| 1 |
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 14:24:39 -0500 |
| 2 |
Barry Schwartz <chemoelectric@×××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Someone has to write an apocalyptic novel about Linus Torvalds being |
| 6 |
> > assassinated and his role taken over by the evil figures from ???. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I’m simply concerned that one day he will retire. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
We are now going into a completely different area. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
But to proceed we have to understand the psychology which underlies |
| 14 |
open source development. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
In open source, ideally, there is no money involved. (I ignore |
| 17 |
those who are on some corporate payroll.) What then is the motivation |
| 18 |
to produce and develop open source software? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It is EGO which drives open source. Let there be no denying. Open |
| 21 |
source developers obtain their primary satisfaction by showing off |
| 22 |
their programming prowess. They want to be well known and famous |
| 23 |
for their programming achievements. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
When Torvalds steps out of the picture, for whatever reason, the |
| 26 |
void will be filled by ego maniacs who want to claim the title |
| 27 |
of Prime Linux Guru. Linus is Top Dog Numero Uno now, but we |
| 28 |
can imagine that all his subordinates eagerly crave his status |
| 29 |
and there will be great contention among them to be enthroned |
| 30 |
in his place when he is gone. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I predict, if this were to happen, that Linux would transform into |
| 33 |
the personal toy of its egotistical developers. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Of course, we would also have to anticipate the gabbing (or buying) |
| 36 |
of Linux by big corporate interests. In this case, the market forces |
| 37 |
surrounding the "lowest common denominator" would be the guiding |
| 38 |
principle of development. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
In either case we would have degeneration. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> We cannot rely on the programming community to do the right thing. We |
| 44 |
> are, for instance, sticking canaries on the stack while continuing to |
| 45 |
> write crucial software like OpenSSL entirely in languages that |
| 46 |
> _guarantee_ buffer overruns; and the programmer will continue to be |
| 47 |
> blamed, instead of the practices. (Those who care may want to check |
| 48 |
> out www.ats-lang.org for a practical alternative to C, suitable even |
| 49 |
> for writing kernel modules.) |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
How difficult would it be to introduce bounds checking on all |
| 53 |
C arrays as with some other languages? Would bounds checking |
| 54 |
reduce the efficiency and speed of C, as these are probably |
| 55 |
its most desired characteristics? C is essentially only one |
| 56 |
small step away from machine language and that's why it's |
| 57 |
preferred for systems programming. |
Archives