which system does linux represent?
 

i was having a discussion with someone the other day about politics. the topic of linux came up and what it represents. i am running a poll to see what the community thinks.

one viewpoint stated that linux is representative of socialism, as community users contribute to it and it is not run for profit.

the other viewpoint stated that linux is representative of capitalism, through the donation of time as charity to contribute to it.

what do you think? if other, please explain what. thanks!

good gawd..

it's an operating system. nothing more, nothing less.

there are plenty of cults to join if you need that sort of thing.

rshaw, i will be incredibly impressed if you can explain the logic you used to associate my question to cults.

I'll settle for just saying that this makes no sense. The various "isms" and "acies" are about government and economics, not technolgy development.

There is--I suppose--some connection. In pure socialism, you can imagine some bureacrat at least trying to bring Operating systems, the Internet, etc. under central control as--eg--a regulated publich utility.

One thing that was laughable was the statement attributed to Steve Ballmer that Linux was communist. Last I checked that meant central control---pretty much the antithesis of what Open-source is all about....

central control is cultism ... ^_^


.

Other:

Linux (and other Free software) operates in a Gift Economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy
http://www.linux.com/articles/36554

Dave

Interesting stretch of definitions.....Maybe a bit better to say that extremism is a form of cult. The common denominator of course is individuals with a hyper-inflated self image.

This is fun but not necessarily relevant to the thread. But since the thread is not relevant to ANYTHING, maybe that's OK....;)

and i think linus he himself could be terribly flattered by this thread ...


//what the hell ... ^_^


.

it made sense in my head at the time, but that ain't saying much.

it doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless you keep in mind the some in the "community" have a real problem with anything that is not 100% "free" . it is this zealotry that leads the casual user to equate linux == socialism. it's the same zealotry that attracts people that are prone to attach religious overtones to it."free is the 'one true' way" and wanting accelerated graphics on my nvidia card is some how a sin against the community.

(i want my stuff to work, and if i have to use ndiswrapper + a binary blob until a gpl'ed version is available, so be it)

I see that "other" is winning by a landslide. It really is the best answer for MANY questions......;)

ilikejam, no time to read your response now but i am curious to read those when i get home.

fwiw i was arguing that it was more a product of capitalism, as no one is forcing me to contribute anything to better/use the product and people are donating their time to improve it.

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

but it _can_ be used to generate profit if you want. redhat is doing alright with service/maintenance contracts. and the sky's the limit in the consulting field.

whatever it is ... really ...

but dont fall into that "gift economy"(i'm only translating that two words in my own head though) ... its terrible ...


.

Well, the Linux kernel is copyrighted by Linus Torvalds and others, and released under the GPL v. 2 license. Most other programs which use the kernel are also copyrighted and released on various versions of the GPL.

Thus development of Linux kernels and programs depends, at a basic level, on a political system which honors copyrights and enforces the rights of copyright holders to specify, and enforce, the license they grant to use their work.

Many -- but not all -- governments implement the standard "International Copyright Convention." Those that do not recognize the standard set of copyright holders rights and obligations have been both "capitalist" and "socialist." (e.g., South Africa and China.) Thus the assumption of your question, that the way a society handles copyrights is related to its political label, seems, to me, to be false on it face.

Conclusion: Your poll is flawed by invalid assumptions.

Observation: Most countries that "recognize" copyrights have laws that allow the country to "ignore" the copyright holder's rights in the "national interest." That observation is not too pertinent to Linux systems, since the GPL (and most other FOSS) licenses permit non-commercial use of the licensed material, so use in the "national interest" where the object is, presumably, not to make a profit, would not present a problem for Linux.

A dash of socialism (small "s"), a pinch of anarcho-syndicalism, a smattering of libertarianism, and two heaped tablespoons of pragmatism.

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.)

But does it really matter at the end of the day?

sometimes it is, and there are plenty of non-profit organizations in a capitalist system.

Here we go again, this has been discussed before (and the thread ended up closed purty soon by the way :D).

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.

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.

How about "democracy", in it's pure definition? The freedom to "live your Linux" the way you want?