The Cathedral and the Bazaar
Eric Steven Raymond
cf text and copyright at: www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings
Abstract
I anatomize a successful open-source project, fetchmail, thatwas run as a deliberate test of some surprising theories about
so=ware engineering suggested by the history of Linux. I discuss these theories in terms of two fundamentally di:erent
development styles, the “cathedral” model of most of the commercial world versus the “bazaar” model of the Linux world.
I show that these models derive from opposing assumptions
about the nature of the so=ware-debugging task. I then make asustained argument from the Linux experience for the proposition that “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow”, suggest
productive analogies with other self-correcting systems of selfish agents, and conclude with some exploration of the implications of this insight for the future of so=ware.

1

The Cathedral and the Bazaar

Linux is subversive. Who would have thought even five years ago(1991) that a world-class operating system could coalesce as if bymagic out of part-time hacking by several thousand developers scattered all over the planet, connected only by the tenuous strands ofthe Internet?
Certainly not I. By the time Linux swam onto my radar screenin early 1993, I had already been involved in Unix and open-source
development for ten years. I was one of the first gnu contributors
in the mid-1980s. I had released a good deal of open-source so=ware onto the net, developing or co-developing several programs(nethack, Emacs’s vc and gud modes, xlife, and others) that are stillin wide use today. I thought I knew how it was done.
Linux overturned much of what I thought I knew. I had beenpreaching the Unix gospel of small tools, rapid prototyping and evo1

2

2 THE MAIL MUST GET THROUGH

lutionary programming for years. But I also believed there was acertain critical complexity above which a more centralized, a priori
approach was required. I believed that the most important so=ware(operating systems and really large tools like the Emacs programming editor) needed to be built like cathedrals, carefully cra=ed byindividual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid
isolation, with no beta to be released before its time.
Linus Torvalds’s style of development – release early and o=en,delegate everything you can, be open to the point of promiscuity– came as a surprise. No quiet, reverent cathedral-building here –rather, the Linux community seemed to resemble a great babbling
bazaar of di:ering agendas and approaches (aptly symbolized by
the Linux archive sites, who’d take submissions from anyone) out of
which a coherent and stable system could seemingly emerge only bya succession of miracles.
The fact that this bazaar style seemed to work, and work well,came as a distinct shock. As I learned my way around, I worked
hard not just at individual projects, but also at trying to understand why the Linux world not only didn’t fly apart in confusion
but seemed to go from strength to strength at a speed barely imaginable to cathedral-builders.
By mid-1996 I thought I was beginning to understand. Chance
handed me a perfect way to test my theory, in the form of an opensource project that I could consciously try to run in the bazaar style.
So I did – and it was a significant success.
This is the story of that project. I’ll use it to propose some aphorisms about e:ective open-source development. Not all of these arethings I first learned in the Linux world, but we’ll see how the Linuxworld gives them particular point. If I’m correct, they’ll help you understand exactly what it is that makes the Linux community such afountain of good so=ware – and, perhaps, they will help you become
more productive yourself.

2 The Mail Must Get ThroughSince 1993 I’d been running the technical side of a small free-accessInternet service provider called Chester County InterLink (ccil) in
West Chester, Pennsylvania. I co-founded ccil and wrote our uniquemultiuser bulletin-board so=ware – you can check it out by telnetting

3
to locke.ccil.org. Today it supports almost three thousand users
on thirty lines. The job allowed me 24-hour-a-day access to the net
through ccil’s 56 K line – in fact, the job practically demanded it!
I had gotten quite used to instant Internet email. I found having
to periodically telnet over to locke to check my mail annoying. What
I wanted was for my mail to be delivered on snark (my home system)so that I would be notified when it arrived and could handle it using
all my local tools.
The Internet’s native mail forwarding protocol, smtp (Simple Mail
Transfer Protocol), wouldn’t suit, because it works best when machines are connected full-time, while my personal machine isn’t always on the net, and doesn’t have a static ip address. What I needed
was a program that would reach out over my intermittent dialup connection and pull across my mail to be delivered locally. I knew suchthings existed, and that most of them used a simple application protocol called pop (Post O?ce Protocol). pop is now widely supported
by most common mail clients, but at the time, it wasn’t built-in to
the mail reader I was using.
I needed a pop3 client. So I went out on the net and found one.
Actually, I found three or four. I used one of them for a while, but it
was missing what seemed an obvious feature, the ability to hack theaddresses on fetched mail so replies would work properly.
The problem was this : suppose someone named ‘joe’ on locke
sent me mail. If I fetched the mail to snark and then tried to reply toit, my mailer would cheerfully try to ship it to a nonexistent ‘joe’ onsnark. Hand-editing reply addresses to tack on ‘@ccil.org’ quickly got
to be a serious pain.
This was clearly something the computer ought to be doing forme. But none of the existing pop clients knew how ! And this brings
us to the first lesson:# 1 Every good work of so=ware starts by scratching a developer’s
personal itch.
Perhaps this should have been obvious (it’s long been proverbialthat “Necessity is the mother of invention”) but too o=en so=waredevelopers spend their days grinding away for pay at programs theyneither need nor love. But not in the Linux world – which may explain why the average quality of so=ware originated in the Linux
community is so high.

4

2 THE MAIL MUST GET THROUGH

So, did I immediately launch into a furious whirl of coding up
a brand-new pop3 client to compete with the existing ones? Not on
your life! I looked carefully at the pop utilities I had in hand, asking
myself “which one is closest to what I want?” Because# 2 Good programmers know what to write. Great ones know what
to rewrite (and reuse).
While I don’t claim to be a great programmer, I try to imitate one.
An important trait of the great ones is constructive laziness. They
know that you get an A not for e:ort but for results, and that it’salmost always easier to start from a good partial solution than fromnothing at all.
Linus Torvalds, for example, didn’t actually try to write Linux
from scratch. Instead, he started by reusing code and ideas from
Minix, a tiny Unix-like operating system for pc clones. Eventually
all the Minix code went away or was completely rewritten – but
while it was there, it provided sca:olding for the infant that would
eventually become Linux.
In the same spirit, I went looking for an existing pop utility thatwas reasonably well coded, to use as a development base.
The source-sharing tradition of the Unix world has always been
friendly to code reuse (this is why the gnu project chose Unix asa base os, in spite of serious reservations about the os itself). The
Linux world has taken this tradition nearly to its technological limit ;it has terabytes of open sources generally available. So spending timelooking for some else’s almost-good-enough is more likely to give you
good results in the Linux world than anywhere else.
And it did for me. With those I’d found earlier, my second search
made up a total of nine candidates – fetchpop, PopTart, get-mail, gwpop, pimp, pop-perl, popc, popmail and upop. The one I first settled
on was ‘fetchpop’ by Seung-Hong Oh. I put my header-rewrite feature in it, and made various other improvements which the author
accepted into his 1.9 release.
A few weeks later, though, I stumbled across the code for ‘popclient’ by Carl Harris, and found I had a problem. Though fetchpop had some good original ideas in it (such as its backgrounddaemon mode), it could only handle pop3 and was rather amateurishly coded (Seung-Hong was at that time a bright but inexperienced
programmer, and both traits showed). Carl’s code was better, quite

5
professional and solid, but his program lacked several importantand rather tricky-to-implement fetchpop features (including thoseI’d coded myself).
Stay or switch? If I switched, I’d be throwing away the coding I’dalready done in exchange for a better development base.
A practical motive to switch was the presence of multiple-protocol
support. pop3 is the most commonly used of the post-o?ce server
protocols, but not the only one. Fetchpop and the other competition didn’t do pop2, rpop, or apop, and I was already having vague
thoughts of perhaps adding imap (Internet Message Access Protocol,
the most recently designed and most powerful post-o?ce protocol)
just for fun.
But I had a more theoretical reason to think switching might be
as good an idea as well, something I learned long before Linux.
# 3 “Plan to throw one away ; you will, anyhow.” (Fred Brooks, “TheMythical Man-Month”, Chapter 11)
Or, to put it another way, you o=en don’t really understand the
problem until a=er the first time you implement a solution. The
second time, maybe you know enough to do it right. So if you wantto get it right, be ready to start over at least once [jb].
Well (I told myself) the changes to fetchpop had been my first try.
So I switched.
A=er I sent my first set of popclient patches to Carl Harris on 25
June 1996, I found out that he had basically lost interest in popclient
some time before. The code was a bit dusty, with minor bugs hanging
out. I had many changes to make, and we quickly agreed that thelogical thing for me to do was take over the program.
Without my actually noticing, the project had escalated. No longer
was I just contemplating minor patches to an existing pop client. I
took on maintaining an entire one, and there were ideas bubblingin my head that I knew would probably lead to major changes.
In a so=ware culture that encourages code-sharing, this is a natural way for a project to evolve. I was acting out this principle:# 4 If you have the right attitude, interesting problems will find you.
But Carl Harris’s attitude was even more important. He understood that

6

3 THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING USERS# 5 When you lose interest in a program, your last duty to it is tohand it o: to a competent successor.

Without ever having to discuss it, Carl and I knew we had a common goal of having the best solution out there. The only question
for either of us was whether I could establish that I was a safe pairof hands. Once I did that, he acted with grace and dispatch. I hope I
will do as well when it comes my turn.

