Who writes Linux: Big Business

Linux *is* the kernel

""Guys, there is more "linux" development in stuff outside the kernel than there is inside.""

Linux *IS* the kernel. Talking about Linux outside the kernel simply doesn't make sense.

In case you are referring to GNU, X.org, QT/KDE, etc.. Yes, Linux is mostly their target platform but is not the only one.

""The majority of development for any kernel is actually Application stuff that runs on the kernel, and this is where the entire user experience is created. Lets find out who is paying for that work.""

You are mixing different concepts here.
Linux doesn't directly imply a GNU userland. In fact, there are corporations using Linux with their proprietary userspace layer.

And GNU doesn't imply Linux. You can have a GNU userland on OSX, on BSD even on windows with (for example) cygwin.
KDE is also working on a native port for OSX for example.

So your 'out-of-the-kernel work sentence' doesn't make sense and is difficult to measure.

A referal to Anticapitialist

Several things come to mind reading your post.

First, if you dislike capitalism so much, please move to North Korea. You would be in an anti-capitalist's heaven of centralized planning, ie. the Cathedral method mentioned in another posted comment.

Secondly, the very fact that you are able to make your public comments via the Internet is proof that you have a vested interest IN capitalism. Please refer to the historical development of computers in general. So let you not be such a Gallo burgandy hypocrite by using the tools that capitalists have put into your hands to use wisely to rant about about the evils of capitalism.

Thirdly, the historical record is clear about one thing. The largest experiment in anti-capitalism that every took in the soft brained failed. That failure was shown when the Wall in Berlin was torn down.

Fourthly, passion has always been an excuse for lack of either foresight or thought. Proof: the most passionate characters that history shows us all fall and fail through their own passion(s), cf. V. VanGogh, Juliet, St Ambrose, Napoleon, Hitler, K. Marx, R. Nixon, King George, etc. In this short list I did cheat and introduce one fictional persona, I do admit that. However, I do hope point taken.

Contributions, Control and Kernels

One of the things that I have noticed over the many years of Linux usage (17) has been an increase in stability. This has been greatly accelerated since the increase in corporate contribution to the Linux kernel. This is a subjective opinion following a long timeline of observation.

Comments deriding the contributions of corporately sponsored developers are essentially the same as those that would seek to discredit the validity of Sesame Street's content for children due to their sponsorship by McDonalds and New Balance. "Oh, they're trying to make Sesame Street a place where everyone has to buy cheeseburgers and shoes!" This is incorrect.

At this time, I have not seen much supporting evidence that kernel development issues and submitted code are being at all hampered by the corporate submitters and representatives on kernel mailing lists.

Contributors should work in a directed, organized fashion to balance the work that needs to be done in order to properly represent the technical interests of their employers and best suit planned and mapped progress as relates to the overall architecture.

The exciting and inspirational image of the lone kernel hacker is a wonderful one, of an era past. We have evolved our ability to coordinate and communicate the work; as such, this is how things have shaped up. The issue here is control and freedom.

Independent contributors and businesses are still free to incorporate good ideas into the kernel. Linux is still free to move in wildly different directions because of the ability to scale it to the project at hand for the appropriate hardware configurations. As long as this is the case, I do not think that who puts what into Linux is as important as who CAN put good ideas that the community values into Linux, and correspondingly, what can be done with Linux outside the context of the coordinated project, repositories and ancillary components. At no time have limits been newly placed on the codebase in a unilateral dictated fashion without prior dialogue among stakeholders. This is important to remember and keep in perspective.

Linux is founded on the freedom for anyone to submit ideas and discuss them. It is intended to be a departure from the "Cathedral" approach to software design. It is not intended to be absolute and zealously defended anarchy.

You need to mature a bit

You need to mature a bit more before commenting.
Your comments are nothing more than an emotional rant against capitalism.

Look around you. You may not like how the real world works, but that doesn't change fact.

You are old and

You are old and submissive...

Autism?

I guess anything not expressed in binary is an immature emotional rant? I think it's great somebody likes or used to like Linux for more than just the aweful desktop experience.

Free Software SELLS

Linux in the market is a wonderful thing. How can Linux and the Linux message be spread without the big 'fat cats'. The fact is, capitalism gives us a quality of life way beyond any other system, I think most fair minded americans will agree with me. Second, the whole idea of Linux spurs brand new business Ideas. The pioneering guys at CYGNUS who sell FREE SOFTWARE and CHARGE for the support is an example of what you can do. I think having a biz centered around helping people use their non-proprietary software effectivley is just the vision Linus had when he wrote the first Kernal.

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about? You think that just because major Linux contributors are doing so to try to turn a profit that somehow Linux is a failure? What is the matter with you? What do you think would happen if it was being developed by nerds for nerds? It would be slow and sporadic development at best. More likely, it would eventually die. There wouldn't be enough of a market for the product, which would mean there wouldn't be a market for the development. It's a great thing that so many companies feel the desire to contribute to it and improve it. It makes it more and more mainstream, more stable, more usable, and more competitive. If you think this makes it like MS (which, by the way, is a tremendously successful company, so that comparison isn't a bad thing in some ways) or evil or a failure, then you're just plain ignorant.

For nerds by nerds - that

For nerds by nerds - that would be Hurd. And it's a rousing success.