Chris Malton wrote:
> And where, may I ask, does one find the source of Google's modified
> kernel? (At least, the unmodified bits!)
Google does not distribute their software, so they do not have to make
their modifications public.
WRT the Linux kernel, Google is essentially a closed source company.
Jeff
> Google does not distribute their software, so they do not have to make
> their modifications public.
They do for the kernel - they produce an "appliance".
> WRT the Linux kernel, Google is essentially a closed source company.
They've quietly fed little bits back now and then but not made a big song
and dance about it. Hopefully with Andrew there and the like more will
occur.
Application level yes they are highly proprietary and will no doubt stay
that way until someone figures out to do open distributed search 8)
Alan
Alan Cox wrote:
>> Google does not distribute their software, so they do not have to make
>> their modifications public.
>
> They do for the kernel - they produce an "appliance".
Ah, I stand corrected.
>> WRT the Linux kernel, Google is essentially a closed source company.
>
> They've quietly fed little bits back now and then but not made a big song
> and dance about it. Hopefully with Andrew there and the like more will
> occur.
Strange that the NIC and SATA driver bits never seem to be among those
"little bits"... Along with filesystem and other modifications
discussed in the press, or observable net stack behavior when connecting
to their computers over the 'net.
So, emphasis on "little", I guess.
Jeff
Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> :
> Alan Cox wrote:
[...]
> >They've quietly fed little bits back now and then but not made a big song
> >and dance about it. Hopefully with Andrew there and the like more will
> >occur.
>
> Strange that the NIC and SATA driver bits never seem to be among those
> "little bits"... Along with filesystem and other modifications
> discussed in the press, or observable net stack behavior when connecting
> to their computers over the 'net.
>
> So, emphasis on "little", I guess.
It is a strange way to ask more contribution from the @google.com people
whose name appear in git log.
:o(
--
Ueimor
On 5/23/07, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >> Google does not distribute their software, so they do not have to make
> >> their modifications public.
> >
> > They do for the kernel - they produce an "appliance".
>
> Ah, I stand corrected.
>
>
> >> WRT the Linux kernel, Google is essentially a closed source company.
> >
> > They've quietly fed little bits back now and then but not made a big song
> > and dance about it. Hopefully with Andrew there and the like more will
> > occur.
>
> Strange that the NIC and SATA driver bits never seem to be among those
> "little bits"... Along with filesystem and other modifications
> discussed in the press, or observable net stack behavior when connecting
> to their computers over the 'net.
>
> So, emphasis on "little", I guess.
>
> Jeff
---
For 2.6.21, Jon Corbet's count for LWN showed Google ninth on the list
(by number of changesets), among companies whose contributors could be
identified.