Twenty-five years after Eric S. Raymond's influential "The Cathedral and the Bazaar," we find ourselves in a software landscape that defies the simple binaries of that earlier era. The revolution didn't end with one model's decisive victory over the other. Instead, we've witnessed something more nuanced and ultimately more interesting: an evolution toward a complex, symbiotic ecosystem where both open and closed source development find their place.
The early debates framed software development as a choice between two opposing philosophies: the controlled, hierarchical cathedral versus the chaotic, democratic bazaar. We were told to pick sides in what felt like a digital holy war, with revolutionary promises of a world transformed by collaborative development on one side, and warnings of anarchy and unsustainable models on the other.
Reality, as it often does, proved more complex than ideology. The future isn't about choosing sides in a debate that has largely become obsolete. It's about recognizing that open and closed source form a necessary yin and yang—a dynamic balance that, when properly calibrated, creates a more robust, innovative, and equitable technological foundation for everyone.
That cathedral and bazaar we were told to choose between? They've learned to coexist, creating a digital ecosystem more resilient than either could build alone. The most interesting developments are happening not in the pure forms of either model, but in the creative tensions and collaborations between them.
To understand where we are today, we must move beyond the simplistic narratives that have dominated discussions of software development. The story of open source cannot be reduced to GitHub statistics about project abandonment rates, just as the story of proprietary software cannot be reduced to tales of vendor lock-in and stagnation.
Creative processes inherently involve waste and experimentation—this is true whether we're talking about software, art, science, or business. The thousands of abandoned projects on GitHub represent not failure, but the natural byproduct of exploration and learning. They are the sketchbooks and notebooks of the digital age, where ideas are tried, refined, or discarded in the pursuit of something meaningful.
Similarly, the corporate world is filled with its own graveyards of abandoned proprietary projects—products that failed in the market, internal tools that became obsolete, and ambitious initiatives that never found their audience. The difference is one of transparency: open source leaves its creative process visible for all to see, while proprietary development typically hides its failures from public view.
The real question isn't which model produces less "waste," but how each model channels creative energy toward different kinds of value, and how they might complement rather than compete with each other.
Let's be clear about where the open source revolution fell short of its most utopian promises. Raymond's vision of "many eyeballs" making "all bugs shallow" proved incomplete. The Heartbleed vulnerability in OpenSSL exposed the harsh reality: critical infrastructure maintained by a handful of overworked volunteers, surviving on shoestring budgets despite being used by millions.
Financial sustainability emerged as the fundamental challenge. The support-based business model worked well for complex enterprise software like Red Hat Linux, but failed for user-friendly applications that people expected to "just work" without paid support. The economic narrative of open source turned out to be far more complex than initially imagined.
And yet, against these challenges, open source achieved something remarkable: it became the invisible foundation of our digital world. Linux powers the cloud. Apache and nginx serve the web. Kubernetes orchestrates our containerized applications. Git enables our collaborative development. These technologies succeeded not by displacing proprietary alternatives entirely, but by becoming the reliable, transparent foundation upon which both open and closed systems could be built.
Meanwhile, closed source didn't just survive—it adapted and found new roles. Microsoft, once the archetypal cathedral, now embraces open source while maintaining profitable proprietary offerings. Apple builds its closed ecosystem on open source foundations. Google open-sources fundamental technologies while keeping its core services proprietary. The lines have blurred in ways the early revolutionaries never anticipated.
Both development models have evolved to play complementary roles in our technological ecosystem, each correcting the other's inherent weaknesses while amplifying their unique strengths.
Open source excels as the foundation layer—the digital equivalent of public roads and bridges. Infrastructure wants to be open: protocols, programming languages, operating systems, and development tools benefit tremendously from transparency, collaborative improvement, and widespread adoption. The network effects of open standards and shared infrastructure create value that far exceeds what any single company could achieve alone.
Closed source thrives as the innovation and polish layer. The profit motive drives investment in ambitious R&D, polished user experiences, and specialized solutions that serve niche markets. Commercial pressure creates accountability and professional support structures that open source struggles to provide. The focused resources of corporate development can tackle problems that would overwhelm distributed volunteer efforts.
We see this balance everywhere in the modern stack: Android's open source core with Google's closed services, VS Code's open editor with proprietary extensions, Apple's Darwin kernel with its closed GUI. The most successful technology companies have stopped treating open and closed as competing ideologies and started treating them as complementary tools in a broader strategy.
The question for organizations is no longer "should we use open source or proprietary software?" but "which parts of our technology stack should be open, which should be closed, and how do we manage the interfaces between them?"
As digital infrastructure becomes as critical as physical infrastructure, governments worldwide are beginning to recognize their role as stewards of the digital commons. This represents the most promising solution to open source's chronic funding challenges for essential public goods.
Imagine if we treated critical digital infrastructure the way we treat physical infrastructure. Roads, bridges, and public utilities receive sustained public investment because they're essential public goods. Why shouldn't our digital foundations receive the same treatment?
We're already seeing glimpses of this future. France has made significant commitments to open source in public administration. The US Digital Service champions open source solutions. The European Union invests in open source as a matter of digital sovereignty. These initiatives recognize that some technologies are too important to be left entirely to market forces or volunteer efforts.
This isn't just about funding—it's about anchor tenancy. When governments become major users and supporters of critical open source projects, they create sustainable ecosystems. They ensure that essential digital infrastructure isn't dependent on the goodwill of volunteers or the commercial interests of corporations.
National security imperatives are driving this shift too. Transparent, auditable software stacks for critical systems reduce vulnerability to foreign-controlled proprietary solutions. Digital sovereignty means maintaining control over essential infrastructure as a matter of national interest. The recent executive orders on cybersecurity in multiple countries reflect this growing recognition.