3

The Importance of Having Users

And so I inherited popclient. Just as importantly, I inherited popclient’s user base. Users are wonderful things to have, and not justbecause they demonstrate that you’re serving a need, that you’ve
done something right. Properly cultivated, they can become co-developers.
Another strength of the Unix tradition, one that Linux pushes
to a happy extreme, is that a lot of users are hackers too. Because
source code is available, they can be e:ective hackers. This can betremendously useful for shortening debugging time. Given a bitof encouragement, your users will diagnose problems, suggest fixes,
and help improve the code far more quickly than you could unaided.
# 6 Treating your users as co-developers is your least-hassle route to
rapid code improvement and e:ective debugging.
The power of this e:ect is easy to underestimate. In fact, pretty
well all of us in the open-source world drastically underestimated
how well it would scale up with number of users and against systemcomplexity, until Linus Torvalds showed us di:erently.
In fact, I think Linus’s cleverest and most consequential hackwas not the construction of the Linux kernel itself, but rather his
invention of the Linux development model. When I expressed thisopinion in his presence once, he smiled and quietly repeated something he has o=en said : “I’m basically a very lazy person who likes
to get credit for things other people actually do.” Lazy like a fox. Or,
as Robert Heinlein famously wrote of one of his characters, too lazyto fail.
In retrospect, one precedent for the methods and success of Linuxcan be seen in the development of the gnu Emacs Lisp library and7Lisp code archives. In contrast to the cathedral-building style of theEmacs C core and most other gnu tools, the evolution of the Lisp
code pool was fluid and very user-driven. Ideas and prototype modes
were o=en rewritten three or four times before reaching a stable final
form. And loosely-coupled collaborations enabled by the Internet, ala Linux, were frequent.
Indeed, my own most successful single hack previous to fetchmail was probably Emacs vc (version control) mode, a Linux-likecollaboration by email with three other people, only one of whom
(Richard Stallman, the author of Emacs and founder of the Free So=ware Foundation) I have met to this day. It was a front- end for sccs,
rcs and later cvs from within Emacs that o:ered “one-touch” version control operations. It evolved from a tiny, crude sccs.el mode
somebody else had written. And the development of vc succeeded
because, unlike Emacs itself, Emacs Lisp code could go through release/test/improve generations very quickly.

4

Release Early, Release O=en

Early and frequent releases are a critical part of the Linux development model. Most developers (including me) used to believe thiswas bad policy for larger than trivial projects, because early versions
are almost by definition buggy versions and you don’t want to wear
out the patience of your users.
This belief reinforced the general commitment to a cathedralbuilding style of development. If the overriding objective was forusers to see as few bugs as possible, why then you’d only release aversion every six months (or less o=en), and work like a dog on debugging between releases. The Emacs C core was developed this way.
The Lisp library, in e:ect, was not – because there were active Lisp
archives outside the fsf’s control, where you could go to find new
and development code versions independently of Emacs’s release
cycle [qr].
The most important of these, the Ohio State elisp archive, anticipated the spirit and many of the features of today’s big Linuxarchives. But few of us really thought very hard about what we were
doing, or about what the very existence of that archive suggested
about problems in the fsf’s cathedral- building development model.
I made one serious attempt around 1992 to get a lot of the Ohio code

8

4

RELEASE EARLY, RELEASE OFTEN

formally merged into the o?cial Emacs Lisp library. I ran into political trouble and was largely unsuccessful.
But by a year later, as Linux became widely visible, it was clearthat something di:erent and much healthier was going on there.
Linus’s open development policy was the very opposite of cathedralbuilding. Linux’s Internet archives were burgeoning, multiple distributions were being floated. And all of this was driven by an unheardof frequency of core system releases.
Linus was treating his users as co-developers in the most e:ective
possible way :# 7 Release early. Release o=en. And listen to your customers.
Linus’s innovation wasn’t so much in doing quick-turnaroundreleases incorporating lots of user feedback (something like this had
been Unix-world tradition for a long time), but in scaling it up toa level of intensity that matched the complexity of what he wasdeveloping. In those early times (around 1991) it wasn’t unknown
for him to release a new kernel more than once a day! Because hecultivated his base of co-developers and leveraged the Internet forcollaboration harder than anyone else, this worked.
But how did it work? And was it something I could duplicate, or
did it rely on some unique genius of Linus Torvalds?
I didn’t think so. Granted, Linus is a damn fine hacker. How
many of us could engineer an entire production-quality operating
system kernel from scratch ? But Linux didn’t represent any awesome conceptual leap forward. Linus is not (or at least, not yet) an
innovative genius of design in the way that, say, Richard Stallman orJames Gosling (of NeWS and Java) are. Rather, Linus seems to me to
be a genius of engineering and implementation, with a sixth sense
for avoiding bugs and development dead-ends and a true knack forfinding the minimum-e:ort path from point A to point B. Indeed,
the whole design of Linux breathes this quality and mirrors Linus’s
essentially conservative and simplifying design approach.
So, if rapid releases and leveraging the Internet medium to thehilt were not accidents but integral parts of Linus’s engineeringgenius insight into the minimum-e:ort path, what was he maximizing ? What was he cranking out of the machinery?
Put that way, the question answers itself. Linus was keeping his
hacker/users constantly stimulated and rewarded – stimulated by

9
the prospect of having an ego-satisfying piece of the action, rewarded
by the sight of constant (even daily) improvement in their work.
Linus was directly aiming to maximize the number of personhours thrown at debugging and development, even at the possible
cost of instability in the code and user-base burnout if any serious
bug proved intractable. Linus was behaving as though he believed
something like this :# 8 Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost
every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious tosomeone.
Or, less formally, “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” I
dub this : “Linus’s Law”.
My original formulation was that every problem “will be transparent to somebody”. Linus demurred that the person who understands and fixes the problem is not necessarily or even usually the
person who first characterizes it. “Somebody finds the problem,” hesays, “and somebody else understands it. And I’ll go on record assaying that finding it is the bigger challenge.” But the point is thatboth things tend to happen rapidly.
Here, I think, is the core di:erence underlying the cathedralbuilder and bazaar styles. In the cathedral-builder view of programming, bugs and development problems are tricky, insidious, deep
phenomena. It takes months of scrutiny by a dedicated few to develop confidence that you’ve winkled them all out. Thus the long
release intervals, and the inevitable disappointment when longawaited releases are not perfect.
In the bazaar view, on the other hand, you assume that bugs
are generally shallow phenomena – or, at least, that they turn shallow pretty quickly when exposed to a thousand eager co-developers
pounding on every single new release. Accordingly you release o=en
in order to get more corrections, and as a beneficial side e:ect you
have less to lose if an occasional botch gets out the door.
And that’s it. That’s enough. If “Linus’s Law” is false, then any
system as complex as the Linux kernel, being hacked over by as
many hands as the Linux kernel, should at some point have collapsed
under the weight of unforseen bad interactions and undiscovered“deep” bugs. If it’s true, on the other hand, it is su?cient to explain
Linux’s relative lack of bugginess and its continuous uptimes spanning months or even years.

10

4

RELEASE EARLY, RELEASE OFTEN

Maybe it shouldn’t have been such a surprise, at that. Sociologists
years ago discovered that the averaged opinion of a mass of equallyexpert (or equally ignorant) observers is quite a bit more reliable a
predictor than that of a single randomly-chosen one of the observers.
They called this the “Delphi e:ect”. It appears that what Linus has
shown is that this applies even to debugging an operating system –that the Delphi e:ect can tame development complexity even at thecomplexity level of an os kernel.
One special feature of the Linux situation that clearly helps along
the Delphi e:ect is the fact that the contributors for any given project
are self- selected. An early respondent pointed out that contributions
are received not from a random sample, but from people who areinterested enough to use the so=ware, learn about how it works,
attempt to find solutions to problems they encounter, and actually
produce an apparently reasonable fix. Anyone who passes all thesefilters is highly likely to have something useful to contribute.
I am indebted to my friend Je: Dutky <dutky@wam.umd.edu>
for pointing out that Linus’s Law can be rephrased as “Debugging
is parallelizable”. Je: observes that although debugging requires
debuggers to communicate with some coordinating developer, it
doesn’t require significant coordination between debuggers. Thus itdoesn’t fall prey to the same quadratic complexity and management
costs that make adding developers problematic.
In practice, the theoretical loss of e?ciency due to duplication ofwork by debuggers almost never seems to be an issue in the Linuxworld. One e:ect of a “release early and o=en policy” is to minimize
such duplication by propagating fed-back fixes quickly [jh].
Brooks (the author of “The Mythical Man-Month”) even made ano:-hand observation related to Je:’s: “The total cost of maintaining
a widely used program is typically 40 percent or more of the costof developing it. Surprisingly this cost is strongly a:ected by the
number of users. More users find more bugs.” (my emphasis).
More users find more bugs because adding more users adds more
di:erent ways of stressing the program. This e:ect is amplified when
the users are co- developers. Each one approaches the task of bug
characterization with a slightly di:erent perceptual set and analytical toolkit, a di:erent angle on the problem. The “Delphi e:ect”
seems to work precisely because of this variation. In the specific context of debugging, the variation also tends to reduce duplication ofe:ort.

