OStatic

Today, the Linux Foundation released its updated study of mainline kernel development. The report examines the slight variations in release frequency, the lines of code submitted, deleted and modified since the April 2008 study, new trends in subsystem patch signoff, and the remarkable diversity (and, perhaps, adversity outside the realm of kernel development) of the companies contributing to the kernel.

While the study is obviously pertinent to those working in kernel development, it covers so many aspects of the development process that everyone working with open source software -- developers, community managers, and even non-IT managerial roles -- can find something directly related to their positions.

It's also (perhaps surprisingly) engaging reading for those interested in the Linux kernel but a little foggy on how the kernel relates to the rest of the operating environment or how changes are approved and applied to the kernel tree.

While frugality isn't by any means the only reason a business should consider open source software, it would be foolish to think that the current economic situation isn't making it more attractive to companies. There is often, however, an imposing barrier standing in the way of all-out adoption. The mythical learning curve involved in moving to open source isn't half so steep or intimidating as that first step -- where do we go, what applications are best for us, and how do we put it all together and make it all work?

This week, Red Hat and IT services distribution provider, SYNNEX, announced the formation of the Open Source Channel Alliance. The Alliance's aim is to help value-added resellers and solutions providers deliver all the benefits of open source applications to their customers.

If you ask a hundred different people why they use open source software, you're likely to receive at least fifty very different reasons. The responses might range from the ethical and philosophical to stark bottom line financial reasons. If you tell a hundred different people that don't use open source software why they should, using the responses given by the first group, it's likely that most won't immediately, aggressively, start seeking out open source alternatives to the software they use on a daily basis. There might be an interest, but not a pressing one. There's likely to be a healthy percentage of that second group who are just outright puzzled by the reasons given. It's not simply the philosophical ideas that puzzle them -- I've found that those who don't use open source software, or who haven't yet explored the ways free as in speech interacts and relates with free as in beer, the financial reasons are just as ambiguous.

A good number of people (and organizations) using open source software are quite happy with the price tag (or lack thereof) but find the idea of open code inconsequential ( We don't have programmers, we'll never modify this ). The money saved comes from the low cost of the software, and if it should no longer meet the company's criteria, it's time to choose another application.

This perception is selling open source software short. Matt Asay at CNet has a good write up about this idea, and one I think can be taken even one step further.

Alan Cox, long-time kernel developer at Red Hat, announced last week that he would be leaving Red Hat in January for Intel, where he can concentrate more on areas of low-level development.

As you'd imagine from such a statement, this doesn't end Cox's involvement with the Linux kernel or open source development.

The end of the year is a self-indulgent time, when those who write about technology stop making lists of the best, worst, and most mind-numbingly mediocre applications they find and pause to make lists about tech trends in the upcoming year.

Assessing the past is easy: it has been an interesting year for open source software. Predictions that come to pass, unless suitably vague, just fall into the lucky guess category. The one prediction I am sure of for 2009: Open source software will hold its own when it comes to growth and adoption.

My other predictions? What do you think?

ReadWriteWeb points readers to a report released by the 451 Group stating that open source is not a true business model, but more of a business tactic.

Traditionally, the open source business model is perceived as free/open software, with paid support and configuration services. The report found, however, that many of the responding open source businesses incorporate some commercially licensed software in their product line. It also found that the paid support/free software idea -- while theoretically, at least, valid -- is multi-layered, complex, and highly variable between software product, software company, and industry.

Red Hat, along with the City University of New York and Intel, announced yesterday that they are creating the New York City Open Source Solutions Lab. This lab, which will be headquartered at CUNY's Institute for Software Design and Development in Manhattan, is aimed at helping local and state government agencies in New York take advantage of open-source solutions. The lab will provide governments with the ability to develop and test a variety of open-source technologies running on Intel chips.

Red Hat acquired Amentra last week. What does this say about open-source software, and the business models of the companies that are trying to capitalize on it?

One of the biggest questions that people often have about open-source software is, If I don't pay for this, then how do the developers make money? The standard answer to this question is that the developers can make money from consulting services. That is, the author of an open-source package can release the program for free, and then charge people to maintain and extend it.