I think what the commenter meant was the cathedral vs the bazaar model of development. Would'nt FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc all be in the same boat as Linux? Granted that Linux has a benevolent-dictator-aka-linus, but that does not make it deviate too much from the bazaar model.
Most other kernel development teams operate with a considerably more conservative approach ("the cathedral") than is engendered by Linux and specifically enabled by dvcs/git ("the bazaar").
In Eric Raymond's essay, he contrasted the two development models as such (quoting wikipedia):
The Cathedral model, in which source code is available
with each software release, but code developed between
releases is restricted to an exclusive group of software
developers. GNU Emacs and GCC are presented as examples.
The Bazaar model, in which the code is developed over
the Internet in view of the public. Raymond credits
Linus Torvalds, leader of the Linux kernel project, as
the inventor of this process. Raymond also provides
anecdotal accounts of his own implementation of
this model for the Fetchmail project.
I'd say just about every other kernel available today is developed in "the cathedral", although even then I think that Raymond's comparison (and judgments) are a vast oversimplification.
For all its flaws, git (and github) are becoming the preferred choice of hackers everywhere
Some very vocal people, but not what I'd say "hackers everywhere". As a regularly user of hg and git, I'm not particularly convinced that dvcs provides significantly compelling advantages outside of Linux's development model.
If any, Solaris is the only counter-example to Linux - not FreeBSD.
If any, Solaris is the only counter-example to Linux - not FreeBSD.
>I'm not sure why you'd say that is.
That was my attempt at classifying the corporate umbrella of Solaris to be THE cathedral vs the bazaar of Linux ... and, as you say, the middle ground of FreeBSD.
I dont have context here, but it was very surprising to read your comment about FreeBSD being closer to the cathedral model. I was aware of GCC and Emacs being unapologetically so, but I thought BSD had a more open development model - the myriad flavors of BSD being a proof of that.
Most other kernel development teams operate with a considerably more conservative approach ("the cathedral") than is engendered by Linux and specifically enabled by dvcs/git ("the bazaar").
In Eric Raymond's essay, he contrasted the two development models as such (quoting wikipedia):
The Cathedral model, in which source code is available with each software release, but code developed between releases is restricted to an exclusive group of software developers. GNU Emacs and GCC are presented as examples.
The Bazaar model, in which the code is developed over the Internet in view of the public. Raymond credits Linus Torvalds, leader of the Linux kernel project, as the inventor of this process. Raymond also provides anecdotal accounts of his own implementation of this model for the Fetchmail project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar
I'd say just about every other kernel available today is developed in "the cathedral", although even then I think that Raymond's comparison (and judgments) are a vast oversimplification.
For all its flaws, git (and github) are becoming the preferred choice of hackers everywhere
Some very vocal people, but not what I'd say "hackers everywhere". As a regularly user of hg and git, I'm not particularly convinced that dvcs provides significantly compelling advantages outside of Linux's development model.
If any, Solaris is the only counter-example to Linux - not FreeBSD.
I'm not sure why you'd say that is.