11
So adding more beta-testers may not reduce the complexity of
the current “deepest” bug from the developer’s point of view, but it
increases the probability that someone’s toolkit will be matched tothe problem in such a way that the bug is shallow to that person.
Linus coppers his bets, too. In case there are serious bugs, Linuxkernel version are numbered in such a way that potential users canmake a choice either to run the last version designated “stable” or
to ride the cutting edge and risk bugs in order to get new features.
This tactic is not yet formally imitated by most Linux hackers, but
perhaps it should be ; the fact that either choice is available makes
both more attractive. [hbs]5

When Is A Rose Not A Rose ?

Having studied Linus’s behavior and formed a theory about why it
was successful, I made a conscious decision to test this theory on mynew (admittedly much less complex and ambitious) project.
But the first thing I did was reorganize and simplify popclient
a lot. Carl Harris’s implementation was very sound, but exhibited akind of unnecessary complexity common to many C programmers.
He treated the code as central and the data structures as support forthe code. As a result, the code was beautiful but the data structure
design ad-hoc and rather ugly (at least by the high standards of thisold lisp hacker).
I had another purpose for rewriting besides improving the codeand the data structure design, however. That was to evolve it into
something I understood completely. It’s no fun to be responsible forfixing bugs in a program you don’t understand.
For the first month or so, then, I was simply following out the
implications of Carl’s basic design. The first serious change I madewas to add imap support. I did this by reorganizing the protocol
machines into a generic driver and three method tables (for pop2,
pop3, and imap). This and the previous changes illustrate a generalprinciple that’s good for programmers to keep in mind, especiallyin languages like C that don’t naturally do dynamic typing:# 9 Smart data structures and dumb code works a lot better than theother way around.

12

5 WHEN IS A ROSE NOT A ROSE ?

Brooks, Chapter 9 : “Show me your [code] and conceal your [datastructures], and I shall continue to be mystified. Show me your [datastructures], and I won’t usually need your [code]; it’ll be obvious.”
Actually, he said “flowcharts” and “tables”. But allowing for thirty
years of terminological/cultural shi=, it’s almost the same point.
At this point (early September 1996, about six weeks from zero) I
started thinking that a name change might be in order – a=er all, it
wasn’t just a pop client any more. But I hesitated, because there wasas yet nothing genuinely new in the design. My version of popclient
had yet to develop an identity of its own.
That changed, radically, when fetchmail learned how to forward
fetched mail to the smtp port. I’ll get to that in a moment. But first : I
said above that I’d decided to use this project to test my theory about
what Linus Torvalds had done right. How (you may well ask) did I
do that ? In these ways :– I released early and o=en (almost never less o=en than every
ten days ; during periods of intense development, once a day).
– I grew my beta list by adding to it everyone who contacted me
about fetchmail.
– I sent chatty announcements to the beta list whenever I released, encouraging people to participate.
– And I listened to my beta testers, polling them about design
decisions and stroking them whenever they sent in patches
and feedback.
The payo: from these simple measures was immediate. From the
beginning of the project, I got bug reports of a quality most developers would kill for, o=en with good fixes attached. I got thoughtful
criticism, I got fan mail, I got intelligent feature suggestions. Whichleads to :# 10 If you treat your beta-testers as if they’re your most valuable
resource, they will respond by becoming your most valuable resource.
One interesting measure of fetchmail’s success is the sheer sizeof the project beta list, fetchmail-friends. At the time of last revision(August 2000) it has 249 members and is adding two or three a week.
Actually, as I revise in late May 1997 the list is beginning to lose
members from its high of close to 300 for an interesting reason.

13
Several people have asked me to unsubscribe them because fetchmail is working so well for them that they no longer need to see thelist tra?c! Perhaps this is part of the normal life-cycle of a mature
bazaar-style project.

6

Popclient becomes Fetchmail

The real turning point in the project was when Harry Hochheiser
sent me his scratch code for forwarding mail to the client machine’s
smtp port. I realized almost immediately that a reliable implementation of this feature would make all the other mail delivery modes
next to obsolete.
For many weeks I had been tweaking fetchmail rather incrementally while feeling like the interface design was serviceable but
grubby – inelegant and with too many exiguous options hanging
out all over. The options to dump fetched mail to a mailbox file or
standard output particularly bothered me, but I couldn’t figure out
why.
(If you don’t care about the technicalia of Internet mail, the next
two paragraphs can be safely skipped.)
What I saw when I thought about smtp forwarding was that popclient had been trying to do too many things. It had been designed to
be both a mail transport agent (mta) and a local delivery agent (mda).
With smtp forwarding, it could get out of the mda business and be apure mta, handing o: mail to other programs for local delivery justas sendmail does.
Why mess with all the complexity of configuring a mail delivery
agent or setting up lock-and-append on a mailbox when port 25 isalmost guaranteed to be there on any platform with tcp/ip support
in the first place? Especially when this means retrieved mail is guaranteed to look like normal sender-initiated smtp mail, which is really
what we want anyway.
(Back to a higher level...)Even if you didn’t follow the preceding technical jargon, there areseveral important lessons here. First, this smtp-forwarding concept
was the biggest single payo: I got from consciously trying to emulate
Linus’s methods. A user gave me this terrific idea – all I had to do
was understand the implications.

14

6

POPCLIENT BECOMES FETCHMAIL# 11 The next best thing to having good ideas is recognizing goodideas from your users. Sometimes the latter is better.
Interestingly enough, you will quickly find that if you are completely and self- deprecatingly truthful about how much you oweother people, the world at large will treat you like you did every
bit of the invention yourself and are just being becomingly modest
about your innate genius. We can all see how well this worked for
Linus !
(When I gave my talk at the Perl conference in August 1997, hacker
extraordinaire Larry Wall was in the front row. As I got to the last line
above he called out, religious-revival style, “Tell it, tell it, brother!”.
The whole audience laughed, because they knew this had worked
for the inventor of Perl, too.)
A=er a very few weeks of running the project in the same spirit,
I began to get similar praise not just from my users but from otherpeople to whom the word leaked out. I stashed away some of thatemail ; I’ll look at it again sometime if I ever start wondering whether
my life has been worthwhile :–).
But there are two more fundamental, non-political lessons herethat are general to all kinds of design.
# 12 O=en, the most striking and innovative solutions come fromrealizing that your concept of the problem was wrong.
I had been trying to solve the wrong problem by continuing todevelop popclient as a combined mta/mda with all kinds of funky
local delivery modes. Fetchmail’s design needed to be rethoughtfrom the ground up as a pure mta, a part of the normal smtp-speaking
Internet mail path.
When you hit a wall in development – when you find yourself
hard put to think past the next patch – it’s o=en time to ask notwhether you’ve got the right answer, but whether you’re asking theright question. Perhaps the problem needs to be reframed.
Well, I had reframed my problem. Clearly, the right thing to dowas (1) hack smtp forwarding support into the generic driver, (2)make it the default mode, and (3) eventually throw out all the otherdelivery modes, especially the deliver-to-file and deliver-to-standardoutput options.
I hesitated over step 3 for some time, fearing to upset long-time
popclient users dependent on the alternate delivery mechanisms.

15
In theory, they could immediately switch to .forward files or their
non-sendmail equivalents to get the same e:ects. In practice thetransition might have been messy.
But when I did it, the benefits proved huge. The cru=iest parts ofthe driver code vanished. Configuration got radically simpler – nomore grovelling around for the system mda and user’s mailbox, no
more worries about whether the underlying os supports file locking.
Also, the only way to lose mail vanished. If you specified delivery
to a file and the disk got full, your mail got lost. This can’t happen
with smtp forwarding because your smtp listener won’t return okunless the message can be delivered or at least spooled for laterdelivery.
Also, performance improved (though not so you’d notice it in asingle run). Another not insignificant benefit of this change was thatthe manual page got a lot simpler.
Later, I had to bring delivery via a user-specified local mda backin order to allow handling of some obscure situations involving dynamic slip. But I found a much simpler way to do it.
The moral? Don’t hesitate to throw away superannuated features
when you can do it without loss of e:ectiveness. Antoine de SaintExupéry (who was an aviator and aircra= designer when he wasn’t
being the author of classic children’s books) said :# 13 “Perfection (in design) is achieved not when there is nothing
more to add, but rather when there is nothing more to take away.”
When your code is getting both better and simpler, that is when
you know it’s right. And in the process, the fetchmail design acquired
an identity of its own, di:erent from the ancestral popclient.
It was time for the name change. The new design looked much
more like a dual of sendmail than the old popclient had; both aremtas, but where sendmail pushes then delivers, the new popclient
pulls then delivers. So, two months o: the blocks, I renamed it fetchmail.
There is a more general lesson in this story about how smtp delivery came to fetchmail. It is not only debugging that is parallelizable;
development and (to a perhaps surprising extent) exploration of design space is, too. When your development mode is rapidly iterative,
development and enhancement may become special cases of debugging – fixing ‘bugs of omission’ in the original capabilities or conceptof the so=ware.

