| |||||||||||||
"(None)""(None)"Posted Feb 12, 2010 2:04 UTC (Fri) by eparis123 (guest, #59739)In reply to: "(None)" by nevets Parent article: Who wrote 2.6.33
It's not that they are not paid to do it, it may more likely be that they are not yet paid to do it. I've personally been in this category and been contacted by Greg, where I replied being in the 'enthusiast' group. Yes, I'm a college student, but I did all my patches without any outside influence. How come you want to consider this as 'paid' work?
(Log in to post comments)
"(None)" Posted Feb 12, 2010 3:06 UTC (Fri) by nevets (subscriber, #11875) [Link]
I don't consider it paid work. I was just saying that the OP was surprised that the "(None)" was still at the top. My point is that I'm not surprised. I would be surprised if most of those in the "(None)" group were not college students.
I'm actually quite happy to see that number so high, for the same reason I used the word "yet". Because I know with such a large knowledge base coming up, there will be no limit to how far Linux will go. This "(None)" group will soon be in the paid to do Linux group, and hopefully there will be more inspiring new engineers joining that "(None)" group where it will always be at the top.
"(None)" Posted Feb 17, 2010 20:45 UTC (Wed) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link]
I'm one in the "(None)" group too, with a one-liner patch to fix a
regression on a driver. Although I've done it as a paid worker, the kernel is not what I work with. Just come across that bug when trying to understand why a piece of hardware we use stopped working.
I don't consider that as paid kernel work, just a one time contribution by
I'm sure there are lots of people like me in that situation.
|
|||||||||||||