GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
View Poll Results: which system does linux represent?
Socialism, because everyone starts off at the same level playing field. (Older/Larger companies don't necessarily have a clear-cut advantage, only if they polish it)
Capitalism, because it encourages small distro companies. I wouldn't mind seeing a local distro in Ottawa. (Corel used to have one, and Xandros is still around but I don't like the way Xandros does things.)
Open-source is neither capitalist nor socialism, because if were socialism, it wouldn't be called "Free" software, last time I checked socialism is pretty much the opposite of freedom, and its not capitalist because linux is not used for profit
sometimes it is, and there are plenty of non-profit organizations in a capitalist system.
Open-source is neither capitalist nor socialism, because if were socialism, it wouldn't be called "Free" software, last time I checked socialism is pretty much the opposite of freedom, and its not capitalist because linux is not used for profit
Here we go again, this has been discussed before (and the thread ended up closed purty soon by the way ).
Anyway, in a way Steve Balmer was right about calling Linux communist .He just took full advantage of the inherent ambiguity of the term. If you consider early socialism (a.k.a. Utopian Socialism) socialism/communism is essentially about freedom and personal development; control of the means of production was a means to that end. Ironically, it was the same ideal that inspired the free market ideology. But as with the latter, the relationship of means to ends got perverted. The means became the end and the original end got diluted into something that is quite nice to have - as long as it doesn't jar with the new one.
However you look at it, people like Richard Stallman may have a heavily political agenda but I'm sure that someone like Linus didn't give it much thought. For him it probably was just fun.
Linux is organised anarchy.
We have a few simple laws* that are down to you to make sure that you live up to and if you don't then you're ganna' be drummed out of town.
sometimes it is, and there are plenty of non-profit organizations in a capitalist system.
no, they don't sell the linux kernel, they mostly sell support for it, or proprietary programs with it, no company has ever sold the actual kernel for money
no, they don't sell the linux kernel, they mostly sell support for it, or proprietary programs with it, no company has ever sold the actual kernel for money
i didn't really intend this post to be concerned about the sale (or not) of linux or the various distros.
more of just the community; how is it produced, how is it changed, how is it used by the community.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.