4 ms·

I would argue being open source vs closed source doesn't matter. The governance model does as do the priorities of the project. This isn't to say you need a BDF

I would argue being open source vs closed source doesn't matter. The governance model does as do the priorities of the project. This isn't to say you need a BDFL or single company running the project to address "unfixable" problems, but they certainly do seem to help. On a more meta note, open source means a lot of different things. There is actually a lot of nuance in the different styles of open source. Linux vs chromium vs that project that just does source dumps. Whether they accept contributions, accept bug reports/feature requests, allow you to build from source (source dumps often don't include a working build system), have open communication channels, etc can all vary. I hope we have more specific terms for the different styles of open source in the future.

bombcar 5y ago
I agree - though open source does allow for a major fork if the users don't agree with the developers (or project leadership) on how it should be fixed. Project leadership is the most significant aspect - look at Linus's absolute declaration that the kernel can "never break userspace" meaning that once an API is exported to userspace it never gets removed. This is actually similar to Microsoft's philosophy though theirs is more "business oriented" (nobody will buy Win95 if their DOS and Win 3.1 programs won't work). Another example of this is Knuth's TeX code. Open source developments seem to lean (in general) more toward "rip it out and replace everything" (see for example internal kernel APIs not exported to userspace) because access to the source means they can fix the things that touch it. Closed source programs more likely just die and get entirely replaced, otherwise they roughly try to keep working as is.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Here is some food for thought, imagine Linux when all those hardliner leaders are gone.
cbsmith 5y ago
Open source isn't a governance model.

bombcar 5y ago

I agree - though open source does allow for a major fork if the users don't agree with the developers (or project leadership) on how it should be fixed. Project leadership is the most significant aspect - look at Linus's absolute declaration that the kernel can "never break userspace" meaning that once an API is exported to userspace it never gets removed. This is actually similar to Microsoft's philosophy though theirs is more "business oriented" (nobody will buy Win95 if their DOS and Win 3.1 programs won't work). Another example of this is Knuth's TeX code. Open source developments seem to lean (in general) more toward "rip it out and replace everything" (see for example internal kernel APIs not exported to userspace) because access to the source means they can fix the things that touch it. Closed source programs more likely just die and get entirely replaced, otherwise they roughly try to keep working as is.

pjmlp 5y ago
Here is some food for thought, imagine Linux when all those hardliner leaders are gone.

cbsmith 5y ago

Open source isn't a governance model.