inventory, or, another 
> distributor using Codis.  Do that on the phone ....
> 
> So, now, I can say that I understand just how important it is to embrace 
>   and develop some new ways of doing business.  We, and I assume others, 
> have been able to do it on VMS.  The question then becomes, why are 
> others having problems doing so, and what needs to happen to rectify 
> that situation?
> 
> I can specify one thing, the disgusting TCP/IP from HP.  I'm glad VSI is 
> going to look at this.

Dave said "whatever someone will choose to implement, without pay, on
their own time. "

Dave, with the greatest respect, you may need to get out more :)

Various Linuxes may be free to download but there are lots of people
being paid by their big-name employers to do Linux development. The 
proportion of input from unpaid volunteers isn't quite negligible but
it seems it's a lot smaller than you've been thinking (how does 13%
sound?).

The Linux Foundation does a survey of where the Linux changes come
from, and sometimes it gets reported. Apparently you'd be surprised by
the numbers. Perhaps others would too. So here's a recent sample.

E.g. in 2013 [1], top corporate contributor was Red Hat at 10% of
all changes. Next big names, in order, were Intel (9%), TI (4%),
[Linaro (4%) aren't famous], Suse (3%), IBM (3%), Samsung (2%),
and Google (2%). There are plenty more corporate names on the list,
not all of them widely known in the land of VMS and Basic, but in
their fields they are big names: e.g. Oracle, Broadcom, Qualcomm,
Cisco, etc.

In 2013 the proportion of changes submitted by sole
developers working on their own was only 13%.

One well known name not showing on that list: HP. There is a category
for "unknown", at 3%.

I realise statistics are a wonderful thing, and are more often used
for support than for illumination. But have a think about this. Linux
isn't $$$ free, it's paid for by the customers of the companies whose
employees are paid to contribute.



Does this change anything in your picture? Not sure. But it might.


[1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/09/google-and-samsung-soar-into-list-of-top-10-linux-contributors/
which in turn reflects
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/infographics/who-writes-linux-2013
Slightly better analysis for 2013's changes (but fewer raw numbers) at
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2610207/open-source-software/who-writes-linux--corporations--more-than-ever.html

For the equivalent info for changes during 2014 see
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/linux-has-2000-new-developers-and-gets-10000-patches-for-each-version/
but in summary it's not that different than the previous year and HP are
still invisible (? there's stuff like HP's involvement with OpenStack. Right.)