Linux may have been invented by a Finn, but its philosophy is quite compatible with the vanishing American individualism. If it had been invented before Microsoft and if the internet hadn't been the domain of technogeeks at that time, it might be much more mainstream now. There is also nothing un-American about the custom of sharing all developments unless one is an uber-capitalist who thinks all creations should be sold for money. (I could see the Ayn Rand Institute being viscerally offended by Linux, if it cared.)

You must include in you're observation why he invented it .

Regarding your thread title, I'm American too, and sometimes arrogant about it and sometimes display the typically American ignorance of the rest of the world. But you really didn't need to push that viewpoint that far.

Individual voluntary contributions to the public good are a major part of capitalism and generally conservative political views.

This can be seen in any study correlating charitable contributions with political views after selecting for any specific economic range (Rich conservative give more to charity than rich liberals. Poor conservatives give more to charity than poor liberals).

The essence of liberalism is being very generous with someone else's property.

Most of the free software movement doesn't and shouldn't object to other people developing non free software for profit.

If Microsoft competed based on price and quality (against free software and against other for profit software companies) I wouldn't hate them and I would choose or reject their products individually based on price and quality. Since they compete by restraint of trade, politics, manipulating standards, and negotiating interface secrecy, I am often stuck with their products despite horrid quality, and I prefer to reject their products (regardless of price or quality) on those occasions where I have a choice.

Outside of the Microsoft vs. free software question, I see no conflict in free vs. closed source. I work for a company that writes closed source software. I occasionally contribute work to open source projects. I don't think those things are in conflict with each other.

I am from Europe and I am offended by this thread's title.

Just kidding. Linux was born in Europe, at the moment the best attribute would, IMO, be "international". I'm curious what made you [the op] start a thread with this particular title. Have you stumbled accross some "Linux is communist" trolls or such?

You people should read Eric Raymond's views on the subject. He actually said it all a long time ago. Linux is about freedom, choice, individualism and voluntary contribution. Will you call all that exclusively American? Probably, not. But there's a certain correlation in values basic for the American society and the abovementioned ones.
As to Ayn Rand, despite us being from the same country originally, I think her philosophy is laughable at best. Sorry, didn't mean to offend anyone...

I suppose I could have avoided this by titling it "Linux is compatible with America; please don't hate me." You should pay much more attention to a thread's body than its title.

Thank you--that's roughly what I said. And I said "American," not "exclusively American."

You didn't offend me, but then I don't suppose you expected to in light of my remark about ARI.

If it had... It wasn't.
There is also nothing un-European about sharing all developments.
Do you know your Constitution was inspired on the values of the French Revolution and on the Iluminism, which, by the way, appeared in Europe?

Linux is open-source and receives contribution from all around the world. Linux is not American, is not European. Linux is of everyone. Free.
You must not forget that the world is filled with people from different nationalities that help Linux developing, either through forums, either programming, either making graphics. Using Linux is CONTRIBUTING to Linux growth.

I don't think I knew that, but I can accept it, since I know well enough that the Framers weren't necessarily Burkean . They were probably at least somewhat similarly disturbed by the violence and mob rule of the French Revolution. Thanks for the information.

The values of the French Revolution were not "put to practice" during the Revolution. Many killings, wars and persecutions took place, but the desire for freedom and democracy subsisted.

Linux is american - I doubt it
Linux is Finnish - other than that it belongs to all of us

Oh, come on--you're a senior member and still read things into my title that the body doesn't support?

Those wicked, wicked Americans.

Congratulations on escaping unemployment. I just got laid off.

The French Revolution made Rationalism look ridiculous. I would suggest what the British historian Paul Johnson said of a certain rationalist in an unrelated historical event: "...trying to force people into a structure of ideas rather than allowing ideas to evolve from the way people actually behaved."

I'm just in a very combat mood. Had a lengthy discussion with someone who thinks in a different way when it comes to religion Sorry to hear about your being laid off. I'm sure you'll be alright. We all have been there at some point....
good luck

Too bad you didn't meet me on the internet ten years ago. You would have had a ball, because I (a)was much feistier and more argumentative, (b)said many stupid things that provided fodder for both flamers and polite debaters. I didn't know that flamers look for messages to flame, and thought that if I said stupid things, they would be ignored.

I do understand your distinction between the "values of the French Revolution" and the French Revolution itself (though I don't happen to believe those values were really there).

Also, I was never a history major, but most of what I have read says the authors of the Constitution were horrified by the French Revolution and took it only as a warning and not an inspiration.

The mob always gives power to the demagogue. The authors of the Constitution understood that and struggled to prevent it.

The writings that formed the philosophical justification for the US Constitution were certainly more European than American. Maybe the leaders of the French Revolution paid lip service to the same philosophies.

But the practical structure of the Constitution had much more of the American focus on taming the inherent evil of government.

It is a shame we have lost track of that.