Is Linux Socialistic?

[Inner Peace]

Well i thought i should open a thread like this.

From my views: Linux open source,people voluntary to write the OS for free,no profit,.... if you look from such view you would say that linux is an socialistic thing. And Linus Torvalds
said that he is an communist

About Linus

Many members of the family were journalists. His parents, Nils and Anna Torvalds, were both radicals at the University of Helsinki during the 1960s. His father was a Communist who spent a year studying in Moscow in the mid-1970s and later became a radio journalist. His mother worked for a Finnish newspaper as a translator and a creator of news graphics. Also, his grandfather was the editor-in-chief of a Finnish newspaper, and his uncle worked for Finnish TV.

[Red Rabbit]

Yes actually, it is.

[Искра]

No.

It's just a computer system.

[Red Rabbit]

No.

It's just a computer system.

You've obviously never been involved with the free open-source community if you think "it's just a computer system".

[farleft]

I am a Linux user (Ubuntu) and there are indeed similarities between communism and Linux/the Open-Source community.

[Triple A]

Operative systems are lines of computer coding not political ideals.

[xub3rn00dlex]

I think the better question would be whether linux would require socialism to flourish and garner the same market share being held by MS and Apple, or would it be possible under capitalism? The latter being problematic in the essence that major corporations refuse to port and develop their products for linux ( I'm looking at you, adobe motherfuckers ) which does keep a large number of people from switching. Wine is great, but it still has it's problems.

[Искра]

You've obviously never been involved with the free open-source community if you think "it's just a computer system".
Actually, I use Linux Mint. I'm just not liberal.

[Nox]

I think Linux sucks, but it is Socialistic.

[Red Rabbit]

Actually, I use Linux Mint. I'm just not liberal.

Using Linux and contributing to the FOSS movement are 2 completely different things.

And what does Liberalism have to do with anything?

[Ocean Seal]

I think Linux sucks, but it is Socialistic.
Linux is awesome, but sadly its not socialistic. It has a creative environment similar to what would exist under socialism in all respect, but operating systems aren't exactly ideologically based.
-Posted from Ubuntu

[the Left™]

I mean its free access based on the tenant of mutual use of a OS software....

Take from that what you will

[Blackscare]

I got into revolutionary politics through FOSS and GNU and the like. The mode of collaboration that they use, combined with what the project has done to prove that altruism combined with peer-respect can be just as powerful a motivator as monetary incentive, make the Free Software Movement an invaluable template and model to learn from. That said, the movement itself is relatively apolitical. If I recall correctly, several prominent coders for GNU and I think a major maintainer of Linux code are an-caps.


So no, "linux" is not socialist, and neither is the movement that it stems from as a whole. That doesn't mean that it should be dismissed as a model to be examined and expanded upon, however. It's the best, most vibrant network of people turning out technically relevant material in a relatively horizontal, collaborative method. For free. The open source/FOSS community does way more to practice and validate many leftist concepts (wittingly or unwittingly) on a large scale than any commune or squat or cooperative coffee house ever has. If a network of free collaborators operating on the basis of altruism can produce something as technologically complex as a modern operating system (several, really, not even counting the various distros that exist within linux, BSD, etc), furnish said operating system with tens of thousands of free programs, and build dedicated communities for the maintenance and expansion of such projects, this is a mighty strong argument for some of our own points.


That said, FOSS is not perfect. Because everything is voluntary and each project (outside of the GNU suite of projects) is independent, you get a lot of programs that do the same thing when sometimes it's clear that one should be focused on and perfected. Same goes for the billions of distros out there. I like variety, but it gets to a point where you have this constant stream of very minor distros popping up while others lose steam and dev teams go AWOL. Also, projects are very rarely "democratic". Usually someone with a vision of where a project should go starts it and attracts volunteers. Volunteers are free to come and go as they please, but generally decisions as to the direction of the project are up to the founders. Of course there are situations where a person in charge may want to take a project down some absurd path and the whole dev team threatens to walk, which balances things out in a way akin to union strike actions. I've always been interested in the way that FOSS/Open Source can be both undemocratic and relatively horizontal in day-to-day operation at the same time.

