I’m a slow blogger. I’ve been meaning to post some thoughts about Greg’s [in]famous LPC keynote for a while now, but it’s taken me nearly two months to get to it. I’ll start off by saying the same thing that I told Greg in person: I don’t think it was an appropriate setting for for Greg to single out Canonical for criticism. It doesn’t matter who started it, it doesn’t matter what the merits of a particular argument are, and it doesn’t make sense for Greg to say he was not speaking as a Novell employee, since he is a Novell employee. But I don’t really want to get drawn into that debate.
The slide that really stuck with me from Greg’s talk is the one from the conclusion that says, “Developers who are not allowed to contribute to Linux should change jobs.” In the text for the talk, Greg writes, “The solution, quit and go work for one of the companies that allow you to do this!” And I have to agree with this advice, because I think contributing to free software is in the rational self-interest of nearly any software developer.
When I started in this game about a decade ago, I was a typical Silicon Valley “senior software engineer” type: bright guy, knows how to code, decent resume. I had a circle of people who I had worked with who knew me, but if I went for a job interview, the people interviewing me were usually meeting me for the first time. But I was fortunate enough to end up in a job where I was working on open source InfiniBand drivers for Linux, and ended up becoming the Linux kernel InfiniBand/RDMA maintainer. I should mention that it wasn’t a question of being “allowed” to contribute to Linux — I knew that InfiniBand needed open-source Linux support, and I didn’t listen to anyone who said “no.”
It has been great fun and very rewarding to build the Linux InfiniBand stack, but I just want to focus on the venal career side of this. And the point is that tons of people know me now. They know what I can do in terms of kernel coding, and maybe more importantly, they can see how I do it, how I respond to bug reports and how I handle the techno-diplomacy of collaborating on mailing ists. And this has had a definite effect on my career. I’m not just YASSE (yet another senior software engineer); I get calls from people I’ve never met offering me really interesting and very senior jobs. And when hiring, I am certainly much more comfortable with candidates who have a visible history of contribution to open source, simply because I can see both their technical and social approach to development.
I do think that the contributions that have this value to individuals can be beyond Greg’s kernel/gcc/binutils/glibc/X view of the “Linux ecosystem.” If people have done substantial work on, say, bzr or the Ubuntu installer, that’s still something I can go look at when I’m thinking about hiring them. Of course, making contributions to a highly visible project carries more weight than contributing to a less visible project, but on the other hand, maybe there’s more room to shine in a project with a smaller community of developers.
Finally, Greg’s advice to “quit” made me think of a book from a few years ago, Die Broke that has as one of its main pieces of advice to “quit today.” However, this advice is just a provocative way of saying that workers should be conscious of the fact that their employer probably has little to no real loyalty to employees, and so individual workers should focus on their own best interests, rather than what might be best for their employer. And I think that metaphorical view applies just as well to Greg’s advice to quit: if you feel that you can’t contribute to open source in your present job, what’s stopping you? Do you really need to change employers to start contributing, or can you just tweak your current job? What will happen if you tell your manager, “Open source is good for our business for reasons X, Y and Z, and also it’s important to me for my career development, so can we come up with a way for me to start contributing?”
Syndicated 2008-10-29 17:54:14 from Roland's Blog