• f314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I mean, Linux (and the entire ecosystem) is a fundamentally socialist concept.

      • NateNate60@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

          • NateNate60@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • sandbox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

        • uis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Wasn’t Torvalds’ dad member of communist party?

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

          • NateNate60@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Maybe so, but children don’t always adopt the ideology of their parents. They usually do, but not always.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          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.

          • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

              • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                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.

        • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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!