If open source were a monopoly

TalkBack 1 of 11:: Next »

Thread View
Flat View

As always thoughtful, Dana. But there's a related problem..: Open Source projects are notoriously bad a
promoting the unpopular decisions. As
such you can see open source as a form of
populism.

If someone wants to do a clean break - the sort
of break which move technology forward - you
will invariably come up against the "but it
works" crowd.

For instance, I doubt that Linux will ever get
rid of the 3 byte me-us-everybody security
descriptors. ACLs will forever remains and add-
on and competing with the original
concept - with all kinds of quirks and
impedance mismatches - especially on networks.

Linux still drags around X - even though it is
evident that it is woefully insufficient and
dated at this time. But it is so entrenched and
the task of building an alternative so
monumental that it is inconceivable that the
community will ever do so.

The open source model is very good at
incremental refinements. But the clean breaks
often require an entity with a single vision
and the courage to challenge the community. A
few people and organizations are in a position
to do so, such as Linus, Google, Intel.

So while it is not impossible, the threat of
forks turns the masses into a form of
dictatorship.

Compare that to the political system. Sometimes
we need leaders with visions who can explain to
us why painful changes are needed. But the
political system typically will not tolerate
forks. Last time someone tried to fork the US
it became bloody.

But in the open source relity forks cannot be
met with power. Hence, the "leaders" must
navigate carefully and respect also large
minorities. This is often good, but it *will*
also cause some projects to go on for too long.; Posted by: honeymonster Posted on: 09/29/09 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use