“To those intimately involved with the Open Source process, such
delays are par for the course; the mantra seems to be that it’s
better to do the job right than to meet a seemingly arbitrary
deadline. Part of this mantra derives from the fact that many in
the Open Source community are safely ensconced in the cathedral and
don’t need to deal with the realities of the bazaar, where
deadlines do matter and sales cycles are set well-established.”
“These unplanned and unanticipated delays lead me to pose a
single question: has the breadth and complexity of high-profile
Linux/Open Source projects outstripped the Open Source
software-development process?”
“This is not an idle question. When the Linux kernel was
relatively simple, a small oligarchy of developers working on the
side could successfully oversee development. The same went for the
original Apache Web server — which had the advantage of building
on an existing code base — and the original KDE and GNOME
releases. This software fit within the UNIX ethos of creating
small, modular components that could be combined into a whole. And
thus was born the Open Source method of software development: an
oligarchy where a small group of talented developers worked with a
larger volunteer development community, using contributed code and
intense feedback to create an end product. It’s really not a
democratic process; think of the Open Source method of software
development as a large-scale peer review.”