Virtual Decentralized Networks: Linux's Organization

barries writes: "Here is an interesting take on the Linux Project which tries to put it in a historical perspective and explain why traditional structures and theory don't fully apply to it. It overlooks a few things but gets most of the basics right." You might want to skip ahead a bit in the paper to get to the Linux-specific sections.

Comments

Pseudoscientists of the world unite

[Ars-Fartsica]

Linux is popular because it is free, useful, and became useful at the right time.

This pseudoscience about organizational dynamics is what is referred to as curve fitting - using your results to frame your hypothesis.

"Loosely decentralized virtual organizations" could just as soon describe a bowling team. Its gibberish folks.

Planning scopes as obstacles

[Big Jojo]

Confessing up front that I've only read the parts relating to free/open source and Linux, and skimmed the rest of that HUGE opus ...

At some level the observations here are completely predictable. It's old hat to anyone who's tried to get something large under way; the buzzwords aren't news. The interesting bits are when the author talks about how the Linux model might work in other industries.

What I've found interesting about the Linux community is best observed as a contrast between how Linux works, and how most other software projects I've been on have worked. Briefly, it's the central planning thing. Microsoft is just a big and current example, not the only one.

Traditional OS software orgs insist on being able to control lots and lots of things, just so that they can present plans justifying themselves to folk who finance their work. And many of those financers are actually trying to sell hardware; look at Sun, DEC, HP, IBM, or most folk now working in OS software without Linux. OS decisions that don't immediately sell hardware tend to get under-rewarded, compared to Linux. And because of management overheads, there is no way to incorporate very much work that's not a current "top" priority since such efforts detract from the process of collecting fat bonuses (issued for short term goals far more than long term ones).

A lot of the "parallelism" of Linux is just the fact that developers have finally started to be able to escape from such straitjackets, and don't need to tie themselves so exclusively to short sighted bottom line issues. It's those short planning horizons that have hobbled most software organizations without the benefit of a monopoly over most of a large industry.

Trademarked software?

[swillden]

Maybe I'm just picky, but the author lost my respect by the third paragraph of the section on Linux, when he started talking about "trademarked" software. It seems like someone who is writing about the effects of different ways of creating intellectual products should have a basic, layman's understanding of Intellectual Property law, at least.

Software can be (and almost always is) copyrighted. It can also be kept as a trade secret and, in some cases and in some countries, software algorithms can be patented. But "trademarking" is something done to names and logos, not pieces of software.

Annoying.

Re:Anarchy that works

[Hercynium]

Au contrair, your anarchist country (with it's vast natural resources and incredible infrastructure) has just become the prime target. Sure, ideas are infectious, try Communism... every dumbass undergrad I met in college *loved* the idea (except the Chinese AND the Russian engineering students, gee I wonder WHY.)

But you are talking about anarchism, so let me switch gears.

Yeah, wouldn't it be great to be able to do whatever you want/need to survive. And just think, if you kill the guy across the street for his schweet new gaming rig, there's no Big Bad Police to come after you. Oh, SURE, the neighbors might be pissed and show up at your doorstep with pitchforks, but don't worry, it's an anarchist country. They can kill you if they want to as well!!!

So of course people in general will want/need at least a little structure, right?? Just a smidge. Fine, we'll give our neighborhood a person to help with disputes/crime/emergencies. We'll call him the "Shaman."

Well, pretty soon, there's too many people for the Shaman to take care of. We'll need more structure... let's call our new leader the "Chief."

The chief, of course will have an inner circle to dispatch his orders... lets call them the "Tribal Council"

Now that we've elevated ourselves to Tribe, I don't think we need any more order. We can develop and live in peace. All among us and abroad can see our progression (and our source code, of course.) But what's this? The tribe over yonder is jealous?? They want a piece of OUR prosperity? So they invade... that's when we have (what may we call it?) a WAR!

So tribes fight and kill, some merge and form alliances, to the pont where in order for one alliance to protect themselves, they form regualar NATIONS!!! Time passes, nations evolve through progressions of leadership, growth, insurrection, merger, division... and eventually we have an EMPIRE.

So the far flung nation states start getting pissed... the frikken EMPIRE is too damn opressive, they whine... but didn't this START OUT as an ANARCHY?? Oh, NOW I REMEMBER... people simply didn't like getting KILLED by their next door neighbors. Boo-hoo, they thought it was a PAIN IN THE ASS.

So, we'll do it right this time... We'll attempt a REPUBLIC (yeah, the greeks tried true DEMOCRACIES, they got their asses kicked by nations that had smarter leaders and could make decisions faster)

So here we are, on top of the world... and other nations are STILL TRYING TO KILL US!

It makes you think (I hope)... without a government, they'd STILL be flying planes into our buildings... (Though I'm sure other countries would have beat them to it with better weapons than that.) Government or not, HUMAN BEINGS ARE VIOLENT MOTHERFUCKERS.



Oh, yeah. Getting back to the topic...

The author clearly does not believe that Open Source operates as an anarchy... rather it is specifically an unstructured medium from which profit-making organizations can arise. Of course, in order for the profit-makers to maintain a competitive edge they necessarily have to recreate some of the open-source environment. Overall, in order to succeed these companies need to do two things:

1. Maintain enough structure and intelectual protection so that profitable business can be safely and effectively conducted.
2. Maintain an open enough working environment so that the type of employees thay need, the hackers (as described in the article), will want to work there and stay as long as their talents are useful. (For example, the company has an open source project and it catches the eye of a talented programmer who otherwise would have never heard of that company. Now he works for them, and they both benefit.)

Another side benefit pointed out in the paper(well, not explicitly) is that if you use an open source management model to cater to your potiential developer/employee base your job training becomes minimal, thus saving you $$. And isn't that what it all comes down to for those filthy Americans? eh, comrade?

IMHO, I think every company has TWO customers. The END USER (The guy who buys the hamburger), and the EMPLOYEE (The guy who cooks the hamburger). Keep the employee happy, and the customer will get fewer burgers with boogers in the sauce, or less software with bugs in the code.



BTW, I understand you're not much of a rational thinker; your post reeks of it. But don't cry, just about everybody on slashdot is like that.

And if you wanna make some commentary on politics sometime POST SOMEWHERE THAT WANTS YOUR NAIVE HIPPIE ANARCHIST OPINION.

To change the world all at once is certainly a great dream for children and mental patients but give it a good long try with just ONE person at a time and you'll see why the world is like it is.