From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2D563B29E; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:55:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:281:8300:104d::5f6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9CD6931A; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:55:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 9CD6931A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1617209751; bh=g2di3mtyaG+3Y7cXhitbTyrH/uBtzWIhLxB8hY1ntqk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=bg4yIvWO1uTwBrauPHRVLuxTfa6TdoeuWQd1dEb1oiRA33/Wcfoyq6iFq6IrH9vpH OprmG58Fq4QfaVxK6LoR0XQYtF9nYvtQvtAH/mhI8LeA8jvk9UuV0g6HoxH3D88U8R aYKDeUKaU0VY5nnL40AM/iYu4+XlDGXvrGrgAVg2gi6EAui0sROzmEbe3dP3OUwiBe onUDRu9tI4wjZ0VksjofAOk6iy4Uh4vRJ3tyDJR0Rj8f1HCKOy6WF+cFIEbtCL63NZ IgeQcKvbJHdvyf39gOg0SZ7ORXN37D6qlJiBuu5oWplRakfy59bfClz4gWbIjr5+6b cvvLawjJRDQxw== From: Jonathan Corbet To: "David P. Reed" , Theodore Ts'o Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" , Make-Wifi-fast , Cake List , cerowrt-devel , bloat In-Reply-To: <1617153830.6256867@apps.rackspace.com> References: <1617049691.187521510@apps.rackspace.com> <1617153830.6256867@apps.rackspace.com> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 10:55:50 -0600 Message-ID: <875z17mfe1.fsf@meer.lwn.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:50:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] [Bloat] [Cerowrt-devel] wireguard almost takes a bullet X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:55:52 -0000 "David P. Reed" writes: > Regarding the organizaton of "Linux, Inc." as a hierachical control > structure - I'll just point out that hierarchical control of the > development of Linux suggests that it is not at all a "community > project" (if it ever was). It's a product development organization > with multiple levels of management. >=20=20 > Yet the developers are employees of a small number of major > corporations. In this sense, it is like a "joint venture" among those > companies. ...where "a small number" =3D=3D 225 for the 5.11 development cycle; the biggest of those contributed just under 10% of the patches. https://lwn.net/Articles/845831/ It seems rather less concentrated than many projects out there, and it has become less so over time. > To the extent that those companies gain (partial) control of the Linux > kernel, as appears to be the case, I think Linux misrepresents itself > as a "community project", and in particular, the actual users of the > software may have little say in the direction development takes going > forwards. >=20=20 > There's little safeguard, for example, against "senior management" > biases in support of certain vendors, if other vendors are excluded > from effective participation by one of many techniques. In other > words, there's no way it can be a level playing field for innovation. I would be curious to hear whether you think there is evidence of vendors being excluded? No doubt something has happened somewhere, but I am unaware if widespread use of "one of many techniques" and would certainly appreciate being enlightened. The biggest impediment to innovation in Linux, I think, is the massive installed user base and the need to never break anything for anybody =E2=80= =94 along with the increase in complexity overall. Just look at what it has taken (and is still taking) to get us past the year-2038 problem relative to how some other systems have been able to just deal with it, for example. WireGuard, which started this discussion, is a good example to look at it. This was definitely an innovative development, brought in by a developer previously unknown to the community and, as far as I know, not in the thrall of any of the corporations contributing to the Linux kernel. Jason had to jump through all sorts of hoops to get it in, but that wasn't the result of anybody trying to block it - we wanted it! But it did need to fit into what we had already, and that took some work.=20 Thanks, jon