Artificial intelligence is emerging as the great equalizer, addressing many of open source's traditional weaknesses while amplifying its strengths. AI won't replace developers but will dramatically change what they can accomplish.
Consider the chronic problems of open source maintenance: documentation gaps, bug triage overwhelm, and the "bus factor" where projects depend on single maintainers. AI can shoulder these burdens—automatically generating documentation, analyzing issue reports, suggesting fixes, and helping newcomers navigate complex codebases.
Natural language interfaces could allow non-experts to contribute meaningfully to projects they care about. Someone who understands a domain problem but lacks programming expertise could describe a feature in plain language, and AI could help translate that into technical specifications or even preliminary code.
Front-end democratization represents another exciting frontier. Many technically excellent open source projects suffer from poor user interfaces. AI-powered design tools could help create polished, intuitive interfaces that make powerful tools accessible to wider audiences.
The future isn't AI replacing human developers—it's AI augmenting human capabilities, lowering barriers to contribution, and making open source maintenance more sustainable. We're already seeing this with tools like GitHub Copilot, which suggests code completions based on context, and similar AI-assisted development environments that are emerging across the industry.
The most successful approaches we see emerging aren't purely open or closed, but strategically hybrid. The question is no longer whether to open source, but what to open source and when.
The open core model has proven particularly effective: a robust open source foundation with proprietary enterprise features. Companies like GitLab, Redis, and Elastic have built sustainable businesses this way. The open core attracts users and contributors; the proprietary features fund development. This creates a virtuous cycle where community input improves the core product while enterprise customers fund ongoing innovation.
Software-as-a-Service represents another successful hybrid approach. Companies offer hosted versions of open source software where the value is in operation, not the code. WordPress.com, Supabase, and countless others demonstrate that people will pay for convenience, reliability, and support even when the software itself is free. This model aligns incentives beautifully—the better the open source project becomes, the more valuable the hosted service becomes.
We're also seeing the rise of corporate stewardship of critical projects. Google, Facebook, and Microsoft now employ thousands of developers to work full-time on open source projects that are essential to their operations. This represents a significant shift from the early days when corporations viewed open source with suspicion. Today, contributing to open source is seen as both good engineering practice and good business strategy.
The commoditization strategy has become increasingly sophisticated: open sourcing lower layers of the stack to compete on higher-value services. By making foundational technology ubiquitous and free, companies can focus their competitive advantages on specialized applications and services. This pattern has repeated across multiple technology waves, from operating systems to databases to machine learning frameworks.
Looking ahead, the most promising future isn't one where either model "wins," but where they achieve a dynamic equilibrium that serves different needs at different layers of the technology stack.
At the foundation layer, we'll see mostly open source—operating systems, protocols, programming languages, and core libraries funded as digital public goods through combinations of government support, corporate contributions, and foundation funding. This layer benefits most from transparency, standardization, and widespread adoption.
The service layer will be predominantly hybrid—platforms, frameworks, and tools using various open-core and SaaS models that balance accessibility with sustainability. This is where we'll see the most experimentation with business models and governance structures.
The application layer will remain diverse—everything from fully open community projects to specialized commercial applications, with users choosing based on their specific needs and values. This diversity is a strength, not a weakness, as it allows different approaches to serve different use cases.
At the innovation frontier, we'll likely continue to see mostly closed development—highly specialized, R&D-intensive solutions where the proprietary model justifies the investment risk and protects competitive advantages. As these technologies mature, they often transition toward more open models.
This layered approach creates a virtuous cycle: open foundations enable rapid innovation at higher layers; commercial success at higher layers funds improvements to the foundations; government stewardship ensures the foundations remain secure and accessible to all. Each layer supports and strengthens the others, creating an ecosystem more resilient than any single approach could achieve alone.
So where does this leave us? The revolution didn't fail—it evolved. The cathedral and bazaar learned to coexist, each playing to its strengths in a complex technological ecosystem.
The cathedral provides structure, polish, and focused resources for ambitious projects. The bazaar provides resilience, innovation, and democratic access. We need both—not as competing alternatives, but as complementary forces in a balanced technological ecosystem.
As we move forward, three trends will shape this symbiotic relationship: the maturation of government as digital infrastructure steward, the integration of AI as development co-pilot, and the refinement of hybrid business models that balance openness with sustainability. The organizations that thrive will be those that understand how to navigate this complex landscape rather than seeking simple answers to complicated questions.
The most exciting developments will happen at the intersections—where open foundations enable closed innovation, where public funding sustains private enterprise, where human creativity combines with artificial intelligence. These are the spaces where we'll see the next generation of technological breakthroughs.
This isn't the future the early revolutionaries predicted, but it might be better: not a world where one model triumphs over the other, but where both find their place in a balanced ecosystem that serves the diverse needs of users, developers, and society. The conversation has moved from "which is better?" to "how do they work together?"—and that represents meaningful progress.
On the Evolution of Software Development
This essay reflects on the quarter-century since Eric S. Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" and how the software development landscape has evolved beyond the initial binary debate. The symbiotic relationship between open and closed source has proven more resilient and productive than either model alone.
Key trends shaping this evolution include the emergence of government as digital infrastructure steward, the integration of AI as a development force multiplier, and the refinement of hybrid business models that balance openness with sustainability. The future points toward a layered ecosystem where different development approaches complement each other at different levels of the technology stack.
Rather than a revolution that replaces one model with another, we're witnessing an evolution toward balance—a recognition that both cathedral and bazaar have essential roles to play in building the technological foundations of our future.