[Blackscare]

Also it should be noted that FOSS/Open Source is the only other movement that could rival the revolutionary left when it comes to splits and forks.

[Blackscare]

One more thing:

The FOSS/Open Source movement, particularly people like Richard Stallman, have been particularly prescient in identifying and attempting to combat a form of property relations that has been growing in significance and will continue to do so: intellectual property rights. The left in general lags far behind the FOSS/Open Source movement in recognizing the importance of this "new" form of property relations.

Now, most people associate that issue with piracy and whatnot, but the likes of Stallman have correctly identified that the real problem lies not in the ability to freely share music (which, incidentally, I support) but in the advent of things like cloud computing and proprietary file formats. Basically, proprietary file formats and internet services that host all of one's personal information and data can be used to lock people in and even, in the long run, impose a form of rent on computer users. Copyright wars that have been waged in the past, usually ending in one party paying a tribute to another, are already evidence of the imposition of rent that I'm talking about. If you want to convert from windows to linux, for example, you have to contend with the task of converting all of your files away from proprietary windows formats. Most people don't want to or don't know how to do this. This puts a huge amount of power into the hands of defacto monopolies such as Microsoft.

This all may seem relatively trivial to you, but as we wade deeper into the digital age with every year, it is anything but. It is also worth noting that, unlike file-sharing partisans, FOSS/Open Source has taken more of a "direct action", rather than reformist, route. They are directly attempting to combat the problem, first by the creation of technically competitive software, second by attempting to package them into formats that are accessible for most people (the Ubuntu project comes to mind here). Today the only thing that really stops Linux from growing is the inability/unwillingness of major game devs to jump ship to linux or produce linux ports, which is largely the result of contractual wrangling on the part of Microsoft.

[tbasherizer]

Also it should be noted that FOSS/Open Source is the only other movement that could rival the revolutionary left when it comes to splits and forks.

Long Live the anti-revisionist line of Marxism-Leninism-Debian-GNOME-ism!

In all seriousness though, I think the apoliticalness of the FOSS movement is what makes it the most promising manifestation of 'The Revolution'. I hope people on revleft don't see the transition to socialism happening when everyone in the world spontaneously takes up their particular ideological tine and in a massive, coordinated action, consciously declares socialism to have been achieved. The materialist way of looking at it would be to have 'apolitical' movements like FOSS that operate on generally socialist priniciples become the norm due to their material virtues. In other words, when industry sees the material gain they can achieve by transferring to and accelerating the development of FOSS projects, the mode of production sees a more participatory change in whichever sector of the economy adopts FOSS.

[Belleraphone]

Whatever it is, it certainly isn't developed among capitalist lines.

It's also worth mentioning that Linux is the best operating system. Supercomputers, corporations, and governments use it to store security and stuff.

COINCIDENCE?

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

No.

It's just a computer system.

Linux itself is just a computer system, but it is notably common for it's supporters to be on the left. I believe that the way people think can influence the choices they make, and it can vary from their political ideology to what kind of car they drive.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

I think Linux sucks, but it is Socialistic.

I don't like the actual OS itself, but I do support how the community around it works. I prefer windows technically, but favor free software.

I'm using a pirated copy of Windows XP.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I have Windows 7. Is my PC a Capitalist?

[xub3rn00dlex]

I have Windows 7. Is my PC a Capitalist?

After the revolution every bestbuy will be turned into a gulag, and your PC will be the first resident there. :scared:

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I got into revolutionary politics through FOSS and GNU and the like. The mode of collaboration that they use, combined with what the project has done to prove that altruism combined with peer-respect can be just as powerful a motivator as monetary incentive, make the Free Software Movement an invaluable template and model to learn from. That said, the movement itself is relatively apolitical. If I recall correctly, several prominent coders for GNU and I think a major maintainer of Linux code are an-caps.


