I don't think the author makes a very convincing point here; Linux is frequently cited as a prime example of Conway's Law in practice for a reason.
The reason the driver subsystem is architected as pluggable modules ("drivers") is to support the extremely wide array of organizations that have to build into it.
The reason why Linux is broken down into subsystems is to support the "specialists" who work in only on system at a time.
The reason Linux is a monolithic kernel that has a large degree of complication internally (vs. a microkernel) is because Linus is strong enough to make it happen.
I mean, the logical error is right in the title. The author inverted cause and effect.
It seems absurd that an article claims to disprove a hypothesis linking structure to communication patterns without even the slightest mention of trying to observe those patterns. But they go even further: they claim to have determined the direction of causality between two variables without even having measured one of them!
Actually I'd go even further and state that they are mistaken in their belief that Conway's law is about cause and effect. Conway's law holds regardless of whether the software was structured to match the organisation or the organisation was structured to match the software.
The reason the driver subsystem is architected as pluggable modules ("drivers") is to support the extremely wide array of organizations that have to build into it.
The reason why Linux is broken down into subsystems is to support the "specialists" who work in only on system at a time.
The reason Linux is a monolithic kernel that has a large degree of complication internally (vs. a microkernel) is because Linus is strong enough to make it happen.
I mean, the logical error is right in the title. The author inverted cause and effect.