You're viewing a single thread.
And linux!
I mean, Linux (and the entire ecosystem) is a fundamentally socialist concept.
I would say GNU is one that's openly socialist. If Linux's (or rather, Linus Torvald's) philosophy is socialist, they either do a very good job of hiding the fact or there is a lot I don't know about them.
I'd never seen that, thanks for sharing it!
That doesn't make him a socialist. He doesn't espouse any of the core socialist beliefs there. He's just saying he's a "woke communist" (as described by the right), which could mean anything from a centre-left liberal to a Marxist.
Socialism is when Linus does stuff. And it’s more socialism the more stuff he does. And if he does a real lot of stuff, that’s communism.
Who’s out there issuing atheist cards? And how do I get one?
The Satanic Temple makes a nice one. More of a certificate really though.
Wasn't Torvalds' dad member of communist party?
Yes, and was a member of the EU parliament until recently. Both his parents were pretty radical. Linus tends to keep his politics private for the most part.
Maybe so, but children don't always adopt the ideology of their parents. They usually do, but not always.
Unpopular opinion: "Open Source", spawned from Netscape spinning off Mozilla, laid out in definition by the OSI organization, and advocated for by AnCaps like Eric S. Raymond, was always fundamentally capitalist. Devs spending a lot of free time doing free work for companies was not an accident. Capitalists borrowing ideas from the left and twisting them for their own uses is not new, either.
Free Software is more rooted in communism. You're doing this to help your community. RMS might have always denied it--probably because it wasn't a good idea to advocate that way during the Cold War and after--but it's a better philosophical fit.
It's past time to divorce the two.
There are discussions about open vs. free going back over 20 years, that I know of. The divorce happened long ago, but they're still neighbors.
Those discussions largely resulted in "FOSS", and a basic peace treaty. The two tended to use the same techniques and licenses in practice, and nobody really wanted to have that fight.
I didn't realize things had progressed to this point. I thought there were still some mainstream distros that would qualify as Free, but the only ones GNU endorses are ones I've never heard of. There do still seem to be some non-GNU projects with a freedom-first philosophy.
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!
I know it's a copypasta, but I correctly differentiated GNU and Linux in my comment.
angry spitting libertarian noises
And my axe!
And my sword!
