Ever wonder who contributes the most to the Linux kernel? Of course you have. Here's a hint: It's not Canonical, certainly not Microsoft, and you might be surprised which companies crack the top 20 and where.
Finger-pointing time! Let’s see who’s responsible for kernel development in the last year. Once again, the Linux foundation has released its report on who wrote Linux. As always, it has some interesting insight into who did what when it comes to kernel development, and the direction of the kernel. Unsurprisingly, embedded/mobile is becoming a major factor in kernel development.
The Linux Foundation publishes an annual Linux report that shows (approximately) who has written and contributed to the Linux kernel. The report is put together by LWN’s Jon Corbet (also a kernel contributor) and kernel developer Greg Kroah-Hartman, with additional contributions from the Linux Foundation’s Amanda McPherson.
The Top 5
Everybody wants to know, who’s at the top of the list. Consistently at the top is “none,” which is to say that nearly 20% of the kernel development is done by people who aren’t affiliated with a company — at least as far as their kernel contributions go. Yes, Virginia, independent kernel contributions still exist.
The report provides two lists — contributions since 2.6.12, when Git logs became available, and since the last report (2.6.30). Red Hat tops both lists, with 12.4% of kernel changes since 2.6.12, and 12.0% since 2.6.30. A tiny decline, but remember that the number of developers participating in each release cycle grows by about 10%. Meaning that the proverbial pond keeps getting bigger, and the Red Hat fish isn’t getting much smaller in comparison.
The red fish keeps growing, but the green fish isn’t keeping up quite as well. Novell had 7.0% of kernel contributions since 2.6.12, but only 5.0% since 2.6.30. It’s dropped from second to third in kernel contributions, after Intel, which had 7.8% of kernel contributions since 2.6.30. Some of that may be that more X.org is being moved into the kernel, and a lot of X.org development is being done by Intel, and Intel is also doing more with its work on MeeGo.
Intel comes in second on most recent contributions, bumping Novell to its third place spot. IBM is also displaced by Intel, landing at fourth (Intel’s old slot). Who’s in fifth (sorry Abbot, Costello)? Nokia. Yep, Nokia — who were behind SGI, Parallels, and Fujitsu in 2009.
If you’re looking for individuals, the top five since 2.6.30 are Paul Mundt, Johannes Berg, Peter Zijlstra, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, Greg Kroah-Hartman. Mundt explains Renesas’ place in the list — he’s working for them, after a stint at the CE Linux Forum (CELF). Berg is on Intel’s payroll, working on wireless, Zijlstra works for Red Hat, and Zolnierkiewicz is a student at Warsaw University of Technology. Kroah-Hartman, of course, is at Novell.
Linus Torvalds doesn’t make the list not because he’s not doing anything, but because the list doesn’t measure what Torvalds does very well. That is to say, Torvalds spends much of his time merging commits from others and not so much writing his own code. Still quite important, but not as easily measured.
I beat Oracle up pretty heavily lately because of their antagonism towards Google and open source Java, as well as their mishandling of OpenSolaris, OpenOffice.org, and virtually all of the properties they got from Sun. Nothing that’s related to open source has gotten better since Oracle took it over. Still, the company turns in a respectable — if somewhat reduced — showing in kernel development. Oracle clocks in with 1.9% of kernel changes since 2.6.30, and 2.3% since 2.6.12.
Then there’s Canonical. Or rather, there Canonical isn’t. Once again, the most popular Linux desktop vendor and would-be enterprise Linux player doesn’t rank highly enough in kernel development to show up — even in the past year. I might get flamed for mentioning this, but I do think it’s worth pointing out. Yes, Canonical makes valuable contributions to Linux in other areas — even if the seem ashamed or reluctant to mention that Ubuntu is Linux underneath. Does Canonical need to contribute to the kernel to be successful? Apparently not. Should Canonical be contributing more given its standing and dependency on the Linux kernel? I believe so.
Embedded
Nokia’s placement on the list shows that much more development is being driven by mobile and embedded Linux. In the past, server Linux was the big money behind the kernel. Still is, but it’s making room for embedded Linux.
Nokia has jumped up in the standings and has doubled its percentage of contribution. Wolfson Microelectronics and Renesas Technology appear in the top 20 for the first time. Both companies are working with embedded Linux. Texas Instruments also makes the list — Linux on a calculator, anyone?
Broadcom and Atheros also make the top 20 since 2.6.30 — which is good, we might see fewer and fewer chipsets that aren’t supported in Linux.
What’s disappointing is that Google isn’t higher in the ranks here. Actually — Google has dropped off the top 20 altogether since 2.6.30. The search giant had less than a percent (0.8%) of kernel changes since 2.6.12, and only 0.7% since 2.6.30. Google is behind Pengutronix, for goodness sakes. Have you heard of Pengutronix? Nope, me either. For a company that is arguably using more Linux than anybody — pushing two Linux-based OSes and likely to have more Linux servers in use than any other entity — Google’s kernel contributions are actually quite paltry.