7

16

FETCHMAIL GROWS UP

Even at a higher level of design, it can be very valuable to havethe thinking of lots of co-developers random-walking through thedesign space near your product. Consider the way a puddle of water
finds a drain, or better yet how ants find food: exploration essentially by di:usion, followed by exploitation mediated by a scalable
communication mechanism. This works very well; as with Harry
Hochheiser and me, one of your outriders may well find a huge win
nearby that you were just a little too close-focused to see.

7

Fetchmail Grows Up

There I was with a neat and innovative design, code that I knew
worked well because I used it every day, and a burgeoning beta list.
It gradually dawned on me that I was no longer engaged in a trivial
personal hack that might happen to be useful to few other people.
I had my hands on a program every hacker with a Unix box and aslip/ppp mail connection really needs.
With the smtp forwarding feature, it pulled far enough in frontof the competition to potentially become a “category killer”, one ofthose classic programs that fills its niche so competently that thealternatives are not just discarded but almost forgotten.
I think you can’t really aim or plan for a result like this. You haveto get pulled into it by design ideas so powerful that a=erward theresults just seem inevitable, natural, even foreordained. The only
way to try for ideas like that is by having lots of ideas – or by having
the engineering judgment to take other peoples’ good ideas beyond
where the originators thought they could go.
Andy Tanenbaum had the original idea to build a simple native
Unix for ibm pcs, for use as a teaching tool (he called it Minix). Linus
Torvalds pushed the Minix concept further than Andrew probably
thought it could go – and it grew into something wonderful. In thesame way (though on a smaller scale), I took some ideas by Carl
Harris and Harry Hochheiser and pushed them hard. Neither of us
was ‘original’ in the romantic way people think is genius. But then,most science and engineering and so=ware development isn’t doneby original genius, hacker mythology to the contrary.
The results were pretty heady stu: all the same – in fact, justthe kind of success every hacker lives for ! And they meant I would
have to set my standards even higher. To make fetchmail as good as I

17now saw it could be, I’d have to write not just for my own needs, butalso include and support features necessary to others but outside myorbit. And do that while keeping the program simple and robust.
The first and overwhelmingly most important feature I wrote
a=er realizing this was multidrop support – the ability to fetch mailfrom mailboxes that had accumulated all mail for a group of users,
and then route each piece of mail to its individual recipients.
I decided to add the multidrop support partly because some users
were clamoring for it, but mostly because I thought it would shakebugs out of the single-drop code by forcing me to deal with addressing in full generality. And so it proved. Getting rfc 822 address parsing right took me a remarkably long time, not because any individual
piece of it is hard but because it involved a pile of interdependentand fussy details.
But multidrop addressing turned out to be an excellent design
decision as well. Here’s how I knew:# 14 Any tool should be useful in the expected way, but a truly great
tool lends itself to uses you never expected.
The unexpected use for multi-drop fetchmail is to run mailinglists with the list kept, and alias expansion done, on the client side of
the Internet connection. This means someone running a personalmachine through an isp account can manage a mailing list without
continuing access to the isp’s alias files.
Another important change demanded by my beta testers was support for 8-bit mime (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) operation. This was pretty easy to do, because I had been careful to keep
the code 8-bit clean. Not because I anticipated the demand for thisfeature, but rather in obedience to another rule:# 15 When writing gateway so=ware of any kind, take pains to disturb the data stream as little as possible – and *never* throw away
information unless the recipient forces you to !
Had I not obeyed this rule, 8-bit mime support would have been
di?cult and buggy. As it was, all I had to do is read the mime standard(rfc 1652) and add a trivial bit of header-generation logic.
Some European users bugged me into adding an option to limit
the number of messages retrieved per session (so they can control
costs from their expensive phone networks). I resisted this for a long

18

8

A FEW MORE LESSONS FROM FETCHMAIL

time, and I’m still not entirely happy about it. But if you’re writing
for the world, you have to listen to your customers – this doesn’tchange just because they’re not paying you in money.

8

A Few More Lessons From Fetchmail

Before we go back to general so=ware-engineering issues, there area couple more specific lessons from the fetchmail experience to ponder. Nontechnical readers can safely skip this section.
The rc (control) file syntax includes optional ‘noise’ keywords thatare entirely ignored by the parser. The English-like syntax they allow
is considerably more readable than the traditional terse keywordvalue pairs you get when you strip them all out.
These started out as a late-night experiment when I noticed how
much the rc file declarations were beginning to resemble an imperative minilanguage. (This is also why I changed the original popclient‘server’ keyword to ‘poll’).
It seemed to me that trying to make that imperative minilanguage
more like English might make it easier to use. Now, although I’m aconvinced partisan of the “make it a language” school of design as
exemplified by Emacs and html and many database engines, I am
not normally a big fan of “English-like” syntaxes.
Traditionally programmers have tended to favor control syntaxes
that are very precise and compact and have no redundancy at all.
This is a cultural legacy from when computing resources were expensive, so parsing stages had to be as cheap and simple as possible.
English, with about 50% redundancy, looked like a very inappropriate model then.
This is not my reason for normally avoiding English-like syntaxes ; I mention it here only to demolish it. With cheap cycles andcore, terseness should not be an end in itself. Nowadays it’s more
important for a language to be convenient for humans than to becheap for the computer.
There remain, however, good reasons to be wary. One is the complexity cost of the parsing stage – you don’t want to raise that tothe point where it’s a significant source of bugs and user confusion
in itself. Another is that trying to make a language syntax Englishlike o=en demands that the “English” it speaks be bent seriously
out of shape, so much so that the superficial resemblance to natural

19
language is as confusing as a traditional syntax would have been.
(You see this bad e:ect in a lot of so-called “fourth generation” andcommercial database-query languages.)
The fetchmail control syntax seems to avoid these problems because the language domain is extremely restricted. It’s nowhere neara general-purpose language ; the things it says simply are not very
complicated, so there’s little potential for confusion in moving mentally between a tiny subset of English and the actual control language. I think there may be a wider lesson here:# 16 When your language is nowhere near Turing-complete, syntactic sugar can be your friend.
Another lesson is about security by obscurity. Some fetchmailusers asked me to change the so=ware to store passwords encryptedin the rc file, so snoopers wouldn’t be able to casually see them.
I didn’t do it, because this doesn’t actually add protection. Anyone
who’s acquired permissions to read your rc file will be able to run
fetchmail as you anyway – and if it’s your password they’re a=er,
they’d be able to rip the necessary decoder out of the fetchmail code
itself to get it.
All .fetchmailrc password encryption would have done is givea false sense of security to people who don’t think very hard. The
general rule here is :# 17 A security system is only as secure as its secret. Beware ofpseudo-secrets.

9

Necessary Preconditions for the Bazaar Style

Early reviewers and test audiences for this paper consistently raisedquestions about the preconditions for successful bazaar-style development, including both the qualifications of the project leader andthe state of code at the time one goes public and starts to try to build
a co-developer community.
It’s fairly clear that one cannot code from the ground up in bazaarstyle [in]. One can test, debug and improve in bazaar style, but itwould be very hard to originate a project in bazaar mode. Linus didn’t
try it. I didn’t either. Your nascent developer community needs tohave something runnable and testable to play with.

20

9

NECESSARY PRECONDITIONS FOR THE BAZAAR STYLE

When you start community-building, what you need to be able
to present is a plausible promise. Your program doesn’t have to work
particularly well. It can be crude, buggy, incomplete, and poorly
documented. What it must not fail to do is (a) run, and (b) convince
potential co-developers that it can be evolved into something reallyneat in the foreseeable future.
Linux and fetchmail both went public with strong, attractive basic designs. Many people thinking about the bazaar model as I havepresented it have correctly considered this critical, then jumped
from it to the conclusion that a high degree of design intuition andcleverness in the project leader is indispensable.
But Linus got his design from Unix. I got mine initially from theancestral popclient (though it would later change a great deal, much
more proportionately speaking than has Linux). So does the leader/coordinator for a bazaar-style e:ort really have to have exceptional
design talent, or can he get by on leveraging the design talent ofothers ?
I think it is not critical that the coordinator be able to originate
designs of exceptional brilliance, but it is absolutely critical that thecoordinator be able to recognize good design ideas from others.
Both the Linux and fetchmail projects show evidence of this.
Linus, while not (as previously discussed) a spectacularly original
designer, has displayed a powerful knack for recognizing good design and integrating it into the Linux kernel. And I have alreadydescribed how the single most powerful design idea in fetchmail(smtp forwarding) came from somebody else.
Early audiences of this paper complimented me by suggestingthat I am prone to undervalue design originality in bazaar projects
because I have a lot of it myself, and therefore take it for granted.
There may be some truth to this; design (as opposed to coding or
debugging) is certainly my strongest skill.
But the problem with being clever and original in so=ware designis that it gets to be a habit – you start reflexively making things
cute and complicated when you should be keeping them robust andsimple. I have had projects crash on me because I made this mistake,but I managed not to with fetchmail.
So I believe the fetchmail project succeeded partly because I restrained my tendency to be clever ; this argues (at least) against design originality being essential for successful bazaar projects. And
consider Linux. Suppose Linus Torvalds had been trying to pull o:21fundamental innovations in operating system design during the development; does it seem at all likely that the resulting kernel would
be as stable and successful as what we have ?
A certain base level of design and coding skill is required, ofcourse, but I expect almost anybody seriously thinking of launchinga bazaar e:ort will already be above that minimum. The open-source
community’s internal market in reputation exerts subtle pressure on
people not to launch development e:orts they’re not competent tofollow through on. So far this seems to have worked pretty well.
There is another kind of skill not normally associated with so=ware development which I think is as important as design cleverness
to bazaar projects – and it may be more important. A bazaar project
coordinator or leader must have good people and communications
skills.
This should be obvious. In order to build a development community, you need to attract people, interest them in what you’re doing,
and keep them happy about the amount of work they’re doing. Technical sizzle will go a long way towards accomplishing this, but it’s
far from the whole story. The personality you project matters, too.
It is not a coincidence that Linus is a nice guy who makes people
like him and want to help him. It’s not a coincidence that I’m anenergetic extrovert who enjoys working a crowd and has some ofthe delivery and instincts of a stand-up comic. To make the bazaar
model work, it helps enormously if you have at least a little skill at
charming people.

