Я наткнулся на срач Торвальдса и гномеров из 2005-го года:
Также я недавно о существовании одностраничного сайта http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/, чей смысл существования в том, чтобы процитировать письмо 2008-го года от Adam Jackson (без понятия, кто это) в рассылке Fedora.
Итак, господину Adam Jackson из 2008-го виртуально отвечает Линус Торвальдс из 2005-го:
To me, open source _is_ about flexibility. And no, I'm not talking about
people re-compiling their applications and making changes to them. The
fact that the source code is open is in some ways both the least important
and the most important part: it's the least important in the sense that in
practice, very few people actually change source code, and even those that
do tend to be very _focused_ on one particular project (or even just a
small _part_ of a project).
So the source being open is - on average - not important to people
directly. Even major developers only work on a small part of the whole
stack at a time, they don't go around changing all the programs they use
to suit them.
But _indirectly_, the thing that open source really excels at, is the
flexibility it offers thanks to having lots of users, and lots of users
whose needs get _heard_. THAT is the core of open source. You've got
different kinds of people that get attached to a project. It's _not_ a
corporate mono-culture, because people from different backgrounds can get
together and work on it _without_ going through the corporate mind-wash.
And to me, gnome is killing itself as an open source project, because it
ends up dismissing exactly that thing. Having strict UI rules ("The HID
says so-and-so") that are really a religion that you're not allowed to
question. The whole notion that things are supposed to be done just one
way is antithetical to what makes open source successful in the first
place.