5 ms·

I brought up your personal well being because trust implies that you forgo your own judgement. There's a truism that states that past performance is not an ind

I brought up your personal well being because trust implies that you forgo your own judgement. There's a truism that states that past performance is not an indication of future behaviour and I tend to not trust unchecked power.

zapzupnz 8y ago
> unchecked power Linus may have the final say on a lot of things, particularly regarding policy surrounding contributions, but "unchecked" isn't so much an overstatement so much as a joke. Vast numbers of contributors, security auditors, and generally-interested hackers keep close eyes on the Linux kernel.
- decentralised 8y ago
  I agree with you, its the decentralisation of open-source that keeps Linux safe.
  - elcomet 8y ago
    You should explain what you mean by decentralization. I think you are mixing concepts here and don't bring much to the discussion. What does "Decentralization of open source" means ? It seems you are saying that having multiple contributors and auditors keeps linux safe, I wouldn't really call this "decentralization", you can have a centralized process that is audited by many persons.
    - decentralised 8y ago
      I've tried to explain but the comment was blocked because I was replying too quickly. Decentralisation has three dimensions: Political, Logical and Architectural. In the case of Linux, I argue that the decentralised nature of open-source software development is what guarantees its safety and usefulness and not the individual merits of any one participant (person or company). I think I'm not saying anything contentious when I say that Linus' employer has no special treatment in terms of linux development roadmap, and that most contributions are voluntary and no one needs to ask permission to download the code and fork the project and this is logical and political decentralisation. Here's an article by Vitalik from Ethereum Foundation that I always recommend to those interested in understanding decentralisation: https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/the-meaning-of-decentralization-a0c92b76a274 https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/the-meaning-of-decentrali...
  - decentralised 8y ago
    I believe this quote is appropriate given that some users seem to be unaware of how the kernel development process is decentralised: "Instead of a roadmap, there are technical guidelines. Instead of a central resource allocation, there are persons an companies who all have a stake in the further development of the Linux kernel, quite independently from one another: People like Linus Torvalds and I don’t plan the kernel evolution. We don’t sit there and think up the roadmap for the next two years, then assign resources to the various new features. That's because we don’t have any resources. The resources are all owned by the various corporations who use and contribute to Linux, as well as by the various independent contributors out there. It's those people who own the resources who decide." - Andrew Morton on the kernel process
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ianai 8y ago
If someone has that many problems with Linus they’re free to fork and maintain their own kernel source. If all someone wants is support not offered by the Linux kernel project then there are plenty of options there as well..,RHEL, SuSe, etc.
- decentralised 8y ago
  Absolutely agreed. That's one of the ways that political decentralisation in open-source manifests itself. I've made the argument elsewhere in this thread that it's the decentralised nature of open-source that makes it safe to use and build on and not the personality or behaviour of any one person. Do you agree?

zapzupnz 8y ago

> unchecked power Linus may have the final say on a lot of things, particularly regarding policy surrounding contributions, but "unchecked" isn't so much an overstatement so much as a joke. Vast numbers of contributors, security auditors, and generally-interested hackers keep close eyes on the Linux kernel.

decentralised 8y ago
I agree with you, its the decentralisation of open-source that keeps Linux safe.
- elcomet 8y ago
  You should explain what you mean by decentralization. I think you are mixing concepts here and don't bring much to the discussion. What does "Decentralization of open source" means ? It seems you are saying that having multiple contributors and auditors keeps linux safe, I wouldn't really call this "decentralization", you can have a centralized process that is audited by many persons.
  - decentralised 8y ago
    I've tried to explain but the comment was blocked because I was replying too quickly. Decentralisation has three dimensions: Political, Logical and Architectural. In the case of Linux, I argue that the decentralised nature of open-source software development is what guarantees its safety and usefulness and not the individual merits of any one participant (person or company). I think I'm not saying anything contentious when I say that Linus' employer has no special treatment in terms of linux development roadmap, and that most contributions are voluntary and no one needs to ask permission to download the code and fork the project and this is logical and political decentralisation. Here's an article by Vitalik from Ethereum Foundation that I always recommend to those interested in understanding decentralisation: https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/the-meaning-of-decentralization-a0c92b76a274 https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/the-meaning-of-decentrali...
- decentralised 8y ago
  I believe this quote is appropriate given that some users seem to be unaware of how the kernel development process is decentralised: "Instead of a roadmap, there are technical guidelines. Instead of a central resource allocation, there are persons an companies who all have a stake in the further development of the Linux kernel, quite independently from one another: People like Linus Torvalds and I don’t plan the kernel evolution. We don’t sit there and think up the roadmap for the next two years, then assign resources to the various new features. That's because we don’t have any resources. The resources are all owned by the various corporations who use and contribute to Linux, as well as by the various independent contributors out there. It's those people who own the resources who decide." - Andrew Morton on the kernel process

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ianai 8y ago

If someone has that many problems with Linus they’re free to fork and maintain their own kernel source. If all someone wants is support not offered by the Linux kernel project then there are plenty of options there as well..,RHEL, SuSe, etc.

decentralised 8y ago
Absolutely agreed. That's one of the ways that political decentralisation in open-source manifests itself. I've made the argument elsewhere in this thread that it's the decentralised nature of open-source that makes it safe to use and build on and not the personality or behaviour of any one person. Do you agree?