10

The Social Context of Open-Source So=ware

It is truly written : the best hacks start out as personal solutions to
the author’s everyday problems, and spread because the problem
turns out to be typical for a large class of users. This takes us back to
the matter of rule 1, restated in a perhaps more useful way:
# 18 To solve an interesting problem, start by finding a problem thatis interesting to you.
So it was with Carl Harris and the ancestral popclient, and so withme and fetchmail. But this has been understood for a long time. Theinteresting point, the point that the histories of Linux and fetchmail
seem to demand we focus on, is the next stage – the evolution of

22

10

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE

so=ware in the presence of a large and active community of users
and co-developers.
In “The Mythical Man-Month”, Fred Brooks observed that programmer time is not fungible; adding developers to a late so=ware
project makes it later. He argued that the complexity and communication costs of a project rise with the square of the number ofdevelopers, while work done only rises linearly. This claim has since
become known as “Brooks’s Law” and is widely regarded as a truism. But if Brooks’s Law were the whole picture, Linux would be
impossible.
Gerald Weinberg’s classic “The Psychology Of Computer Programming” supplied what, in hindsight, we can see as a vital correction to Brooks. In his discussion of “egoless programming”, Weinberg observed that in shops where developers are not territorial
about their code, and encourage other people to look for bugs andpotential improvements in it, improvement happens dramaticallyfaster than elsewhere.
Weinberg’s choice of terminology has perhaps prevented his analysis from gaining the acceptance it deserved – one has to smile at thethought of describing Internet hackers as “egoless”. But I think hisargument looks more compelling today than ever.
The history of Unix should have prepared us for what we’re learning from Linux (and what I’ve verified experimentally on a smallerscale by deliberately copying Linus’s methods [egcs]). That is, thatwhile coding remains an essentially solitary activity, the really greathacks come from harnessing the attention and brainpower of entire
communities. The developer who uses only his or her own brain in aclosed project is going to fall behind the developer who knows how
to create an open, evolutionary context in which feedback exploring the design space, code contributions, bug-spotting, and otherimprovements come back from hundreds (perhaps thousands) ofpeople.
But the traditional Unix world was prevented from pushing thisapproach to the ultimate by several factors. One was the legal contraints of various licenses, trade secrets, and commercial interests.
Another (in hindsight) was that the Internet wasn’t yet good enough.
Before cheap Internet, there were some geographically compact
communities where the culture encouraged Weinberg’s “egoless”
programming, and a developer could easily attract a lot of skilledkibitzers and co-developers. Bell Labs, the mit ai Lab, uc Berkeley –23these became the home of innovations that are legendary and still
potent.
Linux was the first project to make a conscious and successful
e:ort to use the entire world as its talent pool. I don’t think it’s acoincidence that the gestation period of Linux coincided with thebirth of the World Wide Web, and that Linux le= its infancy during
the same period in 1993–1994 that saw the takeo: of the isp industry and the explosion of mainstream interest in the Internet. Linus
was the first person who learned how to play by the new rules thatpervasive Internet access made possible.
While cheap Internet was a necessary condition for the Linuxmodel to evolve, I think it was not by itself a su?cient condition.
Another vital factor was the development of a leadership style andset of cooperative customs that could allow developers to attract codevelopers and get maximum leverage out of the medium.
But what is this leadership style and what are these customs?
They cannot be based on power relationships – and even if they
could be, leadership by coercion would not produce the results wesee. Weinberg quotes the autobiography of the 19th-century Russian
anarchist Pyotr Alexeyvich Kropotkin’s Memoirs of a Revolutionist togood e:ect on this subject :Having been brought up in a serf-owner’s family, I entered active life, like all young men of my time, with agreat deal of confidence in the necessity of commanding,ordering, scolding, punishing and the like. But when, at
an early stage, I had to manage serious enterprises and todeal with [free] men, and when each mistake would leadat once to heavy consequences, I began to appreciate thedi:erence between acting on the principle of commandand discipline and acting on the principle of common understanding. The former works admirably in a military parade, but it is worth nothing where real life is concerned,
and the aim can be achieved only through the severe e:ortof many converging wills.
The “severe e:ort of many converging wills” is precisely whata project like Linux requires – and the “principle of command” ise:ectively impossible to apply among volunteers in the anarchist’s
paradise we call the Internet. To operate and compete e:ectively,

24

10

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE

hackers who want to lead collaborative projects have to learn how
to recruit and energize e:ective communities of interest in themode vaguely suggested by Kropotkin’s “principle of understanding”. They must learn to use Linus’s Law. [sp]Earlier I referred to the “Delphi e:ect” as a possible explanation for Linus’s Law. But more powerful analogies to adaptive systems in biology and economics also irresistably suggest themselves.
The Linux world behaves in many respects like a free market or an
ecology, a collection of selfish agents attempting to maximize utility
which in the process produces a self-correcting spontaneous ordermore elaborate and e?cient than any amount of central planning
could have achieved. Here, then, is the place to seek the “principleof understanding”.
The “utility function” Linux hackers are maximizing is not classically economic, but is the intangible of their own ego satisfaction andreputation among other hackers. (One may call their motivation “altruistic”, but this ignores the fact that altruism is itself a form of ego
satisfaction for the altruist). Voluntary cultures that work this way
are not actually uncommon ; one other in which I have long participated is science fiction fandom, which unlike hackerdom has longexplicitly recognized “egoboo” (ego-boosting, or the enhancement of
one’s reputation among other fans) as the basic drive behind volunteer activity.
Linus, by successfully positioning himself as the gatekeeper ofa project in which the development is mostly done by others, andnurturing interest in the project until it became self-sustaining, has
shown an acute grasp of Kropotkin’s “principle of shared understanding”. This quasi-economic view of the Linux world enables us
to see how that understanding is applied.
We may view Linus’s method as a way to create an e?cient market in “egoboo” – to connect the selfishness of individual hackers
as firmly as possible to di?cult ends that can only be achieved bysustained cooperation. With the fetchmail project I have shown (albeit on a smaller scale) that his methods can be duplicated withgood results. Perhaps I have even done it a bit more consciously andsystematically than he.
Many people (especially those who politically distrust free markets) would expect a culture of self-directed egoists to be fragmented,
territorial, wasteful, secretive, and hostile. But this expectation isclearly falsified by (to give just one example) the stunning variety,25
quality and depth of Linux documentation. It is a hallowed giventhat programmers hate documenting; how is it, then, that Linuxhackers generate so much of it ? Evidently Linux’s free market in egoboo works better to produce virtuous, other-directed behavior thanthe massively-funded documentation shops of commercial so=ware
producers.
Both the fetchmail and Linux kernel projects show that by properly rewarding the egos of many other hackers, a strong developer/
coordinator can use the Internet to capture the benefits of havinglots of co-developers without having a project collapse into a chaotic
mess. So to Brooks’s Law I counter-propose the following:# 19 Provided the development coordinator has a medium at least as
good as the Internet, and knows how to lead without coercion, manyheads are inevitably better than one.
I think the future of open-source so=ware will increasingly belong to people who know how to play Linus’s game, people who
leave behind the cathedral and embrace the bazaar. This is not to saythat individual vision and brilliance will no longer matter ; rather,I think that the cutting edge of open-source so=ware will belong
to people who start from individual vision and brilliance, then amplify it through the e:ective construction of voluntary communities
of interest.
Perhaps this is not only the future of open-source so=ware. No
closed-source developer can match the pool of talent the Linux community can bring to bear on a problem. Very few could a:ord evento hire the more than two hundred (1999: six hundred, 2000: eight
hundred) people who have contributed to fetchmail !
Perhaps in the end the open-source culture will triumph not because cooperation is morally right or so=ware “hoarding” is morally
wrong (assuming you believe the latter, which neither Linus norI do), but simply because the closed-source world cannot win an
evolutionary arms race with open-source communities that can put
orders of magnitude more skilled time into a problem.

