6 ms·

The "cathedral" in ESR's essay wasn't proprietary closed source, it was the GNU project.

fulafel 6mo ago
Most of free software (incl the BSD stuff) was like that. The bazaar was an attempt to characterise the new linux style way of doing it.
- TeMPOraL 6mo ago
  Makes me realize that "Worse is Better" was, in today's terms, apologism for vibe-coding.
  - fulafel 6mo ago
    Mapped to modern concepts I'd say it was about iterating from a MVP. "Gabriel argued that early Unix and C, developed by Bell Labs, are examples of the worse-is-better design approach." Whereas vibe-coding is not reviewing what code goes in, just judging it by whether it seems to work or not. I guess a common factor would be willingness to compromise on soundness.
TZubiri 6mo ago
It wasnt one thing, gnu is a case of cathedrals. Corps are usually more cathedrally than bazaary because of their hierarchical top down structure, but ymmv, an elon musk or steve jobs company will be more cathedral than a conglomerate like unilever or a google or microsoft
- sollewitt 6mo ago
  Google is famously a slime mold.
  - DonHopkins 6mo ago
    I will not sit here idly as you disparage an entire kingdom of diverse, beautiful, highly efficient, decentralized problem-solvers. Some of my best friends are slime molds. Slime Mold Identification & Appreciation (amazing photography) https://www.facebook.com/groups/1510123272580859 https://www.facebook.com/groups/1510123272580859
tptacek 6mo ago
The essay also didn't kick anything off; it was an attempt to document something that was already in full swing.
- positron26 6mo ago
  GNU didn't kick anything off. It was an attempt to document something that was already in full swing. What was in full swing was Open Source, powered by scratch-your-own-itch. What was taking time was for the business world to learn the lessons by both carrot (Linux) and stick (Unix Wars, vendor lock-in, dozens of crappy competing standards). When Steve Balmer winds up using your language, you moved the ball. Many ideas from The Cathedral & The Bazaar made it into The Lean Startup. The Cathedral development model was more related to waterfall. YC was already chugging along, but you can bet your ass PG was already steeped in the tea.
  - tptacek 6mo ago
    Huh? GNU absolutely kicked stuff off.
    - positron26 6mo ago
      I used a similarly shaped argument with different nouns to highlight the ambiguity, and now you see why that's problematic. Don't just make blind assertions without linking it back to some concrete, at least arguing that some mechanism was *dominant*.
      - tptacek 6mo ago
        Right, but your similarly-shaped argument is clearly false, and mine clearly isn't. I can see now that you expanded your comment after I wrote my response. Please leave a marker ("later:" or something) when you do that.
        positron26 6mo ago
        [flagged]
layer8 6mo ago
Not really. From the essay: “I had been preaching the Unix gospel of small tools, rapid prototyping and evolutionary programming for years. But I also believed there was a certain critical complexity above which a more centralized, a priori approach was required. I believed that the most important software (operating systems and really large tools like the Emacs programming editor) needed to be built like cathedrals, carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation, with no beta to be released before its time.” So the Unix-philosophy small tools that constitute an important part of the GNU project are excluded. Rather, it’s about any programs of significant complexity, like Emacs (and likely GCC) and many commercial products. While the cathedral model doesn’t imply closed source, it implies building “in […] isolation”, rather than in the open. It may or may not remain proprietary and/or closed source. Linux demonstrated to ESR that complex projects can also be built in the open with many collaborators, and don’t necessarily require the cathedral; which inspired the essay.
- bandofthehawk 6mo ago
  Originally "the GNU project" was supposed to be an operating system. That might be what the parent post was referencing.
  - layer8 6mo ago
    Maybe, but it’s in any case wrong to say that the cathedral model didn’t also refer to closed-source proprietary software.
- ghaff 6mo ago
  The bottom line is that a lot of software types assume the cathedral vs. bazaar refers to closed source vs. open source and they’re simply wrong.
- positron26 6mo ago
  > Unix-philosophy small tools that constitute an important part of the GNU project The statement you chose makes a carve-out for Unix, not GNU. It doesn't support "not really."

Most of free software (incl the BSD stuff) was like that. The bazaar was an attempt to characterise the new linux style way of doing it.

TeMPOraL 6mo ago
Makes me realize that "Worse is Better" was, in today's terms, apologism for vibe-coding.
- fulafel 6mo ago
  Mapped to modern concepts I'd say it was about iterating from a MVP. "Gabriel argued that early Unix and C, developed by Bell Labs, are examples of the worse-is-better design approach." Whereas vibe-coding is not reviewing what code goes in, just judging it by whether it seems to work or not. I guess a common factor would be willingness to compromise on soundness.

TZubiri 6mo ago

It wasnt one thing, gnu is a case of cathedrals. Corps are usually more cathedrally than bazaary because of their hierarchical top down structure, but ymmv, an elon musk or steve jobs company will be more cathedral than a conglomerate like unilever or a google or microsoft

sollewitt 6mo ago
Google is famously a slime mold.
- DonHopkins 6mo ago
  I will not sit here idly as you disparage an entire kingdom of diverse, beautiful, highly efficient, decentralized problem-solvers. Some of my best friends are slime molds. Slime Mold Identification & Appreciation (amazing photography) https://www.facebook.com/groups/1510123272580859 https://www.facebook.com/groups/1510123272580859

tptacek 6mo ago

The essay also didn't kick anything off; it was an attempt to document something that was already in full swing.

positron26 6mo ago
GNU didn't kick anything off. It was an attempt to document something that was already in full swing. What was in full swing was Open Source, powered by scratch-your-own-itch. What was taking time was for the business world to learn the lessons by both carrot (Linux) and stick (Unix Wars, vendor lock-in, dozens of crappy competing standards). When Steve Balmer winds up using your language, you moved the ball. Many ideas from The Cathedral & The Bazaar made it into The Lean Startup. The Cathedral development model was more related to waterfall. YC was already chugging along, but you can bet your ass PG was already steeped in the tea.
- tptacek 6mo ago
  Huh? GNU absolutely kicked stuff off.
  - positron26 6mo ago
    I used a similarly shaped argument with different nouns to highlight the ambiguity, and now you see why that's problematic. Don't just make blind assertions without linking it back to some concrete, at least arguing that some mechanism was *dominant*.
    - tptacek 6mo ago
      Right, but your similarly-shaped argument is clearly false, and mine clearly isn't. I can see now that you expanded your comment after I wrote my response. Please leave a marker ("later:" or something) when you do that.
      - positron26 6mo ago
        [flagged]

layer8 6mo ago

Not really. From the essay: “I had been preaching the Unix gospel of small tools, rapid prototyping and evolutionary programming for years. But I also believed there was a certain critical complexity above which a more centralized, a priori approach was required. I believed that the most important software (operating systems and really large tools like the Emacs programming editor) needed to be built like cathedrals, carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation, with no beta to be released before its time.” So the Unix-philosophy small tools that constitute an important part of the GNU project are excluded. Rather, it’s about any programs of significant complexity, like Emacs (and likely GCC) and many commercial products. While the cathedral model doesn’t imply closed source, it implies building “in […] isolation”, rather than in the open. It may or may not remain proprietary and/or closed source. Linux demonstrated to ESR that complex projects can also be built in the open with many collaborators, and don’t necessarily require the cathedral; which inspired the essay.

bandofthehawk 6mo ago
Originally "the GNU project" was supposed to be an operating system. That might be what the parent post was referencing.
- layer8 6mo ago
  Maybe, but it’s in any case wrong to say that the cathedral model didn’t also refer to closed-source proprietary software.
ghaff 6mo ago
The bottom line is that a lot of software types assume the cathedral vs. bazaar refers to closed source vs. open source and they’re simply wrong.
positron26 6mo ago
> Unix-philosophy small tools that constitute an important part of the GNU project The statement you chose makes a carve-out for Unix, not GNU. It doesn't support "not really."