Summary
2011 should be interesting. If Google finally merges Android’s changes into the mainline kernel, that should bump Google up in the standings. I suspect, and hope, SUSE/Novell will move past Intel in 2011, now that its future is a bit more clear. As MeeGo continues to gather steam, I suspect Nokia will also show up a bit higher in the standings.
In all, Linux kernel development is as healthy as ever. I’d be curious to see a similar report for other major system utilities and such (GCC, the GNU utilities, X.org, Apache Web server). The kernel is very important, but just a part of the overall ecosystem. There’s plenty of userspace goodies that companies should get credit for as well.
Make sure to check out the full report PDF too. It makes for good reading, and it’s short and well-written.
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier is a freelance writer and editor with more than 10 years covering IT. Formerly the openSUSE Community Manager for Novell, Brockmeier has written for Linux Magazine, Sys Admin, Linux Pro Magazine, IBM developerWorks, Linux.com, CIO.com, Linux Weekly News, ZDNet, and many other publications. You can reach Zonker at
jzb@zonker.net and follow him on
Twitter.
Comments on "Who’s to Blame for the Linux Kernel?"
Should Canonical be contributing more given its standing and dependency on the Linux kernel? I believe so.Why is it that many people (including you, Joe) think/feel that the only important thing a self respecting company can do is working on the kernel? If some distro/company with 10 lines of code makes the difference between a usable program and a nice to use program, the value can not be measured in lines of code. I feel this is the case of Canonical: they put their efforts in small changes which make a (big) difference in the user experience.
And you as an old kernel hacker, who is never using a user interface different then the CL, will probably not see the value in this, but that is also the reason it probably is not your distro of choice (and it is for a lot of others!).
So please, do not measure a company by its contributions to the kernel, but what it does for the complete community.
Well there is a video by Greg Kroah Hartman on youtube (Kernel Plumbers).
There you will get all such details.As a Kernel Hacker I can say the current kernel is good enough to handle the hardware which is daily getting updated.To some extent you are right that a company such as Canonical should be involved in funding the Kernel Development since they are heavily dependent on Linux Kernel by people like us.But I would like to remind you irrespective of the business needs for most people like me it is a hobby and passion to pursue.So same is true for Canonical.To make a Linux which is for human beings is their passion hence their objective is different than ours and this is perfectly all right.
I think the time is right to take Linux out of being a hobby, and into mainstream. I mean, we need to get Linux competing with the big two: Microsoft and Apple. I dream of Linux being as popular as the other two, but we need someone to help us get there. I know there is some people that don’t want this to happen, but they will just have to deal with it.
Not mainstream already ?
Well, Many security platforms today run on the Linux kernel.
Most super computers today are being built on the Linux kernel, military research, real-time simulation systems, weather modeling.
The biggest use of computer processing and storage, Internet archive project. I for one had been using other UNIX as major e-commerce applications (as any real serious major implementation would), I am now running mostly on Linux today.
Just Google, would be surprised how serious Linux plays a part for serious computing today.
Have to agree strongly with hajenius here. As I have for many years had a passion for the Linux operating system I have never found a GUI or distro that would allow me to do this till now with what Ubuntu has provided as a solid set up and OS. I have a computing background but not much of a programming background and found that the U has allowed me to venture deeper into the understanding of linux with he ability to use a primary os. So for that I thank Canonical!
I agree with the others that it’s unfair to single out Canonical for their lack of contributions to the kernel. After all, Ubuntu is based on Debian, which calls itself “The Universal Operating System,” and “Debian GNU/Linux.” As they rightfully point out on their home page http://debian.org/ MOST of the basic OS tools come from the GNU project. So despite its importance, the linux part is still only a PART of the total.
Oh, and someday everyone will use the HURD kernel and we can have pure GNU everywhere, and won’t you feel silly calling it Linux then. Ahem.
I have to disagree with the position that hajenius and uclicktu have taken. While they do have a point about kernel contribution not necessarily being the mist important criteria for judging the value of a company to the Linux world, the idea that Ubuntu has been extremely beneficial to the advancement of Linux is ill-conceived. Ubuntu has been great for expanding the visibility of Linux, this is true. And that, in and of itself, is a good thing. But they have caused a problem in that the perception of Linux is that it is Ubuntu. When almost every article or howto starts using Ubuntu specific commands and configurations to explain general software or system topics it leave out more than half the Linux world.
Oh! And twt, don’t hold your breath for HURD. We’ll see a version of Microsoft Linux before that ever becomes a reality.
@ kimbokaz, you asked why I mentioned LDAP. alternative energy wood pellets Simply because out here in the real world these edge cases can be the norm.
Thanks for every other wonderful article. The place else may anybody get that type of info in such an ideal approach of writing? I have a presentation next week, and I am on the search for such info.
I just like the valuable info you supply to your articles. I’ll bookmark your weblog and test once more right here regularly. I’m relatively sure I’ll learn many new stuff proper here! Best of luck for the following!
Do you know any methods to help protect against content from being ripped off? I’d genuinely appreciate it.hang tags