6 ms·

On the one hand, if you grew up in the baazzar, moving to the cathedral might feel like the "death of open source" even if it is really just a return to an earl

On the one hand, if you grew up in the baazzar, moving to the cathedral might feel like the "death of open source" even if it is really just a return to an earlier way of working. On the other hand, while not accepting external code contributions will certainly improve their security posture it will also make it more difficult to identify who to invite to join the priesthood.

anilakar 3mo ago
If you grew up in a junkyard, getting adjusted to the social norms of a bazaar might feel like your way of life is being threatened.
- cassianoleal 3mo ago
  In your analogy, is the junkyard the development model of vibe coding? I look forward to the book: The Cathedral, The Bazaar and The Junkyard.
  - pelagicAustral 3mo ago
    fwiw I asked Claude to look at GP's post and write me a story titled "The Cathedral, the bazaar and the junkyard" and I have a pretty good time reading his riff.
    - multjoy 3mo ago
      “Its riff”
      - pelagicAustral 3mo ago
        You're absolutely right...
javawizard 3mo ago
> it will also make it more difficult to identify who to invite to join the priesthood The point that this announcement is trying to make is, of course, that AI has already made that particular signal approximately worthless for that purpose.
Yokohiii 3mo ago
Open source development has become more and more superficial aligning with modern social network characteristics. It's more important to have an contribution, a active commit history, a few stars as a proof of pixel fame than the intrinsic value of the contributions or projects. Before the rise of github, open source projects were heavily walled gardens. Little clubs that gave you a stare when you entered the room. Github commoditized getting in touch and lowered the barrier for how much effort you have to put in or even how much you have to care before you contribute. This is gone now and you have to build trust now before you can contribute to anything. This isn't the death of open source. It's the death of the global village were everybody can freely roam and it's easy to interact. It's the resurrection of small, social, trusted communities. I hope this spreads to all of the internet.
- appreciatorBus 3mo ago
  Yes. Open source existed and thrived before GitHub, before git, and before anyone had ever used the words “pull request“. It was different, to be sure, but it was not worse. We are living through a transition, but people do that all the time and we adjust our behaviour and we find new equilibriums. We will do that with open source too, and if it ends up looking more like open source in the 80s or 90s, it’s gonna be fine. Maybe some people who got really good at gaming their Github reputation are going to lose out, but that was never the point. Anyone who likes this kind of work and wants to get involved will find a way.
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
- thewebguyd 3mo ago
  > I hope this spreads to all of the internet. It is. Unfortunately, its not happening with open platforms. Communities are migrating to private discord servers, and less is discussed in public/in the open. I think we should still separate "working in the open" from "allowing or not outside contributions." Outside contributions are fine to be denied, however I think work and discussions should still more or less happen in the open for the benefit of all. One day discord will cease to be, and there will be years of institutional knowledge and lore lost. I much prefer the old school forum style. Forums could be locked down to be invite only to contribute, but for the most part were still world readable.
smartmic 3mo ago
There are great Open Source projects doing fine with the cathedral style, just look at Sqlite and its siblings (Fossil, …). So I do not see a problem with Ladybirds decision, in contrary, IMHO it strengthens the human aspect of software development and puts the brakes on AI free riders
- gbalduzzi 3mo ago
  I still don't see solutions on how a normal person can become a mantainer though. If all relevant open source projects close up their contributions, you can't enter the project anymore from an external point of view. Almost all open-source public figures started by being interested in a project and submitting PR to it, until eventually either joining the project as core mantainer or creating a separate open source project. The path is now closed, and I don't see a way in, outside of creating a popular open source yourself
  - smartmic 3mo ago
    The path is not closed; it must be earned through trust. It has always been this way. Also, note that "pull requests" are a GitHub invention; the concept is not native to Git or most other SCM systems. Before, you would have to submit your patch by email. It would be reviewed by the "maintainer" (or BDFL), who would then accept or reject it. If your contributions are accepted several times, you may be able to earn the rank of "maintainer." Returning to the topic at hand, the challenge for new developers is to earn trust. I bet there are ways to do so aside from the muddy swamp of GitHub's (AI) bazaar.
    - fc417fc802 3mo ago
      The amusing thing is that emailed patches and a listserv aren't actually all that different from github pull requests at the end of the day. In either case you're sending some code you wrote along to a group and asking them to look over it. The only real difference is the lack of a familiar web interface that's uniform across all projects and reduces friction to near zero, but emailing a patch hardly adds much friction in practice. I think the primary difference is that it removes some of the incentive to status seek because there's no centralized network operator tracking contributions and displaying them on your profile for others to look at. That said, the linked post explicitly says that Ladybird won't be accepting emailed patches, reviewing changes from downstream forks, or anything else. Hopefully that's not the case since entirely closing off the project would probably be an overreaction as well as jeopardize its future.
CodeCompost 3mo ago
> it more difficult to identify who to invite to join the priesthood. How about this. Somebody forks the project and submits their patches to the fork . If the fork is successful (there are users actively using it), upstream can selectively go fish for the patches themselves. The maintainer of the fork eventually gets recognized. Not ideal, I know, but building a reputation is meant to take time.
- thewebguyd 3mo ago
  I think whats more likely to happen is patches & forks stop being shared. If AI continues to improve, I see a world where people are mostly no longer making software for others, but purely for themselves. I've done it, personally. I've made all kinds of little utilities for myself kind of like a woodworker making their own jigs. While not purely "vibe coded," AI has let me actually finish a ton of personal projects that have been in my "eh, maybe I'll get to that someday" list. Now that there is very low marginal cost to make these tools, they can be highly specific, and they aren't all that useful to others unless someone else has the exact same problem as me, and well if so they can try to vibe code their own tool. We'll get to a point where most of the open source projects are reserved for large scale infrastructure, as a cathedral not a bazaar, and then the vast majority of end-user level software will be highly personalized, custom utilities that generally aren't shared.
- InfiniteRand 3mo ago
  This is also an option with AI patches, if your AI contribution is good enough, let it get proven in use, and then it can be considered naturally as the developers of the original project look at what's going on with similar projects.
Sharlin 3mo ago
I’m never getting accustomed to the fact that there’s now an entire generation of coders who have never seen a world where "everything" is open-source and developed in the bazaar style (are people these days even aware of the metaphor or Raymond’s book?), a world in which the frigging Microsoft is a major OSS vendor and in charge of facilitating most of the open-source programming on the planet. Try explaining that to a time traveler from the late 90. (Also, as a sibling comment implied, the archetypal "bazaars", like the Linux kernel project, now appear quite cathedral-like in conparison to the free-for-all GitHub model!)
- dcrazy 3mo ago
  I’m confused, when has “everything” been a bazaar, and when did that cease to be?
  - throawayonthe 3mo ago
    of course not literally 'everything', but as someone that grew up in a post-git world, with github as the 'default', to me projects that don't accept (or expect!) outside contributions have been the exception; definitely aware of notable examples (sqlite? some web servers, a few internal-libraries-that-outsiders-use?) but very much used to the bazaar i think the claim is that more projects are locking up contribution paths ~currently
  - Sharlin 3mo ago
    Umm, I missed a negation there, sorry. I meant that the newest generation has only seen a world where there's a giant OSS ecosystem and the bazaar style is the norm for all of your tool and library needs.
    - dcrazy 3mo ago
      Okay that makes way more sense. It seems especially applicable to web frontend, where everything seems to have been developed out in the open.
- Sharlin 3mo ago
nonethewiser 3mo ago
How many people will ask to be a "priest" and will then violate the rules around AI? I suspect if you exclude by default but have a manual process for requesting access and permissive standards for granting access, you can eliminate most of the bullshit without really excluding anyone.

