Paul Johnson wrote:
GNU/Linux has more in common with freedom of choice than anything else. It's originators my not see that, or have had it in mind, but the fact is it does. It doesn't require coercion or attempt to force anyone to do things exactly the same as everyone else. It is a decentralized way of doing things. Socialism is just the opposite when put into practice. It centralizes all power over individual preferences and decisions in the hands of the government. That's why I am conservative. I value freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and personal privacy. GNU/Linux is very compatible with all of those concepts. GNU/Linux also gives the poor man a helping hand. I find that very refreshing in this day and age. It's like the old days of the wild west when all the farmers in an area would get together and help the family just starting out build their barn and outbuildings. Those farmers all knew a new kid on the block would be a financial competitor in a free market, but they cared about their neighbors enough to put money aside and act upon humanitarian interests instead.Freddy Freeloader wrote:Another liberal wanting to decide for everyone else what they should drive, how they should live, etc.... You ought to be using Windows, not an OS built on freedom of choice....You realize that GNU and socialism have more in common than in difference, right?
To tell the truth I see very little of the core of socialism in any part of Linux. Even the core kernel development is decentralized. Linus does only a very small part of actual development anymore. It's his idea and implementation so he rightly holds a fair amount of power of the kernel, but the process of kernel development most definitely isn't a centralized one. If it were centralized there wouldn't have been more than 2000 developers from all walks of life adding patches to it in the last year. And in true socialism Linus would have had to give up his entire power over the process, which I see as a truly stupid idea.