2005-03-16

Anything is something if everything is whatever

Every criticism I've ever seen written about Linux can be summarized in one of two ways:
  1. Linux is useless and technically inferior to my favorite OS. All hail the hypnotoad!
  2. Whatever is key if Linux is to something. Whatever will be the driving force behind adoption of something. And only something can provide Linux with the needed momentum to become whatever to whoever wants something. A fundamental paradigm shift is underway which could mean whatever is something to someone who something wasn't important whenever.
What if...Linux isn't about being everything to everyone? What if...Linux doesn't care about pleasing outsiders? What if...Linux isn't about being better than other software? Maybe...all those things are simply side effects of a healthy community.

What is the single most important feature of GNU and Linux over all other operating systems? A thriving community of developers and users who interact with each other as peers freely exchanging information and ideas. This is what Eric Raymond calls the bazaar. This type of peer-to-peer collaboration truly didn't exist in computer software before Linus Torvalds introduced it with Linux. This sort of environment can only develop in a free and open society of sufficient size.

Until you've been in the bazaar you can't understand the power it wields. Those outside are doomed to stand there forever pointing and making snide remarks about how it will never work. All the while they don't realize that it's been working all along. And since they aren't in the bazaar their needs will never be met. A few wander in but don't realize that merely standing in the middle of the bazaar doesn't make them part of it.

Those who stand idly by will find themselves ignored. The first reaction of many newcomers is to barge in and demand satisfaction. To their dismay they are consigned to blacklists and never spoken with again.

To be sure, other operating systems have their communities. The proprietary operating systems simply don't afford users the ability to interact with developers on a meaningful level. And the developers of other "open source" operating systems dominate their users and keep information tightly controlled. Then there's that fruit-flavored operating system which combines both proprietary and open source software in a way that keeps people from wanting to get involved.

What's the difference? Apathy. The Linux community encourages users and developers to work toward solutions to specific problems. Users of operating systems that follow proprietary and (cathedral-like) closed development models are largely content to sit on their hands hoping someone will eventually fix all of their problems for them. Never do they consider that no one knows about nor cares about their problems. There are two ways to get a problem fixed: fix it yourself or make someone else care enough about the problem to fix it. (e.g. pay them to fix it, ask them nicely to fix it, etc)

Labels: