Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you first quoted 80% and chided me for not reading the article linked to because it supposedly implied/had it in there. Sorry, I assumed that 80% and 86% were close enough that a reasonable reader would be able to see that I had mis-remembered the second significant figure for statistics I heard a while ago. My apologies. > easy test: would you continue to work on linux with the same pace/effort if your company sto…
> Sorry, I assumed that 80% and 86% were close enough that a reasonable reader would be able > to see that I had mis-remembered the second significant figure for statistics I heard a while ago. vs. >>and the source of those numbers is...? >GregKH, who you linked in a cousin comment. the article i linked to has neither number. > An employer pays you to solve technical problems that rise from their business not at all.…
Were you involved in my hiring process? Are you my manager, or a stakeholder in my employer's business? How could you possibly know that I failed to tell my employer that?
> i think you just have a hard time imagining that what customers pay for isn't R&D
I don't have a problem imagining it, I just don't believe that your customers see it that way. If I was a customer of yours, I would expect that more R&D work would happen because I'm paying you (mainly because I firmly believe in free software businesses and that such R&D should be paid for).
> (though we're open to such contract work too).
Heh, so it's not 100% unpaid after all? ;)
> just compare the code of linux 1.0 and 4.11.
Wow, code gets better over time? Holy shit!
> so you can have the last word.
Gladly. :D