Open Source Is Not Immune to Monopoly: Breaking Up Monoliths
Recent controversies involving Linus Torvalds highlight how massive Open Source Software projects can evolve into monopolies where leadership behaves like a single entity. When a project becomes too monolithic to fork, it stifles competition. The solution lies in breaking these giants into smaller, interoperable components, much like the UNIX philosophy, to ensure the ecosystem remains healthy and resilient against anticompetitive practices.
When an organization or project becomes 'too big to fail', that is a sure sign that it should be broken into smaller pieces, and that includes OSS.
- hacker_homie
I get where you are coming from, I assume most of the "code" in the linux kernel is driver code?
That being the case my understanding is splitting this project up is not only a technical challenge but a legal one.
You could make a common API for driver code, this would make the main driving force of linux much weaker.
Nvidia tried to stay out of tree for years and was dragged kicking and screaming upstream because they needed the reliability.
I'm saying the very thing you are calling out as a problem is currently what is forcing everyone contribute to the mainline kernel.
Without centralized leader ship the facturing of the linux kernel would be a disaster.
- doppp
Think OP is confused as to what a monopoly and a benevolent dictatorship is.
- knighthack
How you started completely disqualified whatever the author of the article argues next:
"...The recent fiasco involving Linus Torvalds running Linux like the privileged man that he is and entirely missing the central points of the arguments made by people who don't enjoy his kind of privilege..."
It was his 'privilege' that led to the technical competency of the project that is now enjoyed by many.
Attacking someone's 'privilege' is the lowest form of argument.