This is false. Google contributed 40936 lines of code to the 2.6.32 kernel release. There are only 6 companies that contributed more. Source.
This is false. Google contributed 40936 lines of code to the 2.6.32 kernel release. There are only 6 companies that contributed more. Source.
bit∙hub [bit-huhb] n. A source and destination for information.
It's doesn't seem like you, taking the part for the whole, bithub.
Neither failing to fully read what you quote:
Google is notorious for not contributing back. It just so happens they did it on 2.6.32. Even though most of that was to offer support for their own business interests.There are a couple of other interesting entries here. Google takes a lot of grief for not contributing back, but that company was the source of a fair amount of code going into 2.6.32. Much of that was support for the HTC "Dream" (aka G1 or ADP1) phone platform, but Google also contributed to control groups, ext4, memory management, IPVS, and libata.
If they keep it up from now on, then it indeed becomes false. But for now it isn't.
So, just to annoy you a little
Google is one of the worst contributors even though most of their business is linux based. 2.6.32 didn't change that.
Last edited by Mario F.; 12-16-2009 at 05:31 PM.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Cycle Gap: Linux Kernel Development Stats from Greg Kroah Hartman
"Google is at number 13 with 1.4% contribution. Without Andrew Morton's contributions Google's would be at the fortieth spot."
operating systems: mac os 10.6, debian 5.0, windows 7
editor: back to emacs because it's more awesomer!!
version control: git
website: http://0xff.ath.cx/~as/
1000 x 100000 = 1000000 ? Are we both talking about base-10 numbers?
Optimizing the code costs more than $100 000 000 (1000 x 100 000) + $?00 000 000 (the cost of building a huge server park and setting it up)? Sorry, I just don't buy that. Oh wait, I just did a small search and it seems 25% of Google's servers is about 250 000 servers. So... the total costs of adding 25% of servers and building the server parks and powering them and all other costs included, I think the whole thing would cost around half a billion dollars, if not more.
Optimizing means rewriting bottlenecks.
Yes, there are tons of variables I am not considering. But I think the variables you are missing about adding physical hardware (in quantities over a hundred thousand pieces) are more relevant.
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
Great, take a 1 in a Million example and use that as the Rule that establishes the truth for all cases.
If you have any doubts, the quote is still here and will stay because
a) it is true for most cases,
b) It can be years before I bother changing my sig, and
c) I don't give a f... about your 1 million servers company example. It only proves you think small.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
I respect Google for what they are doing with Android. I recently had a chance to work with Android at a systems level and while I am not totally in love with how they shut out all but the Java coders, I do like having a completely free software stack on a phone that you can build from source if the urge hits you.
That said, I too hope they don't "get too big for their britches"....