logoalt Hacker News

layer8yesterday at 3:26 PM3 repliesview on HN

Not really. From the essay: “I had been preaching the Unix gospel of small tools, rapid prototyping and evolutionary programming for years. But I also believed there was a certain critical complexity above which a more centralized, a priori approach was required. I believed that the most important software (operating systems and really large tools like the Emacs programming editor) needed to be built like cathedrals, carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation, with no beta to be released before its time.”

So the Unix-philosophy small tools that constitute an important part of the GNU project are excluded. Rather, it’s about any programs of significant complexity, like Emacs (and likely GCC) and many commercial products. While the cathedral model doesn’t imply closed source, it implies building “in […] isolation”, rather than in the open. It may or may not remain proprietary and/or closed source.

Linux demonstrated to ESR that complex projects can also be built in the open with many collaborators, and don’t necessarily require the cathedral; which inspired the essay.


Replies

ghaffyesterday at 4:01 PM

The bottom line is that a lot of software types assume the cathedral vs. bazaar refers to closed source vs. open source and they’re simply wrong.

bandofthehawkyesterday at 3:32 PM

Originally "the GNU project" was supposed to be an operating system. That might be what the parent post was referencing.

show 1 reply
positron26yesterday at 5:01 PM

> Unix-philosophy small tools that constitute an important part of the GNU project

The statement you chose makes a carve-out for Unix, not GNU. It doesn't support "not really."

show 1 reply