My answer to this question was clarified when I read an article called "Is Linus killing Linux?" This piece, which has already stirred up i ts share of controversy, assembles a broad assortment of old-school projections onto the Linux development process, and shows a lack of understanding of how or why Linux came to be.
Indeed, the saving grace of this piece is that it offers so much for me to shoot down at one time.
The story follows an e-mail interview that the author, Paula Rooney, had with Linus Torvalds. In the interview, Linus didn't show proper homage to the media and Linux's corporate "friends," telling Rooney "you ask the wrong questions" and answering many of her questions with dismissals such as "what will be will be." As a result, Rooney's piece wondered aloud whether Linus, Linux's creator and chief cat-herder, was its worst enemy.
We should all be cursed with such enemies.
The article questions whether Torvalds, as a single individual not beholden to any major Linux vendor, is still qualified to lead the project. The article includes quotes suggesting that a non-profit, multi-vendor group of some sort be founded to steer Linux's future direction. But the piece contains no rebuttal, even though an opposing view would have been easy to find. Torvalds even gives one in the interview. But since opposing views were not offered, I maintain that the article was commentary masquerading as news.
Most open source enthusiasts shudder at the thought of institutionalizing Linux development. Of course it would never happen, because in Linux's development model the leadership mandate comes from the developers, not from a management body.
Indeed, one could argue that this is why Linux and other open source projects attract so many volunteer programmers. Highly talented individuals enjoy working in a meritocracy where decisions are made for what they consider to be the right reasons. You know that if one of your ideas is rejected by Linus, it's for purely technical and not for political or marketing reasons.
Rooney's two pieces reveal the worst fears of those who still can't grasp the Linux enigma, and who are scared to death of the fact that Linux has come as far as it has with the "major players" offering nothing more than supporting roles. In Linux the inmates run the asylum, and the would-be wardens are mortified. If this isn't a disruptive technology, what is?
By and large, most Linux developers like the way Linux is progressing, and are comfortable with its pace. While developers certainly might have liked the 2.4 kernel to come out sooner, there's no wringing of hands on the issue as there was in media or analyst circles.
Are IBM and other vendors getting their say in Linux development? Sure, but as team players, not dictators. The recent creation of the Open Source Development Lab offers a textbook example of how vendors can influence development -- by funding open source advancements in technology intended to be so good that Linus won't be able to turn them down. But, no matter how many sugar daddies such a lab has or how rich they are, if its work doesn't make sense to go into Linux, it won't go in. If someone doesn't like Linus' decisions they're welcome to roll their own -- but the fact that so little kernel forking has been done so far indicates that even the big boys respect the process. They know they can't control Linux -- but then neither can any other single player, and that is Linux's ultimate victory.
Maybe some analysts will never get Linux; certainly, its aims are harder to understand than those of commercial product vendors. Linux plays by a different set of rules, yet it is attracting many conventional players anyway. To me, this is what's truly disruptive.
Do you think Linux is a disruptive technology? Tell Evan in the TalkBack below or in the ZDNet Linux Forum. Or write to Evan directly at evan@starnix.com.