11

On Management and the Maginot LineThe original “Cathedral and Bazaar” paper of 1997 ended with thevision above – that of happy networked hordes of programmer/

26

11

ON MANAGEMENT AND THE MAGINOT LINE

anarchists outcompeting and overwhelming the hierarchical worldof conventional closed so=ware.
A good many skeptics weren’t convinced, however; and the questions they raise deserve a fair engagement. Most of the objections
to the bazaar argument come down to the claim that its proponents
have underestimated the productivity- multiplying e:ect of conventional management.
Traditionally-minded so=ware-development managers o=en object that the casualness with which project groups form and change
and dissolve in the open- source world negates a significant partof the apparent advantage of numbers that the open-source community has over any single closed-source developer. They would observethat in so=ware development it is really sustained e:ort over time
and the degree to which customers can expect continuing investment in the product that matters, not just how many people havethrown a bone in the pot and le= it to simmer.
There is something to this argument, to be sure; in fact, I havedeveloped the idea that expected future service value is the key tothe economics of so=ware production in The Magic Cauldron.
But this argument also has a major hidden problem; its implicit
assumption that open-source development cannot deliver such sustained e:ort. In fact, there have been open-source projects that maintained a coherent direction and an e:ective maintainer community
over quite long periods of time without the kinds of incentive structures or institutional controls that conventional management finds
essential. The development of the gnu Emacs editor is an extreme
and instructive example ; it has absorbed the e:orts of hundreds ofcontributors over fi=een years into a unified architectural vision,
despite high turnover and the fact that only one person (its author)
has been continuously active during all that time. No closed-source
editor has ever matched this longevity record.
This suggests a reason for questioning the advantages of conventionally-managed so=ware development that is independent of therest of the arguments over cathedral vs. bazaar mode. If it’s possible
for gnu Emacs to express a consistent architectural vision over fi=een
years, or for an operating system like Linux to do the same over eight
years of rapidly changing hardware and platform technology; andif (as is indeed the case) there have been many well- architected
open-source projects of more than five years duration – then we are27
entitled to wonder what, if anything, the tremendous overhead of
conventionally- managed development is actually buying us.
Whatever it is certainly doesn’t include reliable execution by
deadline, or on budget, or to all features of the specification ; it’sa rare ‘managed’ project that meets even one of these goals, let alone
all three. It also does not appear to be ability to adapt to changes intechnology and economic context during the project lifetime, either ;the open-source community has proven far more e:ective on thatscore (as one can readily verify, for example, by comparing the thirtyyear history of the Internet with the short half-lives of proprietary
networking technologies – or the cost of the 16-bit to 32-bit transition in Microso= Windows with the nearly e:ortless up-migrationof Linux during the same period, not only along the Intel line ofdevelopment but to more than a dozen other hardware platforms
including the 64-bit Alpha as well).
One thing many people think the traditional mode buys you issomebody to hold legally liable and potentially recover compensation from if the project goes wrong. But this is an illusion ; most so=ware licenses are written to disclaim even warranty of merchantability, let alone performance – and cases of successful recovery for
so=ware nonperformance are vanishingly rare. Even if they werecommon, feeling comforted by having somebody to sue would be
missing the point. You didn’t want to be in a lawsuit ; you wanted
working so=ware.
So what is all that management overhead buying?
In order to understand that, we need to understand what so=waredevelopment managers believe they do. A woman I know who seems
to be very good at this job says so=ware project management has fivefunctions :1. To define goals and keep everybody pointed in the same direction.
2. To monitor and make sure crucial details don’t get skipped.
3. To motivate people to do boring but necessary drudgework.
4. To organize the deployment of people for best productivity.
5. To marshal resources needed to sustain the project.

28

11

ON MANAGEMENT AND THE MAGINOT LINE

Apparently worthy goals, all of these; but under the open-source
model, and in its surrounding social context, they can begin to seem
strangely irrelevant. We’ll take them in reverse order.
My friend reports that a lot of resource marshalling is basicallydefensive; once you have your people and machines and o?ce space,
you have to defend them from peer managers competing for thesame resources, and higher-ups trying to allocate the most e?cientuse of a limited pool.
But open-source developers are volunteers, self-selected for bothinterest and ability to contribute to the projects they work on (andthis remains generally true even when they are being paid a salary
to hack open source.) The volunteer ethos tends to take care of the ‘attack’ side of resource-marshalling automatically; people bring theirown resources to the table. And there is little or no need for a manager to ‘play defense’ in the conventional sense.
Anyway, in a world of cheap pcs and fast Internet links, we findpretty consistently that the only really limiting resource is skilled attention. Open- source projects, when they founder, essentially neverdo so for want of machines or links or o?ce space; they die only
when the developers themselves lose interest.
That being the case, it’s doubly important that open-source hackers organize themselves for maximum productivity by self-selection –and the social milieu selects ruthlessly for competence. My friend,familiar with both the open-source world and large closed projects,
believes that open source has been successful partly because its culture only accepts the most talented 5% or so of the programming
population. She spends most of her time organizing the deploymentof the other 95 %, and has thus observed first-hand the well-known
variance of a factor of one hundred in productivity between the mostable programmers and the merely competent.
The size of that variance has always raised an awkward question:
would individual projects, and the field as a whole, be better o:without more than 50% of the least able in it ? Thoughtful managers
have understood for a long time that if conventional so=ware management’s only function were to convert the least able from a net
loss to a marginal win, the game might not be worth the candle.
The success of the open-source community sharpens this question considerably, by providing hard evidence that it is o=en cheaperand more e:ective to recruit self-selected volunteers from the Inter-29
net than it is to manage buildings full of people who would rather
be doing something else.
Which brings us neatly to the question of motivation. An equivalent and o=en- heard way to state my friend’s point is that traditional
development management is a necessary compensation for poorly
motivated programmers who would not otherwise turn out goodwork.
This answer usually travels with a claim that the open-source
community can only be relied on to do work that is ‘sexy’ or technically sweet; anything else will be le= undone (or done only poorly)
unless it’s churned out by money-motivated cubicle peons with managers cracking whips over them. I address the psychological and social reasons for being skeptical of this claim in “Homesteading the
Noosphere”. For present purposes, however, I think it’s more interesting to point out the implications of accepting it as true.
If the conventional, closed-source, heavily-managed style of so=ware development is really defended only by a sort of Maginot lineof problems conducive to boredom, then it’s going to remain viablein each individual application area for only so long as nobody finds
those problems really interesting and nobody else finds any way
to route around them. Because the moment there is open-sourcecompetition for a ‘boring’ piece of so=ware, customers are going toknow that it was finally tackled by someone who chose that problem
to solve because of a fascination with the problem itself – which, in
so=ware as in other kinds of creative work, is a far more e:ective
motivator than money alone.
Having a conventional management structure solely in order tomotivate, then, is probably good tactics but bad strategy; a shortterm win, but in the longer term a surer loss.
So far, conventional development management looks like a bad
bet now against open source on two points (resource marshalling,organization), and like it’s living on borrowed time with respect toa third (motivation). And the poor beleaguered conventional manager is not going to get any succour from the monitoring issue; thestrongest argument the open-source community has is that decentralized peer review trumps all the conventional methods for trying
to ensure that details don’t get slipped.
Can we save defining goals as a justification for the overhead of
conventional so=ware project management ? Perhaps; but to do so,
we’ll need good reason to believe that management committees and

30

11

ON MANAGEMENT AND THE MAGINOT LINE

corporate roadmaps are more successful at defining worthy andwidely-shared goals than the project leaders and tribal elders who
fill the analogous role in the open-source world.
That is on the face of it a pretty hard case to make. And it’s not somuch the open-source side of the balance (the longevity of Emacs, orLinus Torvalds’s ability to mobilize hordes of developers with talkof “world domination”) that makes it tough. Rather, it’s the demonstrated awfulness of conventional mechanisms for defining the goalsof so=ware projects.
One of the best-known folk theorems of so=ware engineering isthat 60 % to 75 % of conventional so=ware projects either are nevercompleted or are rejected by their intended users. If that range isanywhere near true (and I’ve never met a manager of any experience
who disputes it) then more projects than not are being aimed at goals
that are either (a) not realistically attainable, or (b) just plain wrong.
This, more than any other problem, is the reason that in today’s
so=ware engineering world the very phrase “management committee” is likely to send chills down the hearer’s spine – even (or perhaps
especially) if the hearer is a manager. The days when only programmers griped about this pattern are long past ; ‘Dilbert’ cartoons hangover executives’ desks now.
Our reply, then, to the traditional so=ware development manager, is simple – if the open-source community has really underestimated the value of conventional management, why do so many ofyou display contempt for your own process?
Once again the existence of the open-source community sharpens
this question considerably – because we have fun doing what we do.
Our creative play has been racking up technical, market-share, andmind-share successes at an astounding rate. We’re proving not onlythat we can do better so=ware, but that joy is an asset.
Two and a half years a=er the first version of this essay, the mostradical thought I can o:er to close with is no longer a vision of an
open-source- dominated so=ware world ; that, a=er all, looks plausible to a lot of sober people in suits these days.
Rather, I want to suggest what may be a wider lesson about so=ware, (and probably about every kind of creative or professionalwork). Human beings generally take pleasure in a task when it falls
in a sort of optimal-challenge zone; not so easy as to be boring, not too
hard to achieve. A happy programmer is one who is neither under-

31
utilized nor weighed down with ill-formulated goals and stressfulprocess friction. Enjoyment predicts e?ciency.
Relating to your own work process with fear and loathing (evenin the displaced, ironic way suggested by hanging up Dilbert cartoons) should therefore be regarded in itself as a sign that the process has failed. Joy, humor, and playfulness are indeed assets; it was
not mainly for the alliteration that I wrote of “happy hordes” above,and it is no mere joke that the Linux mascot is a cuddly, neotenous
penguin.
It may well turn out that one of the most important e:ects of open
source’s success will be to teach us that play is the most economicallye?cient mode of creative work.

