I really have to write again. I am completely and utterly astounded by the nonsense uttered herein.
"This book delves deeply into the reason why open source evolved and why it works. It provides concrete economic theory and plenty of background on why the os method works for large complex pieces of software."
I hope you`re not a software developer. The open source method has no advantages over the proprietary method. What is the supposed difference? More eyeballs? Didn`t Microsoft`s much delayed Vista release just prove that more eyeballs don`t necessarily help. How many developers did Microsoft hire to write Vista? Ten or 10,000?
As far as I know, it`s still pretty easy to write huge classes in open source. Huge classes aren`t always a good thing. It`s also just as easy to write bugs and make bad design decisions. The concepts of good software design are by no means unique to open source. Modularity is not unique to open source. Good code structure and proper functionization are not unique to open source. Correct use of abstraction and encapsulation are not unique to open source.
While Cathedral/Bazaar is certainly interesting, it`s also incredibly biased. Nothing wrong with bias. But in the context of this discussion, the bias should be noted.