You said it yourself:
"Although the fabs would have a monopoly on their process for a time, it would atleast be published so that open source tools could be made that take advantage of these processes."
I know of at least one place that grows their own wafers and does all their own processing, and publish absolutely nothing about it - no patents, no external papers, zip, zilch, nada - specifically because other people could read the patents and figure out what they were doing, so they keep it all trade secret. It gives them absolutely no advantage to publish about something it requires enormous capital costs to even be considering, it risks exposing some of their secret sauce, and it costs tens of millions of dollars (...a year) to develop and maintain - and you'd want them to what, give it away? For 'open source'?
Open source hasn't even given us a competent PCB package, and has only recently given us a marginally passable office suite. In 2018.
Let the magnitude of the utter failure of open source just sink in for a minute, there. Are people really that clueless, that they think "well, someone will take advantage of this if we just get people to publish about all the details that someone else spent all the money to create AND maintain!"
I absolutely don't get the circle jerk for open source. It's amazing and wonderful at times, but let's not pretend it solves real problems. Elon Musk isn't going to open source his rocket designs anytime soon, but if you want a selection of 35000 poorly designed MP3 players, open source has your back!!112
If an open source solution solves a real problem, it was government funded (SPICE, LAPACK, MAXIMA, etc). We all paid for it. The one shining counterexample is the GNU Compiler - but FFS, they couldn't build a kernel even after the success of their compiler!
I don't care what anybody else thinks, I 1000% agree with this rant. I feel similarly strongly about it, and have ever since I discovered the whole open source thing myself several years ago.
With gcc, IIRC Richard Stallman was basically just playing cat-and-mouse with feature parity with the commercial compilers for several years. Okay, very impressive investment in terms of total SLOC, but methinks that's a byproduct of a brain being able to excel in exactly the field it's really really good at. Apparently rms wasn't a kernel person (?).
Broadly speaking open source gives me the impression of a bunch of people who honestly don't know what they're talking about and who aren't really all that smart. As a collective, that group isn't going to have very good ideas or execution. There are undoubtedly some smart people hiding in the corners, but their work is shunned or scoffed at because of the collective lack of intelligence of the whole.
While probably a frustratingly unanswerable question, I've been yearning for an online community for some time that are like-minded toward the idea that open source isn't everything and that there are better things out there.
I know of at least one place that grows their own wafers and does all their own processing, and publish absolutely nothing about it - no patents, no external papers, zip, zilch, nada - specifically because other people could read the patents and figure out what they were doing, so they keep it all trade secret. It gives them absolutely no advantage to publish about something it requires enormous capital costs to even be considering, it risks exposing some of their secret sauce, and it costs tens of millions of dollars (...a year) to develop and maintain - and you'd want them to what, give it away? For 'open source'?
Open source hasn't even given us a competent PCB package, and has only recently given us a marginally passable office suite. In 2018.
Let the magnitude of the utter failure of open source just sink in for a minute, there. Are people really that clueless, that they think "well, someone will take advantage of this if we just get people to publish about all the details that someone else spent all the money to create AND maintain!"
I absolutely don't get the circle jerk for open source. It's amazing and wonderful at times, but let's not pretend it solves real problems. Elon Musk isn't going to open source his rocket designs anytime soon, but if you want a selection of 35000 poorly designed MP3 players, open source has your back!!112
If an open source solution solves a real problem, it was government funded (SPICE, LAPACK, MAXIMA, etc). We all paid for it. The one shining counterexample is the GNU Compiler - but FFS, they couldn't build a kernel even after the success of their compiler!