12

Acknowledgements

This paper was improved by conversations with a large number ofpeople who helped debug it. Particular thanks to Je: Dutky <dutky@
wam.umd.edu>, who suggested the “debugging is parallelizable” formulation, and helped develop the analysis that proceeds from it. Also
to Nancy Lebovitz <nancyl@universe.digex.net> for her suggestionthat I emulate Weinberg by quoting Kropotkin. Perceptive criticisms
also came from Joan Eslinger <wombat@kilimanjaro.engr.sgi.com>
and Marty Franz <marty@net-link.net> of the General Technics list.
Glen Vandenburg <glv@vanderburg.org> pointeed out the importance of self-selection in contributor populations and suggested thefruitful idea that much development rectifies ‘bugs of omission’;Daniel Upper <upper@peak.org> suggested the natural analogies forthis. I’m grateful to the members of plug, the Philadelphia Linux
User’s group, for providing the first test audience for the first public version of this paper. Paula Matuszek <matusp00@mh.us.sbphrd.com> enlightened me about the practice of so=ware management.
Phil Hudson <phil.hudson@iname.com> reminded me that the social organization of the hacker culture mirrors the organization ofits so=ware, and vice-versa. Finally, Linus Torvalds’s comments were
helpful and his early endorsement very encouraging.

13

32

13

FOR FURTHER READINGFor Further Reading

I quoted several bits from Frederick P. Brooks’s classic The Mythical
Man-Month because, in many respects, his insights have yet to be
improved upon. I heartily recommend the 25th Anniversary edition
from Addison-Wesley (isbn 0-201-83595-9), which adds his 1986 “NoSilver Bullet” paper.
The new edition is wrapped up by an invaluable 20-years-later
retrospective in which Brooks forthrightly admits to the few judgements in the original text which have not stood the test of time. I firstread the retrospective a=er the first public version of this paper was
substantially complete, and was surprised to discover that Brooks
attributes bazaar-like practices to Microso= ! (In fact, however, this
attribution turned out to be mistaken. In 1998 we learned from theHalloween Documents that Microso=’s internal developer community is heavily balkanized, with the kind of general source accessneeded to support a bazaar not even truly possible.)
Gerald M. Weinberg’s The Psychology Of Computer Programming(New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold 1971) introduced the rather unfortunately-labeled concept of “egoless programming”. While he wasnowhere near the first person to realize the futility of the “principleof command”, he was probably the first to recognize and argue thepoint in particular connection with so=ware development.
Richard P. Gabriel, contemplating the Unix culture of the preLinux era, reluctantly argued for the superiority of a primitive bazaar-like model in his 1989 paper Lisp : Good News, Bad News, andHow To Win Big. Though dated in some respects, this essay is stillrightly celebrated among Lisp fans (including me). A correspondent
reminded me that the section titled “Worse Is Better” reads almost as
an anticipation of Linux. The paper is accessible on the World Wide
Web at http://www.naggum.no/worse-is-better.html.
De Marco and Lister’s Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams(New York ; Dorset House, 1987; isbn 0-932633-05-6) is an underappreciated gem which I was delighted to see Fred Brooks cite in his
retrospective. While little of what the authors have to say is directly
applicable to the Linux or open-source communities, the authors’
insight into the conditions necessary for creative work is acute andworthwhile for anyone attempting to import some of the bazaar
model’s virtues into a commercial context.

33
Finally, I must admit that I very nearly called this paper “The
Cathedral and the Agora”, the latter term being the Greek for an
open market or public meeting place. The seminal “agoric systems”
papers by Mark Miller and Eric Drexler, by describing the emergent properties of market-like computational ecologies, helped prepare me to think clearly about analogous phenomena in the opensource culture when Linux rubbed my nose in them five years later.
These papers are available on the Web at http://www.agorics.com/
agorpapers.html.

14

Epilog : Netscape Embraces the Bazaar

It’s a strange feeling to realize you’re helping make history... .
On January 22 1998, approximately seven months a=er I first published “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”, Netscape Communications,
Inc. announced plans to give away the source for Netscape Communicator. I had had no clue this was going to happen before the day of
the announcement.
Eric Hahn, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer at Netscape, emailed me shortly a=erwards as follows : “Onbehalf of everyone at Netscape, I want to thank you for helping us
get to this point in the first place. Your thinking and writings were
fundamental inspirations to our decision.”
The following week I flew out to Silicon Valley at Netscape’s invitation for a day-long strategy conference (on Feb 4 1998) with someof their top executives and technical people. We designed Netscape’s
source-release strategy and license together.
A few days later I wrote the following:
Netscape is about to provide us with a large-scale, realworld test of the bazaar model in the commercial world.
The open-source culture now faces a danger; if Netscape’s
execution doesn’t work, the open-source concept may be
so discredited that the commercial world won’t touch it
again for another decade.
On the other hand, this is also a spectacular opportunity. Initial reaction to the move on Wall Street and elsewhere has been cautiously positive. We’re being given achance to prove ourselves, too. If Netscape regains sub-

34

14

EPILOG : NETSCAPE EMBRACES THE BAZAAR

stantial market share through this move, it just may set
o: a long-overdue revolution in the so=ware industry.
The next year should be a very instructive and interesting time.
And indeed it was. As I write in mid-1999, the development ofwhat was later named ‘Mozilla’ has been only a qualified success.
It achieved Netscape’s original goal, which was to deny Microso=a monopoly lock on the browser market. It has also achieved somedramatic successes (notably the release of the next-generation Gecko
rendering engine).
However, it has not yet garnered the massive development effort from outside Netscape that the Mozilla founders had originally
hoped for. The problem here seems to be that for a long time theMozilla distribution actually broke one of the basic rules of thebazaar model ; they didn’t ship something potential contributors
could easily run and see working. (Until more than a year a=er release, building Mozilla from source required a license for the proprietary Motif library.)
Most negatively (from the point of view of the outside world) the
Mozilla group has yet to ship a production-quality browser – and oneof the project’s principals caused a bit of a sensation by resigning,
complaining of poor management and missed opportunities. “Opensource,” he correctly observed, “is not magic pixie dust.”
And indeed it is not. The long-term prognosis for Mozilla looks
dramatically better now (in August 2000) than it did at the timeof Jamie Zawinski’s resignation letter – but he was right to pointout that going open will not necessarily save an existing project that
su:ers from ill-defined goals or spaghetti code or any of the so=wareengineering’s other chronic ills. Mozilla has managed to provide an
example simultaneously of how open source can succeed and how it
could fail.
In the mean time, however, the open-source idea has scored successes and found backers elsewhere. 1998 and late 1999 saw a tremendous explosion of interest in the open-source development model,
a trend both driven by and driving the continuing success of theLinux operating system. The trend Mozilla touched o: is continuing
at an accelerating rate.

35

15

Endnotes[jb] In Programing Pearls, the noted computer-science aphorist
Jon Bentley comments on Brooks’s observation with “If you plan tothrow one away, you will throw away two.”. He is almost certainly
right. The point of Brooks’s observation, and Bentley’s, isn’t merelythat you should expect first attempt to be wrong, it’s that starting overwith the right idea is usually more e:ective than trying to salvage amess.
[qr] Examples of successful open-source, bazaar development
predating the Internet explosion and unrelated to the Unix and Internet traditions have existed. The development of the info-Zip compression utility during 1990–1992, primarily for dos machines, was
one such. Another was the rbbs bulletin board system (again fordos), which began in 1983 and developed a su?ciently strong community that there have been fairly regular releases up to the present(mid-1999) despite the huge technical advantages of Internet mailand file-sharing over local bbss. While the info-Zip community relied to some extent on Internet mail, the rbbs developer culture wasactually able to base a substantial on-line community on rbbs thatwas completely independent of the tcp/ip infrastructure.
[jh] John Hasler has suggested an interesting explanation for thefact that duplication of e:ort doesn’t seem to be a net drag on opensource development. He proposes what I’ll dub “Hasler’s Law”: thecosts of duplicated work tend to scale sub-qadratically with team size
– that is, more slowly than the planning and management overheadthat would be needed to eliminate them.
This claim actually does not contradict Brooks’s Law. It may be thecase that total complexity overhead and vulnerability to bugs scaleswith the square of team size, but that the costs from duplicated work
are nevertheless a special case that scales more slowly. It’s not hardto develop plausible reasons for this, starting with the undoubted
fact that it is much easier to agree on functional boundaries between
di:erent developers’ code that will prevent duplication of e:ort than
it is to prevent the kinds of unplanned bad interactions across thewhole system that underly most bugs.
The combination of Linus’s Law and Hasler’s Law suggests that
there are actually three critical size regimes in so=ware projects. On
small projects (I would say one to at most three developers) no management structure more elaborate than picking a lead programmer

