The Open Source Cynic: Why Diogenes Would Have Loved Git

Diogenes of Sinope once threw away his drinking cup after watching a child drink from cupped hands. The boy had shown him he was carrying something unnecessary. Twenty-four centuries later, Linus Torvalds created Git by throwing away the existing source control orthodoxy, and accidentally proved the same point.

The Cynic philosophers weren’t pessimists — they were radicals who rejected artificial complexity. Sound familiar?

The Conventional Wisdom That Never Was

When Diogenes saw Alexander the Great standing over him, blocking his sunlight, he didn’t ask for gold or territory. He asked Alexander to move. Not because he was rude, but because he understood something that the most powerful man in the world had forgotten: you can’t improve a relationship by adding status to it.

The open source movement operates on the same principle. When Eric Raymond wrote “The Cathedral and the Bazaar,” he wasn’t just describing development methodologies. He was documenting the philosophical discovery that you can’t improve software by adding bureaucracy to it.

Consider the trajectory of every enterprise software vendor:

1. Start with a simple tool that solves a real problem
2. Add features to justify enterprise pricing
3. Add a “governance layer” to manage the complexity those features created
4. Add a professional services team to implement the governance layer
5. Add a training program to teach people how to use the professional services

By step 5, you’re selling complexity management, not problem solving. Diogenes would have recognized this immediately as what happens when you forget that the cup was never the point.

The Freedom of Having Nothing to Lose

Ancient Cynics lived in poverty by choice. Not because they thought material possessions were evil, but because they understood that ownership creates obligation, and obligation creates compromise. When you own nothing, you can tell the truth about everything.

Open source developers discovered the same thing accidentally. When Apache became the dominant web server, it wasn’t because the Apache Software Foundation had better marketing than Microsoft. It was because the Apache team had nothing to lose by making it work correctly, while Microsoft had IIS sales numbers to protect.

This isn’t theoretical. Watch what happens when an open source project gets acquired by a company that sells adjacent products. The conflict of interest doesn’t corrupt the people — it corrupts the decisions. Should we fix the bug that makes our database product look slow? Should we add the feature that competes with our enterprise offering? Suddenly, technical decisions become business decisions.

Diogenes understood that intellectual honesty requires intellectual independence. You can’t seek truth while carrying someone else’s cups.

The Monastery vs. The Bazaar

The enterprise software development model is fundamentally monastic. A small group of initiates, working in isolation, following a prescribed methodology, producing artifacts that will be revealed to the outside world only when they’re deemed ready by the hierarchy.

Open source development is fundamentally barbaric. A bunch of people with different backgrounds, different motivations, different levels of commitment, somehow producing software that runs most of the internet’s infrastructure.

The monastery model makes perfect sense if you believe that quality comes from control. The bazaar model only makes sense if you believe that quality comes from transparency.

Diogenes believed in transparency with the intensity of someone who’d given up everything else. He urinated in public, not because he was crude, but because he thought the concept of “private bodily functions” was artificial social conditioning. What, exactly, was being accomplished by hiding natural processes?

Every code review that catches a critical bug is asking the same question: what, exactly, was being accomplished by hiding the development process?

Patterns Are Portable

Here’s the thing about philosophical insights: they don’t stay contained within their original domain. The principles that make open source development work aren’t software principles — they’re organizational principles. And they apply anywhere you’re trying to coordinate human effort toward complex goals.

I’ve seen these patterns in military intelligence analysis, hospital emergency departments, contact center operations, and financial trading floors. The places that work well have short feedback loops, transparent decision-making, and mechanisms for rapid error correction. The places that don’t work well have long planning cycles, hidden information flows, and institutional resistance to admitting mistakes.

It’s the difference between asking “How do we prevent errors?” and asking “How do we recover from errors quickly?” The first question leads you to build cathedrals. The second question leads you to build bazaars.

The Tyranny of Small Differences

But here’s where it gets interesting. The open source movement has started building its own unnecessary cups. We now have governance frameworks, contributor license agreements, code of conduct enforcement mechanisms, and diversity and inclusion boards. All of which might be necessary, but none of which existed when Apache became the world’s dominant web server.

Diogenes would have asked: are we solving the problem these institutions were designed to solve? Or are we solving the problems these institutions created by existing?

I don’t have an answer. But I know the question is worth asking, because it’s the same question that separates useful software from software that’s technically impressive but solves no actual problem.

The cup was never the point. Neither was the drinking. The point was the thirst.

🏮

P.S. — Yes, I know Diogenes probably wouldn’t have understood distributed version control. But I guarantee you he would have understood the moment when someone realizes they’ve been carrying around unnecessary complexity just because everyone else was doing it.