Open Source Infrastructure and the kernel

| categories: hottakes, fedora

(Given I'm talking about the kernel ecosystem and corporations, this is a reminder that these thoughts are my own)

Nadia Eghbal recently published an excellent report about funding and maintaining open source infrastructure. It's long but very easy to read. There's a nice series of selections available if you don't have time to read all of it (but I recommend you do!). The basic premise of the paper is that many key open source projects are under funded and maintained. It's easy to have projects fall through the cracks. Most of the focus was on various userspace projects. The kernel was briefly mentioned as a success story. Comparatively speaking, the kernel is well funded and maintained. I'm going to expand on some of the good things and bad things about infrastructure and the kernel ecosystem.

LWN1 always puts out a report for each development cycle about who contributes to the kernel. The results are pretty stable at this point. Employees of companies are doing most of the contributions to the kernel. This is a good thing. Companies see the value in Linux and want to pay people to make it better. They don't do this out of some altruistic love for software though (at least not most of them). These corporations have a product they are trying to deliver and paying people to deliver code to the upstream community is part of their strategy. The important point is 'strategy'. The terrible secret of space: most kernel developers are going to be advocating for something their employer wants. This is (usually) not some gigantic conspiracy that ruins everything. Most kernel developers who regularly work with the community are smart enough to not advocate for bad ideas just because an employer wants them. Advocating for garbage is a great way to get people to stop paying attention to you, which defeats the point of working with the community.

Where the kernel is unique (and why it succeeds) is the number of employers willing to sponsor maintainers and not just developers. Kernel maintainers are highly valued; LinuxCon this year is having office hours with kernel maintainers. Employers love being able to say "we employ kernel maintainers of X". It helps to build a reputation as a company where other kernel developers want to be. Employers sometimes think that having maintainers on staff will give them an advantage; "Oh boy, they can review my code before it goes out". This may not be true: most maintainers will advocate for review and discussion of all patches in public. Companies often get the advantage of being forced to follow best community practices when they hire maintainers, which may not be the advantage they expected or wanted. It makes them better open source contributors though.

The Linux kernel is an old project compared to most of the projects discussed in the report. The maintainers and developers have spent years figuring out what actually works for successful support. Groups like the Linux Foundation, Linaro and smaller consulting companies are designed to help companies with their contributions and become good open source participants. This is step #0 to getting sustainable open source: companies have to understand how to participate in the community and feel like they are part of the community. They will not see the value in funding if they aren't participating. Worse, they lose perspective on why funding maintainers is important (It's about supporting community, not having leverage to tell someone what to do).

The funding and corporate hand holding of organizations like The Linux Foundations can raise questions about neutrality. Is the kernel becoming 'pay to play' where unless you are a company with money to throw at the Linux Foundation you won't get to have a say? I don't believe so. I think the kernel community will always be a community at heart, independent of any company. There are enough good people involved to keep things going in the right direction. That said, pretending that corporations are always going to act altruistically is naive. Capitalism is harsh and throwing money around is a good way to make things happen. My plan personally is to stay informed and be an active participant in the kernel community.

This leads into one of the big disadvantages of this setup: the growth of companies participating in the kernel makes it much harder for general community members to find a role. Recruiting new people is something that gets discussed in the kernel community as an open problem. Just coming in and saying "I'm new here, I want to do kernel development" doesn't often lead to long term contributors. The kernel community has gotten very good at helping people get their first patch accepted. The staging tree is full of drivers that needs easy fixups so first time contributors can practice their patch skills. Mos people struggle to figure out what to do after that first patch though. There is a huge gap between fixing style errors and making a more significant contribution. Most community members don't have the time to do significant mentoring of projects outside of structured programs. Companies have the advantage of having a nearly endless supply work and more experienced individuals readily available to help newcomers. It isn't always perfect but it's a much better starting point. Other people in the company can also help provide introductions and connections to get involved with projects. Is it impossible to do kernel development without full time employment? No, but it's much easier. Once you've gotten name recognition in the community it's much easier to work outside of a company. This is incredibly unfortunate for diversity efforts. The most under represented groups in open source are also the least likely to be employed by software companies. What you end up with is a community that's difficult to break into and fairly homogeneous. I'd love to see this change but there's no easy solution, partially because shouting "it's not a pipeline problem" hasn't gotten through yet. (It isn't a pipeline problem. It just isn't.)

The kernel provides some great examples to those looking to expand their infrastructure. Hopefully others can learn from the weaknesses as well.


  1. While we're talking about infrastructure, LWN is an excellent place to put your money. The reporting is top notch. Please subscribe and support.