Announcement

**Asher** · March 9, 2002, 17:39

Exhibit A: Why Linux will never replace Windows as the dominant desktop.

**Asher** · March 9, 2002, 17:41

BTW, don't think I haven't read ESR's papers.

The guy's a fool. Complete fool, more like it.

Here's a paper for you to read, debunking "The Cathedral and the Bazaar":

http://www.lotus.com/developers/devbase.nsf/articles/doc2000091200

I remember one of my CS profs spending an entire lecture criticizing ESR.

**Korpo** · March 9, 2002, 18:17

I remember one of my CS profs spending an entire lecture criticizing ESR.

I met a lot of CS and maths profs already, listened to their lectures, took their tests, etc. There is one truth about CS profs: They accept no opinion except their own, especially if they endanger their job. Of course the Software Engineering chair will not be a strong proponent of rethinking the design process.

This nice little bed story from Lotus is amusing, but he's overstating his point as much as ERS does. But ERS produced a very well program (I used it before I even knew about this and was pleased), and Linus did an awful job, and this author did exactly nothing except writing a paper, with no further evidence in code or anything.

What ERS described worked, it did several 100 or 1000 times. His point may be rephrased as: "Most of the management tasks so utterly important to the business design process, could be rendered near-unimportant by massive peer-review, the strong motivation in volunteer work, etc."

That your author's point is not valid, may be easily be "proven" with one citation:

And, most significantly, Raymond heaped praise on volunteers who helped him, which motivated those people to help some more.

Well if a little praise is enough to motivate volunteer work, ERS is perfectly right. Normally you would pay these people AND have to motivate them. I guess maintaining a credit list and making some nice statements on a mail list is really "heaping praise", or is that overstated? It is.

Especially this is not identical, nor equivalent, to what ERS describes about management motivation. 100s of people were motivated by the fact the program was useful, found features they needed or bugs to fix, worked themselves into the code, made a fix or enhancement and submitted it for free and gave it away, AND AFTER THAT THEY GOT A LITTLE CREDIT. In the business process programmers would have been told what to write, what to learn, and have been monitored and motivated by their managers, besides being paid. This isn't really comparable, and that's ERS' point.

(If the writer works at Lotus he may be even responsible for the worst and most counterintuitive mail program ever, Lotus Notes. Bury it and live on in peace and never publish anything about design again. At least the audience did this.)

Perhaps you should rethink your opinion about ERS, and especially reread "Homesteading the Noosphere". There are surely many valid points in there, proving the author is not a fool, but instead a many-facetted and well-educated writer.

Perhaps you find some time after dancing round Bill's Golden Calve XP, you advocatus diaboli. ;o)

**Korpo** · March 9, 2002, 18:53

Why OS development is still a bazaar:

Many projects offer similar feature-set / feature-set promise. Developers are attracted to them. The better a maintainer is at
integrating patches and adding new feature contributions, the more developers and users on the bazaar he attracts. If the project has a bad maintainer, or does not pay in the currency of the bazaar (proper credit), developers flock to rival projects. Popular maintainers will attract lots of help in the bazaar. Popular projects' credit will be more worth than poor projects'. If the maintainer does abuse its control of a popular project, it will fork ( the most popular bazaar good will be most likely imitated, and if the original shop owner cannot deliver what the audience wants, business rivals jump in). If the project orphans, and it is popular, another maintainer takes over .

Most likely, the code "forks" as several people create new releases at the same time. This is part of the bazaar process.

This may happen, but will they be popular enough to be trusted? This forks are possible but not likely. Developers benefit most by sticking to their "shop" in terms of trust and peer review, but they will quickly fork, if they don't benefit. But starting a new business with a strong competition by the master is still a hard thing to do.

The user community attempts to settle on the best fork to follow, by trying all available versions and focusing their attention on the best version. No single person or small committee manages this process. Perhaps the best fork is widely recognized and quickly selected, perhaps not.

Well, didn't that happen with XEmacs and GNU Emacs? Proves ERS' point about the bazaar.

The originator releases the working program, a description of how to use it, and all the source code to an appropriate forum such as a newsgroup or public web site. From this point forward, the originator becomes just another member of the user community, with no special status.

Any bazaar knows traders and customers, it is not valid to claim all in a bazaar are equal. Maintainers are shop owners, user and codevelopers are customers and work force (paid with the currency peer image boost). But as I stated the work force may turn to other projects, or become traders themselves. As long the original trader offers best good/price he will remain special.

