Sorry for this highly offtopic/political and nontechnical reply. Please don't hate me ;).
>The decision about when to merge a new feature is hard for some to understand. Many consider
Linux a dictatorship, which is incorrect, it is instead "a democracy that doesn't vote". The
merge decision is made on the model of the "rule of law" with kernel hackers playing the role
of judges. Unfortunately, there are few written rules.
I'm not a native english speaker, so i might be reading it wrong. But the above paragraph does
seem a bit "loaded" (In lack of a better word).
Don't claim that some thing is hard to understand "for some". That's arrogant? Especially
since the author seems to understand, from the following sentence(s):
>Many consider linux a dictatorship, which is incorrect, it is a "democracy that doesn't
That's a phrase coming from a dictator defending himself ;). At the least the argument "that's
incorrect" certainly doesn't make it easy to understand.
>The merge decision is made on the model of the "rule of law" with kernel hackers playing the
role of judges. Unfortunately, there are few written rules.
A democracy with no voting and judges that have no rules. Don't claim the linux model is a
democracy then, it obviously isn't. Democracy should more or less be equivalent to "Majority
rules" - when you don't vote how can majority rule? Explain why the model works for linux
Being a dictatorship does not have to be bad. As long as people are free to go their own way
and leave(fork) it counters the arbitrary power of maintainers for the specific project(with
Even though the consensus is that linus is a benevolent dictator. Which is my claim, google is
my reference ;). Maybe it's more of an an oligarchy today with many more maintainers.