So no, "linux" is not socialist, and neither is the movement that it stems from as a whole. That doesn't mean that it should be dismissed as a model to be examined and expanded upon, however. It's the best, most vibrant network of people turning out technically relevant material in a relatively horizontal, collaborative method. For free. The open source/FOSS community does way more to practice and validate many leftist concepts (wittingly or unwittingly) on a large scale than any commune or squat or cooperative coffee house ever has. If a network of free collaborators operating on the basis of altruism can produce something as technologically complex as a modern operating system (several, really, not even counting the various distros that exist within linux, BSD, etc), furnish said operating system with tens of thousands of free programs, and build dedicated communities for the maintenance and expansion of such projects, this is a mighty strong argument for some of our own points.


That said, FOSS is not perfect. Because everything is voluntary and each project (outside of the GNU suite of projects) is independent, you get a lot of programs that do the same thing when sometimes it's clear that one should be focused on and perfected. Same goes for the billions of distros out there. I like variety, but it gets to a point where you have this constant stream of very minor distros popping up while others lose steam and dev teams go AWOL. Also, projects are very rarely "democratic". Usually someone with a vision of where a project should go starts it and attracts volunteers. Volunteers are free to come and go as they please, but generally decisions as to the direction of the project are up to the founders. Of course there are situations where a person in charge may want to take a project down some absurd path and the whole dev team threatens to walk, which balances things out in a way akin to union strike actions. I've always been interested in the way that FOSS/Open Source can be both undemocratic and relatively horizontal in day-to-day operation at the same time.
(emphasis) One of the main kernel devs is ... Jeff Garzik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Garzik)



Linux is great. I can definitely see some parallels between the open source software movement and socialism ... although it's not a perfect match by any means. Blackscare said it best.

I use Arch Linux (http://www.archlinux.org)

[Inner Peace]

I am a Linux user (Ubuntu) and there are indeed similarities between communism and Linux/the Open-Source community.

Ha nice to hear that im on ubuntu to but im more of an Debian User,and im still waiting for linux mint 12 to be released.

[RedGrunt]

I have Windows 7. Is my PC a Capitalist?

Why yes, yes it is. Liquidate it!

[Inner Peace]

Actually, I use Linux Mint. I'm just not liberal.

Linux Mint 12 is coming out this mouth hah ha hi cant wait

[Q]

I don't like the actual OS itself, but I do support how the community around it works. I prefer windows technically, but favor free software.

I'm using a pirated copy of Windows XP.

Sorry, but why are you using a decade old operating system? If you're on an older computer that isn't capable of running later Windows variants, you should probably definitely give Linux another shot. As noted before, the only major backdrop of Linux is the fact that many games do not run on it natively (although Wine can run a lot). In most other aspects Linux is superior, certainly in contrast to XP.

I'm on Ubuntu with Unity interface (although using the 2D variant as the 3D doesn't work nicely with my intel integrated graphics card, which suprisingly means that most eyecandy runs better on my system).

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

Sorry, but why are you using a decade old operating system? If you're on an older computer that isn't capable of running later Windows variants, you should probably definitely give Linux another shot. As noted before, the only major backdrop of Linux is the fact that many games do not run on it natively (although Wine can run a lot). In most other aspects Linux is superior, certainly in contrast to XP.

I'm on Ubuntu with Unity interface (although using the 2D variant as the 3D doesn't work nicely with my intel integrated graphics card, which suprisingly means that most eyecandy runs better on my system).

My computer is from 2010. It came with windows 7, but I hated it, and it eventually crashed. I have switched back and forth from Linux to Windows XP. I prefer windows because it has a directly executable file (.exe), while linux needs to have an entire folder to run a program. I did use wine, but it was too buggy with my programs. Basically, windows is much cleaner in my opinion. Yes, XP is 10 years old, but it is still useful for me. I'll probably switch when Micro$oft cuts support for it in 2014.

[Q]

I prefer windows because it has a directly executable file (.exe), while linux needs to have an entire folder to run a program.

