But why?
In a word, competition.
In any competition, whether between organizations, between competing independent extended orders (i.e., economies), or between organizations on the one hand and extended orders on the other, whichever one ends up having and being able to support the most group members wins.
The extended order known as OSS is already competing with organizations, of which Microsoft is certainly one. OSS is winning to the extent that it is taking the time of developers away from their respective organizations and the Windows platform.
And I think OSS in some form will win, because in any complex task, of which software development is one, social orders based on voluntary cooperation have certain inherent advantages over social orders based on organization. A spontaneous, voluntary order is far more able to handle complex, highly detailed tasks than is a top-down command structure for the simple reason that the Fearless Leader of the latter simply cannot know all of the details necessary to the efficient performance of highly complex tasks.
But OSS also has some serious longterm weaknesses. For one thing, there is no way to make sure the people who do the work get paid. Hence most people inherently will not be able to give OSS development their undivided attention; they still have to get a day job.
I think having a competing extended order based around Windows will force OSS's weaknesses to the fore, where they can be addressed, either by adapting OSS or by people migrating to something different. |
