LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


View Poll Results: Cathedral or Bazaar?
Cathedral, cathedral, cathedral all the way 1 7.69%
naaa...cathedrals suck...I love bazaars 12 92.31%
Voters: 13. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 10-05-2003, 11:08 AM   #1
vanquisher
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Hyderabad, India
Posts: 126

Rep: Reputation: 15
cathedral VS bazaar - the classic debate


What do you ppl think? you belong to the cathedral or the bazaar...How many of you think it's GNU/Linux, not Linux? Let's say it's RMS vs ESR.
 
Old 10-05-2003, 12:55 PM   #2
qanopus
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2002
Location: New York
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,358

Rep: Reputation: 45
Yeh, it would be interesting to have an discussion on opensoftware vs free software. I'm still unconvinced of either one being the best.
As I understand it, the free software movement is placing software under an opensource licence out of idealistic reasons, while the opensource movement is doing so out of more practicle motives, such as reliability of the products.
 
Old 10-05-2003, 02:23 PM   #3
wapcaplet
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 2,018

Rep: Reputation: 48
Um. The cathedral represents the proprietary software development model used by Microsoft and most other commercial software companies.. It has nothing to do with RMS vs. ESR. Have you even read the essay?

Last edited by wapcaplet; 10-05-2003 at 02:25 PM.
 
Old 10-05-2003, 03:22 PM   #4
qanopus
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2002
Location: New York
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,358

Rep: Reputation: 45
No wapcaplet, have you read the essay? A quote from the source:

Quote:
Linux overturned much of what I thought I knew. 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.
cathedral vs bazaar != proprietary vs opensource

Last edited by qanopus; 10-05-2003 at 03:24 PM.
 
Old 10-05-2003, 06:28 PM   #5
Tarts
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Distribution: Slackware 9.1 (exclusively) ;)
Posts: 344

Rep: Reputation: 30
Were is that essay, I just searched for it, and it disappeared...
 
Old 10-05-2003, 07:24 PM   #6
ed_thix
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Malaysia
Distribution: Slackware 15 & Ubuntu
Posts: 93

Rep: Reputation: 21
Tarts: you can find it at http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/
 
Old 10-05-2003, 07:28 PM   #7
Tarts
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Distribution: Slackware 9.1 (exclusively) ;)
Posts: 344

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by ed_thix
Tarts: you can find it at http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/
ed_thix, thank's so much.
 
Old 10-05-2003, 08:53 PM   #8
finegan
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 5,700

Rep: Reputation: 65
Quote:
Originally posted by schatoor


cathedral vs bazaar != proprietary vs opensource
It kinda does equal that.

It is actually quite easy to lump a lot of the Stallman FSF projects in as cathedral projects. Emacs is a good example of this one, theHurd would be another. The Emacs ERS is referring to is the Emacs of the MIT labs in the 70s, which really was originally built by a cathedral like group of ITS hackers that all worked more or less in the same place. Back then it wasn't exactly easy to submit a patch as we're talking ARPANET era. Emacs has since become quite a bazaar project in the two decades and change since it was first written, heck its been forked probably more then any other project too... Meanwhile the Hurd group was very cagey during its excruciatingly long development cycle, and also due to the nature of the micro-kernel architecture itself, it didn't really lend to the rabid patch-festival that ERS likes to point to as an aspect of the Bazaar, and a reason that Linux went berserk so quickly.

Raymond really is talking about the software model of groups like Oracle, UNIX back in the AT&T Bell labs days as opposed to the "free to hack on" BSDs, Microsoft of course too...

I can't really think of a cathedral oriented OSS project, at least not in this day and age. A small volunteer group that refuses to take any work, good or bad, from users willing to help out isn't something that typically lasts very long. Then again, there are some projects out there that have always been a small group, or been a fork of a project already past that maturity stage where all the work is the occasional bugfix and security patch... but that's not really cathedral as much as post-development.

I dunno, the dichotomy isn't that easy to make. For instance, gcc is built by a very clannish team, but its not exactly a cathedral project, because afterall egcs exists just so that the project wouldn't get forked...

Cheers,

Finegan
 
Old 10-05-2003, 09:16 PM   #9
Tarts
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Distribution: Slackware 9.1 (exclusively) ;)
Posts: 344

Rep: Reputation: 30
I voted bazaar, look what came out of it.

What I was trying to get out of it was how to copy that development style. To begin with, ESR makes a good point about finding interesting problems. After reading that again, I think I have only worked to solve one interesting problem (that to me is scalable), and Ive never written a more satisfying piece of code, (for me at least).
 
Old 10-06-2003, 03:33 AM   #10
qanopus
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2002
Location: New York
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,358

Rep: Reputation: 45
Well let me first say that I still thing that "cathedral vs bazaar != proprietary vs opensource". It's just that all of the proprietary software is made in the cathedral style, but software that's build in the cathedral style need not to be proprietary.

Quote:
I can't really think of a cathedral oriented OSS project, at least not in this day and age. A small volunteer group that refuses to take any work, good or bad, from users willing to help out isn't something that typically lasts very long.
What about the bsd's? But I could be wrong on that one so pleace correct me if I am.