Linux doesn't do executable folders, maybe you're confused with Mac OS X apps (which is btw a grand idea) or maybe I'm misunderstanding. On a distribution like Ubuntu, you search, install, remove and upgrade all of your apps with the "software center" (kinda like the Mac App Store, if you know OS X or iTunes), which has tens of thousands of apps, with a single click. I would argue it's actually far more userfriendly than maintaining apps on Windows, as XP doesn't have anything remotely similar as such an integrated app manager. In XP you need to maintain all your apps manually, so you're probably back a few versions on most apps, causing you to lose out on feature or worse, have security issues as bugs remain unplugged.

As for Wine, yeah, it isn't perfect.

[tbasherizer]

I think they're referring to downloading tar.gz compressed folders rather than .exe or .msi. Installing a file from source using tarballs is the same as using a self-extracting installer in Windows, but the extraction is left for you to do because different Linuxes have different directory structures and other features. If you stick to Ubuntu (or some other Debian distro), the msi-esque .deb file will take care of your qualms. Install it with Wubi so you can keep windows but experiment with Ubuntu.

[Zav]

Operative systems are lines of computer coding not political ideals.
No one is saying Linux is Socialism. We are saying that it is SocialISTIC.

[Nicolai]

I have Windows 7. Is my PC a Capitalist?

Very.

[Nicolai]

Sorry, but why are you using a decade old operating system? If you're on an older computer that isn't capable of running later Windows variants, you should probably definitely give Linux another shot. As noted before, the only major backdrop of Linux is the fact that many games do not run on it natively (although Wine can run a lot). In most other aspects Linux is superior, certainly in contrast to XP.

I'm on Ubuntu with Unity interface (although using the 2D variant as the 3D doesn't work nicely with my intel integrated graphics card, which suprisingly means that most eyecandy runs better on my system).

I think you're confused, since Linux does have executables too. It's just that inb Linux, you'd need a windows manager with file association configure properly to run it by just a click (or it could be done by shell; whatever suits your need).

[Blackscare]

I think you're confused, since Linux does have executables too. It's just that inb Linux, you'd need a windows manager with file association configure properly to run it by just a click (or it could be done by shell; whatever suits your need).

Huh? Are you referring to Q's statement that many games aren't supported? There's a lot more to it than launching .exe's, namely directx.

[Q]

I think you're confused, since Linux does have executables too. It's just that inb Linux, you'd need a windows manager with file association configure properly to run it by just a click (or it could be done by shell; whatever suits your need).

If you're referring to shell scripts that have a +x executable flag, I'm well aware of those. I've been running Linux for the last eight years now and have run, among other things, Gentoo - a distro known for its command line approach on things.

[Rabblevox]

I have Windows 7. Is my PC a Capitalist?

Capitalist, Corporatist, possibly even crypto-fascist.

The only honorable course of action is to ritually murder your PC while livestreaming.

[X5N]

Linux is socialism, Windows is capitalism, and Apple is fascism. So anyone who advocates Windows or Apple should be restricted or banned.

[28350]

"Once information has passed to a new location outside of the source's control there is no way of ensuring it is not propagated further, and therefore will naturally tend towards a state where that information is widely distributed." - wkp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free)

"I believe that all generally useful information should be free. By 'free' I am not referring to price, but rather to the freedom to copy the information and to adapt it to one's own uses... When information is generally useful, redistributing it makes humanity wealthier no matter who is distributing and no matter who is receiving" - Stallman

ubuntu is also a pretty communist name to give an os

[Misanthrope]

Socialism is an socio-economic system not an adjective.

[xub3rn00dlex]

Linux is socialism, Windows is capitalism, and Apple is fascism. So anyone who advocates Windows or Apple should be restricted or banned.

Apple ftw. Come at me bro.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

I have Windows 7. Is my PC a Capitalist?
of corse
mine runs windows 8 and linux

[marl]

Running Debian, a communist, and a pirate. Connection?