Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open Source is not immune to monopoly

humancode.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Open Source is not immune to monopoly

#11

Post by inigyou »

bugjoey wrote: post #8

His/her confusion about economic systems and political systems is sad. And monopoly is not tied to capitalism. Anyway, Linux is a technocracy. Actually, a technical meritocracy to be more precise, rather than economic or political dominance.

As you grow up you learn there's no such thing as a technical meritocracy. Linux is the dictator because he has political dominance. Part of why he has that is technical competency, but most of it is because he created the project (which requires technical competency) and never fucked it up enough to lose that inertia.

Re: Open Source is not immune to monopoly

#12

Post by mpyne »

inigyou wrote: post #10
mpyne wrote: post #6

The Linux kernel isn't even a monopoly though.... FreeBSD, OpenBSD, heck even ReactOS are all things you can use and make better instead. No one is forcing you to use Linux any more than anyone is forcing you to use Windows or macOS.

Great analogy because Windows was officially declared to be a monopoly once.

At the time that may even have been true, there was essentially nothing else for personal computer usage, and there were no alternate form factors like mobile.

But even there the issue wasn't the existence of monopoly per se, but with the (ab)use of the monopoly to also capture the emerging Internet browser market.

Re: Open Source is not immune to monopoly

#13

Post by inigyou »

mpyne wrote: post #12
inigyou wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great analogy because Windows was officially declared to be a monopoly once.

At the time that may even have been true, there was essentially nothing else for personal computer usage, and there were no alternate form factors like mobile. But even there the issue wasn't the existence of monopoly per se, but with the (ab)use of the monopoly to also capture the emerging Internet browser market.

Don't move the goalposts. You agree it was a monopoly.

Re: Open Source is not immune to monopoly

#14

Post by mpyne »

inigyou wrote: post #13
mpyne wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the time that may even have been true, there was essentially nothing else for personal computer usage, and there were no alternate form factors like mobile. But even there the issue wasn't the existence of monopoly per se, but with the (ab)use of the monopoly to also capture the emerging Internet browser market.

Don't move the goalposts. You agree it was a monopoly.

Sure. Until it wasn't.

Even if Linux was a monopoly that would not necessarily be the case for ever, as the example of the Windows monopoly demonstrates. But Linux isn't even a monopoly today.

Re: Open Source is not immune to monopoly

#15

Post by inigyou »

mpyne wrote: post #14
inigyou wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't move the goalposts. You agree it was a monopoly.

Sure. Until it wasn't. Even if Linux was a monopoly that would not necessarily be the case for ever, as the example of the Windows monopoly demonstrates. But Linux isn't even a monopoly today.

Linux already isn't a monopoly because it isn't something that is sold. The correct word should be monoculture.

Re: Open Source is not immune to monopoly

#16

Post by mpyne »

inigyou wrote: post #15
mpyne wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Until it wasn't. Even if Linux was a monopoly that would not necessarily be the case for ever, as the example of the Windows monopoly demonstrates. But Linux isn't even a monopoly today.

Linux already isn't a monopoly because it isn't something that is sold. The correct word should be monoculture.

People absolutely will sell you Linux, and they make a lot of money in the process.

I'm not even sure I'd describe it as a monoculture either, if it was that would probably have accelerated its growth even more. Imagine where Linux would be if it were like FreeBSD in having only one distro, one libc, one set of system libs.

You're starting to see it as a server backend lingua franca but even there, there are multitudes. And there remain a great number of organizations that run on one of the BSDs, Windows, old mainframe OS, and so on.

Re: Open Source is not immune to monopoly

#17

Post by bugjoey »

inigyou wrote: post #11
bugjoey wrote: post #8

His/her confusion about economic systems and political systems is sad. And monopoly is not tied to capitalism. Anyway, Linux is a technocracy. Actually, a technical meritocracy to be more precise, rather than economic or political dominance.

As you grow up you learn there's no such thing as a technical meritocracy. Linux is the dictator because he has political dominance. Part of why he has that is technical competency, but most of it is because he created the project (which requires technical competency) and never fucked it up enough to lose that inertia.

There's a tech meritocracy there. I used to work in a submodule and the meritocracy was clear: beginner -> builds reputation -> solid contributor -> sub|co|maintainer. Linus's role was largely transparent, merging contributions rather than dictating them. I only saw emails from him when our changes broke other parts of the system.
Post reply on HN