But enough about that. There has been an similer thread before, and I think moses sums it pretty well in that one :

Quote:
After looking over the list of licenses at the OSI web page, it seems
obvious. The OSI has a large list of approved licenses, while the
FSF only has one (the GPL). The GPL is included in the list of
approved licenses by the OSI. From this, I conclude that the OSI
encompases and extends (or limits, based on your point of view)
the FSF's idea of free software. That is, the OSI doesn't put any
philosophical restraints on what the copyright holder may do with
their software, even "allowing" them to allow redistribution in
binary form only (with some caveats). This makes the OSI a little
more free in terms of what a developer may do, but also allows
for future limitations on the code by that same developer or by
some other developer on that same code (someone could
possibly be allowed to only distribute in binary form, effectively
closing it). The FSF seeks to make all code open and free (speech)
forever, including any derivative works based on the GPLed code.
 
Old 10-06-2003, 04:18 AM   #11
finegan
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 5,700

Rep: Reputation: 65
The big thing most people forget about the other OSI licenses, say the BSD license, is that there's just no requirement for continuation of that license. So if a developer switches to a closed and proprietary license with their product, they can't retroactively close all the previous versions they released under the BSD license, they've just effectively forked their own project from that point. This is a loss to the OSS community somewhat, but anyone is free to take that last BSD release and then continue it and change the license to GPL if they feel like it. That's the coolest thing about the BSD license model, you can really do anything you want with it... hence why basically ever OS on the planet minus linux runs the basic BSD tcp/ip stack.

The BSDs are also, very much, bazaar projects. If you want to hack some C and assembly, the NetBSD guys would love it if you ported NetBSD to a 40th architecture for them... of course, all that's left really is iPods and HP printers... I've got a friend that writes documentation for OpenBSD, specifically for the Sparc port. The FreeBSD "thank you" page of code volunteers who have given a "substantial", in their terms, contribution of code, is pages and pages long.

I kinda thought of a cathedral OS software project though, Qt is almost entirely built by Trolltech, I don't think there's much outside envolvement. Someone correct me if I'm off on that one. I figure maybe Cups too, and the Cygwin project? There are quite a few OSS projects that were built from the ground up by companies that either open sourced them, like XFS and SGI (that has gotten very bazaar), or just built them as OS projects, like Cups... which I don't think gets hacked on by the outside much...

Cheers,

Finegan
 
Old 10-06-2003, 07:35 AM   #12
qanopus
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2002
Location: New York
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,358

Rep: Reputation: 45
If I were doing an project, I woulden't place it under an bsd like licence. Because it allows someone else to potentially make money from my hard work, without me (or the community at large for that matter) getting something in return for that.
Red Hat makes money inspite linux being released under the gpl, but the linux community benevits from red hat because they make there work available under the gpl, as is required.
You don't have that with an bsd like licence.
 
Old 10-06-2003, 06:43 PM   #13
vanquisher
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Hyderabad, India
Posts: 126

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by wapcaplet
Um. The cathedral represents the proprietary software development model used by Microsoft and most other commercial software companies.. It has nothing to do with RMS vs. ESR. Have you even read the essay?
I haven't read the other replies yet but wapcaplet, yes, I've read the essay...I got local copies of all ESR's works and I read them whenever I'm bored...From what I understood, the cathedral refers to the closed management style of RMS or say, FSF...and bazaar refers to the management style of hmmm....Linus...just keep adding the code, noone bothers to report the changes they made to the author/maintainer anymore...It's not the case with the cathedral style...when EMACS came out, RMS encouraged people to make their own changes but he wanted them to report back to him the changes as he was the offical keeper of those softwares/documents... That's what I got from cathedral and bazaar and faifzilla.org...also, I'd suggest a re-run of 'Revolution OS'...
Please let me know if i'm wrong...I welcome that
 
Old 10-06-2003, 07:11 PM   #14
wapcaplet
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 2,018

Rep: Reputation: 48
Quote:
Originally posted by vanquisher
I haven't read the other replies yet but wapcaplet, yes, I've read the essay...I got local copies of all ESR's works and I read them whenever I'm bored...From what I understood, the cathedral refers to the closed management style of RMS or say, FSF
OK, that makes sense, though it's not quite what I got from it. Sorry to be snappy earlier

I think finegan expressed it well in his earlier post. It's complicated, and could be interpreted in different ways. Schatoor's also right, proprietary (closed-source) software does not always follow the cathedral style of development, though it often does. And open-source software does not always follow the bazaar development style, though it often does (in part because the GPL seems to encourage the bazaar model).

To answer the original poll, though, I would definitely favor the bazaar model, not just for software but for any kind of collaborative development. So many good things have come of it; it seems to have the most potential to adapt and grow with technology and the needs of computer users, as well as the greatest potential to become stable, robust, powerful, and efficient. Wikipedia, for example, may not as yet be comparable in accuracy and completeness to "cathedral" encyclopedias like Britannica, but it has more growth and self-improvement capability. Bazaars can evolve; cathedrals, less so. To me that's the defining factor determining which one will survive in the long term.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BSD is not Linux debate lunarcloud_88 General 24 10-16-2005 03:02 PM
Software Engineering Debate abunsair General 5 07-16-2005 03:59 PM
Debate forum? zhangmaike LQ Suggestions & Feedback 5 05-06-2005 12:17 PM
PC vs. MAC vs. LINUX debate ? dolphans1 General 12 09-16-2004 02:34 AM
California Gov. Debate BajaNick General 4 09-25-2003 10:11 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:36 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration