Söderberg brings up the claim made by Eric Raymond about two opposed styles of development of free software (open resource): the cathedral and the bazaar (2016).
The Cathedral style is the conventional and closed development style. It is based on a central plan and has strict and specified rules. The way the software project work needs to obey a fairly hierarchical authoritarian manner. Much like a cathedral that has been elaborately designed out of people’s sight before it open. Think about the leading company Microsoft. It develops all its software using Cathedral model. The early phase of software development is dominant by cathedral style because only few companies like Microsoft has the resource. So they prefer to keep the commercial secret for their own sake. When Microsoft sold their computers, they provide their software free, which makes small software business hard to live and support their better inventions. It’s an economic model that the core technique held by upper elites and normal people have no choice but use and obey it. Accordingly, the release intervals are rather long because it takes more time to find out and fix problems if only a small group of people control the development.
On the contrary, the Bazaar model exposes the code to the public, and different developers collaborate to improve the software’s function. Linux and Apache are well-known examples. Compared to the problems of the cathedral model, this model fix bugs in a quick time by cooperation of different people. However, it also has problems of not stable and it is often not free.
John mentioned “tragedy of the commons” by Garrett Hardin and Elinor Ostrom’s rebuttal on it (2013). Hardin imagined a pasture open to all and supposed that everyone would bring their animals on and they would keep bringing more and would eventually overuse the commons. He noted that people in the commons would be trapped in this situation and could not get themselves out of this situation. And what Ostrom believes is that people can find ways of regulating themselves and agreeing on their common rules just as empirical cases have shown.
“Tragedy of the commons” reminds me of the climate change and greenhouse effect we are going through on this planet. Every person think the earth is an open resource. Even if we save the resource ourselves, we think there will always be others overuse it. Under the idea that the commons belong to all of us, we don’t want others to use more than us, then we use a lot as well. And it is upset when we feel our effort to save the environment useless comparing to the huge amount of waste and destroy.
But people also come together and find ways to deal with environmental problems, like they set up the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). And just like Ostrom found out cases that contradict with the tragedy, I think people can find solutions to save our planet as well.