36

15

ENDNOTES

is needed. And there is some intermediate range above that in which
the cost of traditional management is relatively low, so its benefits
from avoiding duplication of e:ort, bug-tracking, and pushing to seethat details are not overlooked actually net out positive.
Above that, however, the combination of Linus’s Law and Hasler’s
Law suggests there is a large-project range in which the costs andproblems of traditional management rise much faster than the expected cost from duplication of e:ort. Not the least of these costs
is a structural inability to harness the many-eyeballs e:ect, which(as we’ve seen) seems to do a much better job than traditional management at making sure bugs and details are not overlooked. Thus,in the large-project case, the combination of these laws e:ectively
drives the net payo: of traditional management to zero.
[hbs] The split between Linux’s experimental and stable versions
has another function related to, but distinct from, hedging risk. The
split attacks another problem: the deadliness of deadlines. When
programmers are held both to an immutable feature list and a fixed
drop-dead date, quality goes out the window and there is likely acolossal mess in the making. I am indebted to Marco Iansiti andAlan MacCormack of the Harvard Business School for pointing me
at evidence that relaxing either one of these constraints can makescheduling workable.
One way to do this is to fix the deadline but leave the feature list
flexible, allowing features to drop o: if not completed by deadline.
This is essentially the strategy of the “stable” kernel branch; AlanCox (the stable-kernel maintainer) puts out releases at fairly regularintervals, but makes no guarantees about when particular bugs will
be fixed or features back-ported from the experimental branch.
The other way to do this is to set a desired feature list and deliver
only when it is done. This is essentially the strategy of the “experimental” kernel branch. De Marco and Lister cited research showingthat this scheduling policy (“wake me up when it’s done”) produces
not only the highest quality but, on average, shorter delivery times
than either “realistic” or “aggressive” scheduling.
I have come to suspect (as of early 2000) that in earlier versionsof this paper I severely underestimated the importance of the “wakeme up when it’s done” anti-dealine policy to the open-source community’s productivity and quality. General experience with the rushedgnome 1.0 in 1999 suggests that pressure for a premature release37
can neutralize many of the quality benefits open source normallyconfers.
It may well turn out to be that the process transparency of open
source is one of three coequal drivers of its quality, along with “wakeme up when it’s done” scheduling and developer self-selection.
[in] An issue related to whether one can start projects from zeroin the bazaar style is whether the bazaar style is capable of supporting truly innovative work. Some claim that, lacking strong leadership, the bazaar can only handle the cloning and improvement ofideas already present at the engineering state of the art, but is unable to push the state of the art. This argument was perhaps mostinfamously made by the Halloween Documents, two embarrassing
internal Microso= memoranda written about the open-source phenomenon. The authors compared Linux’s development of a Unix-like
operating system to “chasing taillights”, and opined “(once a project
has achieved “parity” with the state-of-the-art), the level of management necessary to push towards new frontiers becomes massive.”
There are serious errors of fact implied in this argument. One
is exposed when the Halloween authors themseselves later observethat “o=en [...] new research ideas are first implemented and available on Linux before they are available/incorporated into other platforms.”
If we read “open source” for “Linux”, we see that this is far froma new phenomenon. Historically, the open-source community did
not invent Emacs or the World Wide Web or the Internet itself bychasing taillights or being massively managed – and in the present,
there is so much innovative work going on in open source that one is
spoiled for choice. The gnome project (to pick one of many) is pushing
the state of the art in guis and object technology hard enough tohave attracted considerable notice in the computer trade press welloutside the Linux community. Other examples are legion, as a visit
to Freshmeat on any given day will quickly prove.
But there is a more fundamental error in the implicit assumptionthat the cathedral model (or the bazaar model, or any other kindof management structure) can somehow make innovation happen
reliably. This is nonsense. Gangs don’t have breakthrough insights –even volunteer groups of bazaar anarchists are usually incapable ofgenuine originality, let alone corporate committees of people with asurvival stake in some status quo ante. Insight comes from individuals.
The most their surrounding social machinery can ever hope to do

38

15

ENDNOTES

is to be responsive to breakthrough insights – to nourish and reward
and rigorously test them instead of squashing them.
Some will characterize this as a romantic view, a reversion tooutmoded lone-inventor stereotypes. Not so; I am not asserting thatgroups are incapable of developing breakthrough insights once they
have been hatched ; indeed, we learn from the peer-review processthat such development groups are essential to producing a highquality result. Rather I am pointing out that every such group development starts from – is necessarily sparked by – one good idea
in one person’s head. Cathedrals and bazaars and other social structures can catch that lightning and refine it, but they cannot make it
on demand.
Therefore the root problem of innovation (in so=ware, or anywhere else) is indeed how not to squash it – but, even more fundamentally, it is how to grow lots of people who can have insights in thefirst place.
To suppose that cathedral-style development could manage thistrick but the low entry barriers and process fluidity of the bazaar
cannot would be absurd. If what it takes is one person with one good
idea, then a social milieu in which one person can rapidly attract thecooperation of hundreds or thousands of others with that good idea
is going inevitably to out-innovate any in which the person has to
do a political sales job to a hierarchy before he can work on his idea
without risk of getting fired.
And, indeed, if we look at the history of so=ware innovation byorganizations using the cathedral model, we quickly find it is rather
rare. Large corporations rely on university research for new ideas(thus the Halloween Documents authors’ unease about Linux’s facility at coopting that research more rapidly). Or they buy out small
companies built around some innovator’s brain. In neither case is
the innovation native to the cathedral culture; indeed, many innovations so imported end up being quietly su:ocated under the"massive level of management" the Halloween Documents’ authors
so extol.
That, however, is a negative point. The reader would be better
served by a positive one. I suggest, as an experiment, the following:– Pick a criterion for originality that you believe you can apply
consistently. If your definition is “I know it when I see it”, that’s
not a problem for purposes of this test.

39– Pick any closed-source operating system competing with Linux,
and a best source for accounts of current development work onit.
– Watch that source and Freshmeat for one month. Every day,count the number of release announcements on Freshmeatthat you consider ‘original’ work. Apply the same definition of‘original’ to announcements for that other os and count them.
– Thirty days later, total up both figures.
The day I wrote this, Freshmeat carried twenty-two release announcements, of which three appear they might push state of theart in some respect, This was a slow day for Freshmeat, but I will beastonished if any reader reports as many as three likely innovations
a month in any closed-source channel.
[egcs] We how have history on a project that, in several ways, may
provide a more indicative test of the bazaar premise than fetchmail;egcs, the Experimental gnu Compiler System.
This project was announced in mid-August of 1997 as a conscious
attempt to apply the ideas in the early public versions of “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”. The project founders felt that the developmentof gcc, the Gnu C Compiler, had been stagnating. For about twenty
months a=erwards, gcc and egcs continued as parallel products –both drawing from the same Internet developer population, both
starting from the same gcc source base, both using pretty much thesame Unix toolsets and development environment. The projects differed only in that egcs consciously tried to apply the bazaar tactics I
have previously described, while gcc retained a more cathedral-likeorganization with a closed developer group and infrequent releases.
This was about as close to a controlled experiment as one could
ask for, and the results were dramatic. Within months, the egcs
versions had pulled substantially ahead in features; better optimization, better support for fortran and C++. Many people found theegcs development snapshots to be more reliable than the most recent stable version of gcc, and major Linux distributions began toswitch to egcs.
In April of 1999, the Free So=ware Foundation (the o?cial sponsors of gcc) dissolved the original gcc development group and o?cially handed control of the project to the the egcs steering team.

15

40

ENDNOTES[sp] Of course, Kropotkin’s critique and Linus’s Law raise somewider issues about the cybernetics of social organizations. Anotherfolk theorem of so=ware engineering suggests one of them; Conway’s Law – commonly stated as “If you have four groups working
on a compiler, you’ll get a 4-pass compiler”. The original statement
was more general: “Organizations which design systems are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication
structures of these organizations.” We might put it more succinctly
as “The means determine the ends”, or even “Process becomes product”.
It is accordingly worth noting that in the open-source community organizational form and function match on many levels. The
network is everything and everywhere: not just the Internet, but
the people doing the work form a distributed, loosely coupled, peerto-peer network which provides multiple redundancy and degrades
very gracefully. In both networks, each node is important only to theextent that other nodes want to cooperate with it.
The peer-to-peer part is essential to the community’s astonishingproductivity. The point Kropotkin was trying to make about power
relationships is developed further by the ‘snafu Principle’: “Truecommunication is possible only between equals, because inferiors
are more consistently rewarded for telling their superiors pleasantlies than for telling the truth.” Creative teamwork utterly depends
on true communication and is thus very seriously hindered by thepresence of power relationships. The open-source community, effectively free of such power relationships, is teaching us by contrast
how dreadfully much they cost in bugs, in lowered productivity, andin lost opportunities.
Further, the snafu principle predicts in authoritarian organizations a progressive disconnect between decision-makers and reality,
as more and more of the input to those who decide tends to become
pleasant lies. The way this plays out in conventional so=ware development is easy to see ; there are strong incentives for the inferiors tohide, ignore, and minimize problems. When this process becomesproduct, so=ware is a disaster.

(c) http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/
Set in 11pt urw Antiqua type by TEX.
August 22, 2001