Your author completely misinterprets ERS by stating all in the bazaar are equal. Of course he can make some valid logic deductions from his own starting point. Too bad his starting point is invalid and misciting ERS completely. ERS never stated to be one among others in this bazaar, but the OS bazaar would live on without him, his project whether it forks or not, its code is integrated into another project, rewritten from scratch... Other projects will benefit, and in the bazaar, the fittest survive, the best 5% are chosen and their code incorporated.

Why OS is not a cathedral:

If the cathedral was not popular with the workers they wouldn't join another cathedral building project, there were never different cathedrals competing in same town or even region, there were always a central demand and funding, a centrally organized work force. Programmers in business don't change to other projects, don't fork projects, and seldom there will be rivaling projects with the same aim. They are building a cathedral, they are told how to build it, they don't come with their own design decisions beyond a certain level, etc. OS development works like a market, where most value wins. In one business, programmers cannot jump from project to project, or change the project goals at all. They cannot take their code and integrate it into another similar product they like better. A business project cannot orphan. Either it is discontinued, therefore dead for good, its code stored away, and quickly rendered obsolete by tech advance. A business project / cathedral cannot be assumed to be able to get orphaned (it always has a precise owner). A business project cannot be homesteaded (be made your own by use and development on it), by copyright and business interests.

Your author miscites ERS again. One of ERS main points is that motivating cathedral workers is about incorporating the work from the 95% that aren't especially brillant. They will write the code they are given, not themselves find a problem, solve it and submit it. In a bazaar ERS can buy the best 5%. A cathredal builder pays all to do the work. ERS only pays the 5% (in peer review and image), which contribute the best 5% in code. If he fails to pay or to chose right, his project will suffer, slow down, die. Other shop owners will benefit. An OS project never is under pressure to be finished by time line, nor it has to be finished at all. If it doesn't deliver it's dropped. I'll wait to see the cathedral builder throwing a half-made cathedral away. And I wait for the firm simply looking mildly on a rival taking over their work on a project, that is half-done without payment in hard cash. But this is possible in OS, and makes a bazaar the more.

Bazaar! Bazaar! Bazaar! Aiiiiiiiii! ;o)

**Asher** · March 10, 2002, 01:57

Do you want to know why ESR is a fool?

He pulls in a 6-digit income doing "research" at MIT.

He encourages open source software to be developed because he won't lose his job if the whole world switches to open source. In fact, he'll be paraded around as a near-God.

What he doesn't understand, and many people who believe open source is the answer to everything don't understand, is that if you make everything open source, there become compatibility problems, and many, many people will simply lose their jobs. There's not NEARLY enough jobs available if things become open source, it mostly becomes an effort on behalf of hobby programmers: Quality degrades overtime, so many different ideas are approached at the same time that products end up to be disorganized messes (see Linux for the desktop).

Open Source is a nifty concept but is the technology equivalent of Communism. It's simply not possible on a large scale to work out properly. End of story.

ESR doesn't realize that. Or he does, but doesn't care because he makes a six-figure income with MIT.

The most interesting development process, IMO, happens at (of all places) Microsoft. They do peer code reviews with many qualified and experienced programmers, they have giant meetings quite frequently where the programmers all meet and discuss the project in person, a security team is now mandatory to every team meeting and tests every revision of new software for security and privacy issues.

With development processes like that, companies like MS can leapfrog over the sluggish open-source style development. MS' new development system has been perfected like an art, which is why things like .NET are looking so great. Even Open Source advocates like Miguel from Ximian are in love with .NET.

**Asher** · March 10, 2002, 02:12

It looks like you've got some time on your hands.

Read this debunk of ESR's "Cathedral and the Bazaar": http://www.ring-zero.org/~jep/junk/slcatb.txt

**jep** · March 10, 2002, 02:38

ESR (not ERS) is an idiot. The least you could do is listen to Tim O'Reilly.

Open source just isn't a good idea for most commercial companies. MOST commercial software development falls into three classes:
a. retail software
b. enterprise software
c. elite software/development tools

With most retail software open source brings no significant advantages while simultatneously exposing intellectual property that you probably don't want everybody to know. It also makes enforcing software licensing much harder.

