4 ms·

Open Source is not immune to monopoly

10 points by ilreb 3mo ago

doppp 3mo ago
Think OP is confused as to what a monopoly and a benevolent dictatorship is.
- hacker_homie 3mo ago
  Yeah that might be a better way to put it, if anyone is used to dealing with developer slop is the kernel.
hacker_homie 3mo ago
I get where you are coming from, I assume most of the "code" in the linux kernel is driver code? That being the case my understanding is splitting this project up is not only a technical challenge but a legal one. You could make a common API for driver code, this would make the main driving force of linux much weaker. Nvidia tried to stay out of tree for years and was dragged kicking and screaming upstream because they needed the reliability. I'm saying the very thing you are calling out as a problem is currently what is forcing everyone contribute to the mainline kernel. Without centralized leader ship the facturing of the linux kernel would be a disaster.
gumby 3mo ago
There are other alternatives like the bsds and if things become intolerable a switch is viable. It just takes work.
mpyne 3mo ago
The Linux kernel isn't even a monopoly though.... FreeBSD, OpenBSD, heck even ReactOS are all things you can use and make better instead. No one is forcing you to use Linux any more than anyone is forcing you to use Windows or macOS.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Great analogy because Windows was officially declared to be a monopoly once.
  - mpyne 3mo ago
    At the time that may even have been true, there was essentially nothing else for personal computer usage, and there were no alternate form factors like mobile. But even there the issue wasn't the existence of monopoly per se, but with the (ab)use of the monopoly to also capture the emerging Internet browser market.
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      Don't move the goalposts. You agree it was a monopoly.
      - mpyne 3mo ago
        Sure. Until it wasn't. Even if Linux was a monopoly that would not necessarily be the case for ever, as the example of the Windows monopoly demonstrates. But Linux isn't even a monopoly today.
        inigyou 3mo ago
        Linux already isn't a monopoly because it isn't something that is sold. The correct word should be monoculture.
        mpyne 3mo ago
        People absolutely will sell you Linux, and they make a lot of money in the process. I'm not even sure I'd describe it as a monoculture either, if it was that would probably have accelerated its growth even more. Imagine where Linux would be if it were like FreeBSD in having only one distro, one libc, one set of system libs. You're starting to see it as a server backend lingua franca but even there, there are multitudes. And there remain a great number of organizations that run on one of the BSDs, Windows, old mainframe OS, and so on.
knighthack 3mo ago
How you started completely disqualified whatever the author of the article argues next: "...The recent fiasco involving Linus Torvalds running Linux like the privileged man that he is and entirely missing the central points of the arguments made by people who don't enjoy his kind of privilege..." It was his 'privilege' that led to the technical competency of the project that is now enjoyed by many. Attacking someone's 'privilege' is the lowest form of argument.
bugjoey 3mo ago
His/her confusion about economic systems and political systems is sad. And monopoly is not tied to capitalism. Anyway, Linux is a technocracy. Actually, a technical meritocracy to be more precise, rather than economic or political dominance.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  As you grow up you learn there's no such thing as a technical meritocracy. Linux is the dictator because he has political dominance. Part of why he has that is technical competency, but most of it is because he created the project (which requires technical competency) and never fucked it up enough to lose that inertia.
  - bugjoey 3mo ago
    There's a tech meritocracy there. I used to work in a submodule and the meritocracy was clear: beginner -> builds reputation -> solid contributor -> sub|co|maintainer. Linus's role was largely transparent, merging contributions rather than dictating them. I only saw emails from him when our changes broke other parts of the system.
allanmacgregor 3mo ago
Stopped reading immediatly ...." Linus Torvalds running Linux like the privileged man that he is and entirely missing the central points of the arguments made by people who don’t enjoy his kind of privilege" Its open source, go start your own project and stop complaining.

10 points by ilreb 3mo ago

doppp 3mo ago

Think OP is confused as to what a monopoly and a benevolent dictatorship is.

hacker_homie 3mo ago
Yeah that might be a better way to put it, if anyone is used to dealing with developer slop is the kernel.

hacker_homie 3mo ago

I get where you are coming from, I assume most of the "code" in the linux kernel is driver code? That being the case my understanding is splitting this project up is not only a technical challenge but a legal one. You could make a common API for driver code, this would make the main driving force of linux much weaker. Nvidia tried to stay out of tree for years and was dragged kicking and screaming upstream because they needed the reliability. I'm saying the very thing you are calling out as a problem is currently what is forcing everyone contribute to the mainline kernel. Without centralized leader ship the facturing of the linux kernel would be a disaster.

gumby 3mo ago

There are other alternatives like the bsds and if things become intolerable a switch is viable. It just takes work.

mpyne 3mo ago

The Linux kernel isn't even a monopoly though.... FreeBSD, OpenBSD, heck even ReactOS are all things you can use and make better instead. No one is forcing you to use Linux any more than anyone is forcing you to use Windows or macOS.

inigyou 3mo ago
Great analogy because Windows was officially declared to be a monopoly once.
- mpyne 3mo ago
  At the time that may even have been true, there was essentially nothing else for personal computer usage, and there were no alternate form factors like mobile. But even there the issue wasn't the existence of monopoly per se, but with the (ab)use of the monopoly to also capture the emerging Internet browser market.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    Don't move the goalposts. You agree it was a monopoly.
    - mpyne 3mo ago
      Sure. Until it wasn't. Even if Linux was a monopoly that would not necessarily be the case for ever, as the example of the Windows monopoly demonstrates. But Linux isn't even a monopoly today.
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        Linux already isn't a monopoly because it isn't something that is sold. The correct word should be monoculture.
        mpyne 3mo ago
        People absolutely will sell you Linux, and they make a lot of money in the process. I'm not even sure I'd describe it as a monoculture either, if it was that would probably have accelerated its growth even more. Imagine where Linux would be if it were like FreeBSD in having only one distro, one libc, one set of system libs. You're starting to see it as a server backend lingua franca but even there, there are multitudes. And there remain a great number of organizations that run on one of the BSDs, Windows, old mainframe OS, and so on.

knighthack 3mo ago

How you started completely disqualified whatever the author of the article argues next: "...The recent fiasco involving Linus Torvalds running Linux like the privileged man that he is and entirely missing the central points of the arguments made by people who don't enjoy his kind of privilege..." It was his 'privilege' that led to the technical competency of the project that is now enjoyed by many. Attacking someone's 'privilege' is the lowest form of argument.

bugjoey 3mo ago

His/her confusion about economic systems and political systems is sad. And monopoly is not tied to capitalism. Anyway, Linux is a technocracy. Actually, a technical meritocracy to be more precise, rather than economic or political dominance.

inigyou 3mo ago
As you grow up you learn there's no such thing as a technical meritocracy. Linux is the dictator because he has political dominance. Part of why he has that is technical competency, but most of it is because he created the project (which requires technical competency) and never fucked it up enough to lose that inertia.
- bugjoey 3mo ago
  There's a tech meritocracy there. I used to work in a submodule and the meritocracy was clear: beginner -> builds reputation -> solid contributor -> sub|co|maintainer. Linus's role was largely transparent, merging contributions rather than dictating them. I only saw emails from him when our changes broke other parts of the system.

allanmacgregor 3mo ago

Stopped reading immediatly ...." Linus Torvalds running Linux like the privileged man that he is and entirely missing the central points of the arguments made by people who don’t enjoy his kind of privilege" Its open source, go start your own project and stop complaining.