anilakar 3mo ago

If you grew up in a junkyard, getting adjusted to the social norms of a bazaar might feel like your way of life is being threatened.

cassianoleal 3mo ago
In your analogy, is the junkyard the development model of vibe coding? I look forward to the book: The Cathedral, The Bazaar and The Junkyard.
- pelagicAustral 3mo ago
  fwiw I asked Claude to look at GP's post and write me a story titled "The Cathedral, the bazaar and the junkyard" and I have a pretty good time reading his riff.
  - multjoy 3mo ago
    “Its riff”
    - pelagicAustral 3mo ago
      You're absolutely right...

javawizard 3mo ago

> it will also make it more difficult to identify who to invite to join the priesthood The point that this announcement is trying to make is, of course, that AI has already made that particular signal approximately worthless for that purpose.

Yokohiii 3mo ago

Open source development has become more and more superficial aligning with modern social network characteristics. It's more important to have an contribution, a active commit history, a few stars as a proof of pixel fame than the intrinsic value of the contributions or projects. Before the rise of github, open source projects were heavily walled gardens. Little clubs that gave you a stare when you entered the room. Github commoditized getting in touch and lowered the barrier for how much effort you have to put in or even how much you have to care before you contribute. This is gone now and you have to build trust now before you can contribute to anything. This isn't the death of open source. It's the death of the global village were everybody can freely roam and it's easy to interact. It's the resurrection of small, social, trusted communities. I hope this spreads to all of the internet.

appreciatorBus 3mo ago
Yes. Open source existed and thrived before GitHub, before git, and before anyone had ever used the words “pull request“. It was different, to be sure, but it was not worse. We are living through a transition, but people do that all the time and we adjust our behaviour and we find new equilibriums. We will do that with open source too, and if it ends up looking more like open source in the 80s or 90s, it’s gonna be fine. Maybe some people who got really good at gaming their Github reputation are going to lose out, but that was never the point. Anyone who likes this kind of work and wants to get involved will find a way.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
thewebguyd 3mo ago
> I hope this spreads to all of the internet. It is. Unfortunately, its not happening with open platforms. Communities are migrating to private discord servers, and less is discussed in public/in the open. I think we should still separate "working in the open" from "allowing or not outside contributions." Outside contributions are fine to be denied, however I think work and discussions should still more or less happen in the open for the benefit of all. One day discord will cease to be, and there will be years of institutional knowledge and lore lost. I much prefer the old school forum style. Forums could be locked down to be invite only to contribute, but for the most part were still world readable.

smartmic 3mo ago

There are great Open Source projects doing fine with the cathedral style, just look at Sqlite and its siblings (Fossil, …). So I do not see a problem with Ladybirds decision, in contrary, IMHO it strengthens the human aspect of software development and puts the brakes on AI free riders

gbalduzzi 3mo ago
I still don't see solutions on how a normal person can become a mantainer though. If all relevant open source projects close up their contributions, you can't enter the project anymore from an external point of view. Almost all open-source public figures started by being interested in a project and submitting PR to it, until eventually either joining the project as core mantainer or creating a separate open source project. The path is now closed, and I don't see a way in, outside of creating a popular open source yourself
- smartmic 3mo ago
  The path is not closed; it must be earned through trust. It has always been this way. Also, note that "pull requests" are a GitHub invention; the concept is not native to Git or most other SCM systems. Before, you would have to submit your patch by email. It would be reviewed by the "maintainer" (or BDFL), who would then accept or reject it. If your contributions are accepted several times, you may be able to earn the rank of "maintainer." Returning to the topic at hand, the challenge for new developers is to earn trust. I bet there are ways to do so aside from the muddy swamp of GitHub's (AI) bazaar.
  - fc417fc802 3mo ago
    The amusing thing is that emailed patches and a listserv aren't actually all that different from github pull requests at the end of the day. In either case you're sending some code you wrote along to a group and asking them to look over it. The only real difference is the lack of a familiar web interface that's uniform across all projects and reduces friction to near zero, but emailing a patch hardly adds much friction in practice. I think the primary difference is that it removes some of the incentive to status seek because there's no centralized network operator tracking contributions and displaying them on your profile for others to look at. That said, the linked post explicitly says that Ladybird won't be accepting emailed patches, reviewing changes from downstream forks, or anything else. Hopefully that's not the case since entirely closing off the project would probably be an overreaction as well as jeopardize its future.

CodeCompost 3mo ago

> it more difficult to identify who to invite to join the priesthood. How about this. Somebody forks the project and submits their patches to the fork . If the fork is successful (there are users actively using it), upstream can selectively go fish for the patches themselves. The maintainer of the fork eventually gets recognized. Not ideal, I know, but building a reputation is meant to take time.

thewebguyd 3mo ago
I think whats more likely to happen is patches & forks stop being shared. If AI continues to improve, I see a world where people are mostly no longer making software for others, but purely for themselves. I've done it, personally. I've made all kinds of little utilities for myself kind of like a woodworker making their own jigs. While not purely "vibe coded," AI has let me actually finish a ton of personal projects that have been in my "eh, maybe I'll get to that someday" list. Now that there is very low marginal cost to make these tools, they can be highly specific, and they aren't all that useful to others unless someone else has the exact same problem as me, and well if so they can try to vibe code their own tool. We'll get to a point where most of the open source projects are reserved for large scale infrastructure, as a cathedral not a bazaar, and then the vast majority of end-user level software will be highly personalized, custom utilities that generally aren't shared.
InfiniteRand 3mo ago
This is also an option with AI patches, if your AI contribution is good enough, let it get proven in use, and then it can be considered naturally as the developers of the original project look at what's going on with similar projects.

Sharlin 3mo ago

I’m never getting accustomed to the fact that there’s now an entire generation of coders who have never seen a world where "everything" is open-source and developed in the bazaar style (are people these days even aware of the metaphor or Raymond’s book?), a world in which the frigging Microsoft is a major OSS vendor and in charge of facilitating most of the open-source programming on the planet. Try explaining that to a time traveler from the late 90. (Also, as a sibling comment implied, the archetypal "bazaars", like the Linux kernel project, now appear quite cathedral-like in conparison to the free-for-all GitHub model!)

dcrazy 3mo ago
I’m confused, when has “everything” been a bazaar, and when did that cease to be?
- throawayonthe 3mo ago
  of course not literally 'everything', but as someone that grew up in a post-git world, with github as the 'default', to me projects that don't accept (or expect!) outside contributions have been the exception; definitely aware of notable examples (sqlite? some web servers, a few internal-libraries-that-outsiders-use?) but very much used to the bazaar i think the claim is that more projects are locking up contribution paths ~currently
- Sharlin 3mo ago
  Umm, I missed a negation there, sorry. I meant that the newest generation has only seen a world where there's a giant OSS ecosystem and the bazaar style is the norm for all of your tool and library needs.
  - dcrazy 3mo ago
    Okay that makes way more sense. It seems especially applicable to web frontend, where everything seems to have been developed out in the open.
Sharlin 3mo ago

nonethewiser 3mo ago

How many people will ask to be a "priest" and will then violate the rules around AI? I suspect if you exclude by default but have a manual process for requesting access and permissive standards for granting access, you can eliminate most of the bullshit without really excluding anyone.