With enterprise software, again, there are very few advantages to the customer to an open source application over a well designed system. Plus you've just exposed your crown jewels.

Most elite software/development tools (apart from the ones that classify as enterprise software too) do come with source-code, and have for many, many years.

The fundamental logical fallacy behind open-source is it parades OS development as beneficial to the developer, when for the most part it's not. Free Software has no pretentions about benefit to developers, it's about benefit to users and the community. While I may disagree with RMS on a number of points, I do respect the guy, and unlike ESR, he's not a moron.

**Urban Ranger** · March 10, 2002, 06:13

Originally posted by Asher
What he doesn't understand, and many people who believe open source is the answer to everything don't understand, is that if you make everything open source, there become compatibility problems, and many, many people will simply lose their jobs.

How is that so? On what do you base that "conclusion?"

I posit there will be less compatibility problems within the OpenSource community because the way things work. They

Originally posted by Asher
There's not NEARLY enough jobs available if things become open source, it mostly becomes an effort on behalf of hobby programmers: Quality degrades overtime, so many different ideas are approached at the same time that products end up to be disorganized messes (see Linux for the desktop).

Quality degrades overtime? That sounds exactly like MS stuff, particular Windows? How's that different from OSS?

Originally posted by Asher
Open Source is a nifty concept but is the technology equivalent of Communism.

Ah. The "I can't win an argument, so I'll just go ahead and label them something."

Originally posted by Asher
The most interesting development process, IMO, happens at (of all places) Microsoft. They do peer code reviews with many qualified and experienced programmers, they have giant meetings quite frequently where the programmers all meet and discuss the project in person, a security team is now mandatory to every team meeting and tests every revision of new software for security and privacy issues.

Is that why Ed Felten found 65K bugs in 1/7 of Windows 2K source code?

Consider this:

The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not.

That's what Bill Gates said.

Originally posted by Asher
With development processes like that, companies like MS can leapfrog over the sluggish open-source style development.

Of course, since MS ignores bugs. It's well known that MS ships beta-quality products. That's why Windows patches come at an ever increasing pace over the versions.

Originally posted by Asher
MS' new development system has been perfected like an art, which is why things like .NET are looking so great.

From what point of view? Not the consumers' at least.

Originally posted by Asher
Even Open Source advocates like Miguel from Ximian are in love with .NET.

That's not what he said.

Some non bald assertion stuff in your response will be nice.

**Urban Ranger** · March 10, 2002, 06:18

Originally posted by Asher
Exhibit A: Why Linux will never replace Windows as the dominant desktop.

1. Beijing has switched to Linux
2. South Korea is buying lots of Linux
3. Dem Finns are following suit
4. The Germans are staging revolt against MS
5. The Brits aren't too happy with MS, either
6. More forbodingly, lots of university students are exiting the MS camp en masse.
7. The Taiwaneses are doing great work with Linux

On the other hand, the sales of Windows XP at retail is flat. Most XP copies have been sold through OEM channels. W2K is still having a hard time being accepted at corporate places.

**Urban Ranger** · March 10, 2002, 06:30

Originally posted by jep
ESR (not ERS) is an idiot. The least you could do is listen to Tim O'Reilly.

You are an idiot. Eric S Raymond did admit that OSS works best with commodity software and not at all with specialised stuff.

Originally posted by jep
With most retail software open source brings no significant advantages while simultatneously exposing intellectual property that you probably don't want everybody to know. It also makes enforcing software licensing much harder.

Like what intellectual property? Like MS's proprietary extensions of open standards such as Kerberos?

Besides, software lincensing is crap. It has always been crap.

Originally posted by jep
With enterprise software, again, there are very few advantages to the customer to an open source application over a well designed system. Plus you've just exposed your crown jewels.

What enterprise software?

Originally posted by jep
Most elite software/development tools (apart from the ones that classify as enterprise software too) do come with source-code, and have for many, many years.

What "elite software?"

Originally posted by jep
The fundamental logical fallacy behind open-source is it parades OS development as beneficial to the developer, when for the most part it's not. Free Software has no pretentions about benefit to developers, it's about benefit to users and the community. While I may disagree with RMS on a number of points, I do respect the guy, and unlike ESR, he's not a moron.

There is no fundamental difference between OSS and FSF. OSS uses GPL ("copyleft") created by FSF.

Developers are benefited because they are clearly part of the community. Hence, the bigger the community, the bigger the benefits. By the same token, specialised software with a very small market is best written by software outfits.

**- Groucho -** · March 10, 2002, 12:34

Hey Asher - at least thank Korpo for the fix before picking a fight.

**Asher** · March 10, 2002, 14:08

Originally posted by Echinda
Hey Asher - at least thank Korpo for the fix before picking a fight.

I have no idea if the fix works, I havent used Linux in months now. Been using SSH into the school computer's to do my homework since it's far less of a hassle.

**Asher** · March 10, 2002, 14:18

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
How is that so? On what do you base that "conclusion?"

I posit there will be less compatibility problems within the OpenSource community because the way things work. They

When the source code is freely available, more forks are made. People begin making their own modifications to the software (why else would it be open source?), and thereby creating many different implementations of the same program, thereby creating problems with compatibility.

Quality degrades overtime? That sounds exactly like MS stuff, particular Windows? How's that different from OSS?

Oh, indeed, Windows gets worse over time.
Compare Windows 2.0 to Windows XP and it should be clear the quality has gone downhill.

OSS software can't be maintained and upgraded as well, because maintenance is one of the more boring and inane things to do while programming. These guys aren't getting paid to do it, so they'll most likely let bug-fixing take a back seat.

Ah. The "I can't win an argument, so I'll just go ahead and label them something."

I wasn't labeling anyone communist.
I was drawing a comparison between Communism and Open Source software, as in, both are really nice and purty theoretically but in the real world, it won't ever work on a large scale.

Is that why Ed Felten found 65K bugs in 1/7 of Windows 2K source code?

About half of those were typos in help files, IIRC.
And considering how many millions of lines the Win2K source code is, that's pretty damn good. Check out how many bugs BugZilla is logging, and that's one helluva smaller and less complex program.

And I don't think he found 65K bugs in 1/7 of the Win2K source code. The story was there were 65K known bugs upon Win2K's release, the vast majority of which were fixed in SP1.

Of course, since MS ignores bugs. It's well known that MS ships beta-quality products. That's why Windows patches come at an ever increasing pace over the versions.

If you ask me, Linux is in a far, far more beta-like state than Windows. All of the window managers I've used are FAR more buggy than WinXP, and the windowing system is just pathetically bad.
How can you contradict yourself in that sentence, anyway? "MS ignores bugs..Windows patches come at ever increasing pace". I'd also like to know where you get the "ever increasing pace" from: SP1 for Win2K was released 6 months after Win2K, SP1 for WinXP will be 1 year after WinXP.

From what point of view? Not the consumers' at least. '

What would the consumer know about MS' new development process, the last part of which was implemented 1 month ago?

That's not what he said.

Some non bald assertion stuff in your response will be nice.

Nope, he said it. He loves .NET. That's why he's still defending Mono, he believes .NET is a GoodThing(tm).

**Asher** · March 10, 2002, 14:23

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
There is no fundamental difference between OSS and FSF. OSS uses GPL ("copyleft") created by FSF.

Open Source != Free Software.
Open Source means the source is available, but you still can buy the products.

Free Software == Free Beer.

Fundamental difference, if you ask me.

1. Beijing has switched to Linux
2. South Korea is buying lots of Linux
3. Dem Finns are following suit
4. The Germans are staging revolt against MS
5. The Brits aren't too happy with MS, either
6. More forbodingly, lots of university students are exiting the MS camp en masse.
7. The Taiwaneses are doing great work with Linux

On the other hand, the sales of Windows XP at retail is flat. Most XP copies have been sold through OEM channels. W2K is still having a hard time being accepted at corporate places.

By Beijing, you mean the munincipal goverment of Beijing. By all means, MS' world is falling apart.

The reason why those countries (notice they are GOVERNMENTS) are switching from MS is because most of them believe the US government implants spyware inside to monitor their activities. With Linux they can ensure the source code is free of monitoring software, so they're using that.

And #6 is a really weird thing to say.
There is absolutely no proof of that, and I'm more willing to say the opposite as a university student.
Most of the people I know prefer development with Visual Studio rather than Emacs + GCC.

And retail Windows have ALWAYS been relatively flat, with the vast majority of sales coming from OEM computers. That's nothing new at all.

Announcement

To ASHER about his Linux problems

To ASHER about his Linux problems

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment