Cutting off the global open source development can only result in diminished innovation, and long-term strategic vulnerability. Doing so imposes severe costs on domestic technological progress. This is a similar problem to the one faced by closed-source companies, but at a far greater scale. Open source amortizes the financial burden of research, development, and maintenance across a worldwide community. For example, technologies like Linux are maintained by thousands of developers and organizations globally, reducing costs for all participants. A nation that opts for closed, proprietary systems must shoulder these expenses alone, diverting resources from other sectors such as education and infrastructure. This problem is particularly acute in fast-evolving fields like AI or cybersecurity, where reinventing the wheel is prohibitively expensive. Developers worldwide find bugs, implement features, and adapt tools to new use cases, accelerating progress exponentially.
Countries that engage with open source will have easier time attracting skilled developers and researchers. By contrast, isolationist policies are likely to result in brain drain, as experts migrate to environments where they can collaborate globally. Startups and enterprises also depend on open source to reduce costs and scale rapidly. Restricting access to technology stifles domestic tech ecosystem, putting the country at a disadvantage with its peers.
Another big aspect here is who gets to shape emerging technologies and standards. Nations that participate in these networks gain early access to breakthroughs and will influence the direction of these critical technologies. Projects like RISC-V are already defining the future of their industries. Countries that isolate themselves forfeit this influence, ceding control to foreign entities. Locking industries out of global supply chains will inevitably lead to incompatibilities and make it difficult for these homegrown technologies to compete on the global market.
Ultimately, isolation is a recipe for technological stagnation. Closed systems will always be at a disadvantage compared to open ones. Over time, this will lead to dependence on legacy technologies that will be surpassed by the rest of the world. Meanwhile, open source adopters will continuously evolve, integrating global advancements. In a world where technological leadership determines economic and geopolitical power, cutting oneself off from the global community is suicidal. Open source provides a strategic advantage, enabling countries to pool resources for common prosperity. Those that cut themselves off will face higher costs, slower progress, and irreversible decline in the global race for technological supremacy.
One thing the anglosphere really has going for it is the status of English as a lingua franca in the spheres of business, technology, engineering, and science. This could hardly be any more apparent than in the world of free software development, where code is written in English. Language keywords, function names, variables, interfaces, filenames, all in English. Issue report tickets and discussion, all in English. Documentation and strings, all in English, before using the English strings as a key to be translated into other languages. This is just one aspect of an enormous cultural hegemony which appears to be on the brink of being squandered.
Thing is, nothing stops people from outside the west from continuing to use English to collaborate with each other even if they don’t collaborate with the west.
The goal really isn’t innovation tho. The goal is to spend money on hardware and data centers. More efficient models (for something that sucks anyway!) just decrease spending.
Cutting off the global open source development can only result in diminished innovation, and long-term strategic vulnerability. Doing so imposes severe costs on domestic technological progress. This is a similar problem to the one faced by closed-source companies, but at a far greater scale. Open source amortizes the financial burden of research, development, and maintenance across a worldwide community. For example, technologies like Linux are maintained by thousands of developers and organizations globally, reducing costs for all participants. A nation that opts for closed, proprietary systems must shoulder these expenses alone, diverting resources from other sectors such as education and infrastructure. This problem is particularly acute in fast-evolving fields like AI or cybersecurity, where reinventing the wheel is prohibitively expensive. Developers worldwide find bugs, implement features, and adapt tools to new use cases, accelerating progress exponentially.
Countries that engage with open source will have easier time attracting skilled developers and researchers. By contrast, isolationist policies are likely to result in brain drain, as experts migrate to environments where they can collaborate globally. Startups and enterprises also depend on open source to reduce costs and scale rapidly. Restricting access to technology stifles domestic tech ecosystem, putting the country at a disadvantage with its peers.
Another big aspect here is who gets to shape emerging technologies and standards. Nations that participate in these networks gain early access to breakthroughs and will influence the direction of these critical technologies. Projects like RISC-V are already defining the future of their industries. Countries that isolate themselves forfeit this influence, ceding control to foreign entities. Locking industries out of global supply chains will inevitably lead to incompatibilities and make it difficult for these homegrown technologies to compete on the global market.
Ultimately, isolation is a recipe for technological stagnation. Closed systems will always be at a disadvantage compared to open ones. Over time, this will lead to dependence on legacy technologies that will be surpassed by the rest of the world. Meanwhile, open source adopters will continuously evolve, integrating global advancements. In a world where technological leadership determines economic and geopolitical power, cutting oneself off from the global community is suicidal. Open source provides a strategic advantage, enabling countries to pool resources for common prosperity. Those that cut themselves off will face higher costs, slower progress, and irreversible decline in the global race for technological supremacy.
One thing the anglosphere really has going for it is the status of English as a lingua franca in the spheres of business, technology, engineering, and science. This could hardly be any more apparent than in the world of free software development, where code is written in English. Language keywords, function names, variables, interfaces, filenames, all in English. Issue report tickets and discussion, all in English. Documentation and strings, all in English, before using the English strings as a key to be translated into other languages. This is just one aspect of an enormous cultural hegemony which appears to be on the brink of being squandered.
Thing is, nothing stops people from outside the west from continuing to use English to collaborate with each other even if they don’t collaborate with the west.
You just made me realize capitalists would create a language tax if it were possible.
Maybe that could be an interesting sci-fi concept
haha totally
The goal really isn’t innovation tho. The goal is to spend money on hardware and data centers. More efficient models (for something that sucks anyway!) just decrease spending.
Oh I agree, the oligarchs don’t want their profits disrupted and they don’t care about anything else.