In his thought provoking paper, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar",
Eric Raymond has proposed a model for understanding the creation
of open source software. Even Netscape, a major commercial software
player, has consigned the further development of its browser to
the workings of the "Bazaar".
While the "Bazaar" model identifies many mechanisms of successful
open source development, it does not expose the dynamics. Eric
explains that a major motivator for building open source software
is the attention and credit paid to its developers. Strong as
this force is, other factors must be examined which motivate the
attention seeking and attention paying on such a large scale and
in such an organized fashion.
To understand the dynamics of the "Bazaar", you must examine the
forces which impel alternative software movements including open
source software, free software, and, in general, community software.
These forces resemble those of a storm. In a storm, a complex
weather pattern appears chaotic locally but is really a well organized
pattern of forces and conditions when viewed from a high enough
vantage point. Linux and indeed the entire Internet can be viewed
as patterns in a global information storm.
So what are these forces and conditions? First, every wide spread
alternative social movement requires a powerful, even obvious,
impetus against which to react: in the Reformation it was the
Roman Catholic Church. In the early days of the Internet, it was
IBM and mainframe hegemony. Today it is Microsoft. Just as the
German Reformation enfranchised specific groups previously disaffected
(specifically, Luther and the German princes), the Internet empowered
individuals and groups previously outside the traditionally well
funded technocracy that supported and in turn was nurtured by
IBM. Linux has been propelled by the same forces. Currently, a
major share of commercial software resources is concentrated around
Microsoft products like a large low pressure area. However, such
a coalescence of power and influence disenfranchises many for
whom high cost and restrictive licenses (lack of freedom really)
prevent full and easy access to computing resources. So alternative
paths are sought. Like the weather, alternatives may appear randomly
and then dissipate. Typically, an additional sustaining force,
an opposing low pressure area, is required. For Luther this pressure
was provided by the German princes, for the early days of the
Internet it was provided by ARPA, and for Linux, it has been provided
by the Internet community itself. In the case of Linux, the Internet
community desperately needed a competent OS platform. AT&T
had shut out many Unix users with restrictive licenses and high
fees. UC Berkeley had crippled BSD by removing all vendor proprietary
code which adapted it to the underlying hardware: you could study
it but not run it! Many saw a potential in Andy Tanenbaum's Minix
to counterbalance an increasingly unfree Unix. But Minix was incomplete,
did not have critical mass and its source distribution became
too restrictive. These conditions inspired the community OS effort,
initially derived from Minix, which produced Linux. Linux became
readily available and increasingly capable. When it aligned with
FSF licensing and could support the powerful GNU tools as well
as run on a wide range of inexpensive hardware, a truly useful
operating system platform was born. The Internet community finally
had a way to run a fully networked Unix cheaply and reliably with
no strings attached.
Linux appeared almost randomly on the scene but quickly gathered
into a well organized storm because it had a powerful force to
react against. It also had a sponsor.
Therefore, the Linux "Bazaar" is not simply a loose collection
of vendors and other proponents, motivated only by mutual recognition.
The "Bazaar" really operates on a larger stage. When forces of
the larger stage organize around a dominant restrictive group,
a reactionary force is generated in the remaining community. Over
time, this reactive force propels various alternatives. If one
or more of these alternatives can find support (the Internet community
in the case of Linux), then a new "movement" is born which is
sustained and even enriched by the powerful forces of the larger
stage. Ironically the more dominant Microsoft becomes, the more
powerful the reactive forces become, and the more fuel is fed
to movements such as Linux. If an unencumbered BSD had been available
earlier running on inexpensive Intel hardware, BSD might have
become the seed for this storm. But the same drama would have
unfolded: thesis and antithesis on a dialectic stage whose imperative
will persist until Microsoft runs out of energy or dissipates
its focus. Microsoft has only to look over its shoulder at the
cycle of hegemony and superannuation revealed by a once almost
omnipotent old technocrat: IBM.