Slashdot Mirror
Linux 'Awfully Cathedral-Like' - Java's a Bazaar
jg21 writes "LinuxWorld draws attention to a curious use of ESR's The Cathedral and the Bazaar by the Sun Microsystems exec who currently talks about Linux more than he does even about Java. Apparently Sun's President and COO Jonathan Schwartz said at a press briefing last week that Java with its JCP is more like ESR's Bazaar than Linux, which he dismissed as being "awfully cathedral-like" since Linus is the final arbiter (or Great Dictator), and not a committee." But be sure you don't mis-use the word Java in this Bazaar or the Mall Police will totally get you.
Cmdr Taco's homepage was just Slashdotted! There is justice in the world!
The Linux kernel is extremely fragmented, and the only reason Linus' kernel remain relevant is because he's shown himself to be pragmatic enough about what he'll include that people find it worthwhile trying to sync with him where possible.
How it could be more Bazaar like is beyond me - various strains survive purely based on merit, and features appear or disappear based on what gets popular or what doesn't get any traction. At any point there can be a total chaos of available versions solving any number of different problems.
Linus just happens to keep being that guy that built a name by being the original author, and keep his reputation by getting his version good enough for enough people to keep the "customers" coming. If he starts screwing up, someone else will take all his "business" and he'll end up being ignored. At the same time there keeps being enough niches for tons of other versions, because not everyone has the same goals.
Contrast that to Java, where no matter what happens, Sun is the final arbiter.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
I tell you cathedral. Profane activities with holy Linux kernel will be prosecuted.
I don't need a signature.
Frankly, I always hated the whole cathedral vs bazaar metaphor. I don't think it portrays well the virtues and faults of open source and proprietary software. I use proprietary software (MacOS + some closed apps) for the same reason I prefer to "dine out" rather than cook my own meals. I just want to choose something delicious from the restaurant's menu - and I don't care that my choices are limited. Yes, if you cook in your own kitchen, you can customize you meal the way you like it - as it is with open source software. But this will consume you a lot of time and effort, so most people would rather avoid it - unless they really enjoy cooking, have really to much spare time or are really short on cash. It's similar with Free Software - you use it if you really like to 'tinker' with everything or are really short on cash. But if you don't like the former and are not limited by latter, you will rather go to a store with proprietary solutions - where your choices are obviously limited, but you're saving time and effort. So I think restaurant vs kitchen is a better metaphor for proprietary vs free/open.
As the sainted Lindsay Marshall pointed out to ESR
at a conference some years ago, cathedrals (which
we know a bit about in Europe) weren't built like
ESR thinks. They were built over the course of
generations, by a sequence of random people, and
if you had the money to put up (say) a side-chapel
for your recently deceased son, you could do so.
In that sense, they are precisely like Linux: a
set of guiding lights, an overall architecture,
and a framework into which anyone with time and
money can put their additions. If you go to one
of the larger, more complex cathedrals in Europe
you'll see they changed massively in plan and
intent over the some hundreds of years they took
to build.
ian
Its amazing how someone can take a great concept and paraphrase it to complete bullshit.
ESR's distinction has nothing to do with closed or open, good or evil, or any moral judgement you ascribe to it.
The Cathedral is a small group working in isolation to a common and predefined goal. "In isolation" meaning not involving collaborators outside the group during development. ESR himself says "It's fairly clear that one cannot code from the ground up in bazaar style. One can test, debug and improve in bazaar style, but it would be very hard to originate a project in bazaar mode. Linus didn't try it. I didn't either." Open source projects general start in Cathedral style.
The Bazaar has everything open for collaboration from anyone during development. Some small group chooses and manages what does and doesn't go into the final "product", but there are only loose and informal goals. The product gets pushing into the shape of whatever anyone and everyone want it to be for them.
You can't modify Linux to do what you want. You can take the Linux source and make a derivation that does what you want, but its not the Linux that the rest of the world uses. Its not product development. Its not the Bazaar. The Bazaar is about contributing to a product, not forking it. The Bazaar is managed, it just doesn't look that way. The source tree isn't open for just anyone to modify, only to read, and to suggest modifications.
Java and Linux present an interesting case to which to apply TCATB.
Java uses a Cathedral style -- development on a revision is performed in isolation by a small group working to specified goals, then the result is released (with source code, but maybe not under your favourite license). But the determination of Java's goals uses the Bazaar style -- everyone gets to make their suggestion and have their say. Depending on community support (either in terms of being vocal or by contributing reference code or technically beneficial suggestions) the desired features may or may not be implemented during the next Cathedral phase.
Linux on the other hand uses Bazaar development. Anyone can hack on the code and contribute changes. But near the top there are a small group who are managing what changes do or do not make it into the official kernel, and ultimately Linus makes the final choice. So assuming that Linus and the patch managers have their own predetermined goals for Linux, the patches they admit to the official kernel tree are more typical of a Cathedral model, in that they are committed by a small group working towards a common and predetermined goal. Of course the argument can be made that Linus and co. don't have specific goals. I believe the truth is somewhere in between -- the goals of the patch managers change from time to time, but are (in the short term) generally predefined.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
You can also obtain and modify Java's code as you wish (see http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/download.jsp) but you can only *distribute* your modifications for the purpose of "research" (so not as part of a commercial product for example).
1 6#linux_is_an_open_source) has aspects of both the cathedral and the bazaar.
r /cathedral-bazaar/index.html) to be an essential read, but it's terminology is IMHO too obscure to be used effectively in discussions like this; I find well-known terms like "dictatorship" (Linux kernel), "meritocracy" (Mozilla.org, "Individual Expert"s on the Java JCP Committee) and "feudal" (GNOME.org) are clearer.
Java is "bazaar"-like because the JCP provides a mechanism for groups and individuals to create proposals to evolve or extend Java which are ratified by a committe (again of groups and individuals, essentially chosen in a meritocratic manner). This could be compared with Mozilla's team of super-reviewers.
Jonathan's point is that Linux (the kernel) is cathedral-like because decisions about changes to the kernel are made exclusively by Linus Torvalds.
Java has open processes for becoming a member of the change committee (see http://www.jcp.org/en/participation/membership) and for submitting proposals (see http://www.jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2#1).
"Linux" in the broadest sense (see http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/ColmSmyth/200411
I really find Eric Raymond's seminal CATB article (see http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaa
http://blogs.sun.com/ColmSmyth/
Linux is developed the way it is because it works, after a fashion.
Java is developed the way it is because it works, after a fashion.
Now which method is better is impossinle to tell since Java and Linux do very different things.
If they were both operating systems, you might compare with a bunch of benchmarks, like number of computers installed with it, market share, job vacancies administrating it, whatever, and draw some conclusions. But they're not, so you can't.
This is a bit like saying my way of making ice cream is better than your way of making sports cars.
Perhaps Schwarz should put out the new open source Solaris' with his preferred bazaar-like development model and show Linus and the rest of us how it's done.
Thank you for using bold because I otherwise couldn't read your insightful commentary.