Is this a new communism mascot? Fucking seriously...

Is this a new communism mascot? Fucking seriously, how can you Linux people not see it for what this shit here actually is? It's pure communism. By using this shit on your desktops you're literally undermining the core of the Western society, and that's capitalism, free flow of capital and money, financial markets and ABOVE ALL you're depriving the hard working software developers their money by using these "free", sloppy, half assed alternatives like Linux, BSD and such.

This thing is already spreading across all of our devices today and using it will turn us into USSA. Is that what you fucking want? Free software leads to free hardware, we already had Bernie Sanders promising his voters free Xbox gaming consoles and Hillary Clinton promised women free abortions and free birth control pills. Once it takes off it's communism all the way, and this shitty penguin will be the major cause of bread lines and poverty in the USA, or should I call it USSA.

Some of the largest, most successful, wealthiest companies have based their operation, at least in part, on Free software. Free software is an IP licensing model, a philosophy and development paradigm, not an economic system. Free software enthusiasts aren't against capitalism, they just don't think pure capitalism is the be all and end all to growth, security and the problems facing society.
Free software licences still have cost and value, some of the tenets of capitalism.
Also, don't confuse capitalism with the consolidation of wealth and power.
I'm sure there are some Free software proponents who are also socialist, but that's incidental and largely unrelated to how software is designed and distributed.

>communism
Communism forces you to do thingsa certain way. Linux is anti-communism.

Confirming OP is a retarded faggot.

Much more libertarian in a lot of ways.
This bait is bad and you should feel bad for wasting your time writing it

I actually thought the same way about communism and opensource a few days ago.

yes, all NEETs are rebels

wtf i love linux now

>Much more libertarian in a lot of ways.
not really
libertarianism is more egocentric and doesn't follow Gnu philosophy very well.

Free software ethics isn't communism, it's post-scarcity libertarianism.

So how do you feel about people who pirate all there movies music and software including there operating system

>there
where?

Auto correct on my phone sucks and I'm shit at English

> So how do you feel about people who pirate all there movies music and software including there operating system

Get's angry at what other people do but is a libertarian

You're a fucking dumbass.

The operating system that allows you to read and write such inane dogshit on Sup Forums is Linux.
Cloudflare also uses floss softwares like Linux and nginx.
Get your shot together faggot.

allright.

>Bernie Sanders promising his voters free Xbox gaming consoles
proof that your post is a lie.

he promised them free Starbucks

oh, and a hint - most Sup Forums users are eastern europooreans and indians larping as yank septic tanks (aka seppos)

The hallways in that building must smell awful. Sour milk, rancid grease, cigarettes, other peoples cooking, disgusting.

the hallways in my commieblock always smell when someone cooks something with a strong smell.

When the downstairs neighbour cooks, I can even smell it in the room if I open my window.

The "parking lot" infront of the building is too small because it was built in the 60s so not many people had cars.
This is why people park cars on the sidewalk, which ends up blocking view of the roads on the intersection and there is a car crash every week here toplel

...

B A I T
A
I
T

GPL is literally not communism. It is a contract whereby a group of people agrees to play by the same rules in order to benefit as a group. You are welcome to just not use GPL software or code.

x-box is proprietary, not open source

...

i like 2 smoke dabs

>you're literally undermining the core of the Western society, and that's capitalism, free flow of capital and money, financial markets
The existence of GNU/Linux does not in any way inhibit the free flow of capital and money. Yes, there is the whole GPL restriction that says you can't use any GPL'd code in a product released under a non-GPL-compatible license, but you have to realize that even with that clause, the GPL grants far more freedom than the licenses of most commercial software. If you buy a regular commercial software product, the license terms usually state that you can't incorporate it in anything sold for profit, just like the GPL - but on top of that, they also forbid you from seeing the source code, giving copies of the software to your friends, or even modifying it for your own use. The GPL does not impose any restrictions your typical proprietary commercial license does not, and furthermore, it gives you several additional freedoms.

>you're depriving the hard working software developers their money by using these "free", sloppy, half assed alternatives like Linux, BSD and such.
The notion that the public "owes" anyone their money is at odds with the basic ideals of capitalism. Microsoft isn't entitled to my money, they are merely entitled to me holding up my end of a contract, a contract which only exists if I choose to buy their software. If I don't choose to use their software, then it really doesn't matter what I do instead, either way Microsoft doesn't get my money. Regardless of whether I choose a competing product from Apple, a competing product from the GNU project, or decide that none of the products on the market are worth my money and go home empty-handed, the effect on Microsoft is the same: they earn $0 from me. It's fundamentally irrelevant whether I purchase a competing product or not, as far as Microsoft's finances are concerned. I either buy their product and pay for it, or I don't.

Furthermore, if computer users are choosing open-source products over their proprietary counterparts, that's literally just the free market in action. It's easy to see the advantages of free software - it can often be obtained for zero monetary cost, and furthermore, you actually get more for the purchase - you get full rights to the software (minus the restrictions imposed by the GPL), whereas most proprietary software purchases merely grant you a license to use the software. So if two software products had equivalent functionality, the proprietary one would be less competitive - as you pay more, and get less. So for proprietary software to remain competitive, it MUST offer superior functionality. Which in many cases it does - it usually benefits from a well-established infrastructure, and from more consistent development efforts, since for-profit software enables hiring more developers.

And yes, it may be unfortunate that some developers, who need to distribute software under the proprietary model to make a living, will lose sales to free software competitors. But that's not the fault of the open source movement, it's the fundamental nature of capitalism. Those who can't compete, won't make a living. So if someone is non-competitive and not making profits, they need to do something to change that - namely either adjust the price to fit the ideal market price, or increase the quality of their product.

Get out Microsoft shill.

This.
The very reason I use GIMP and not Photoshop or even Photoshop Elements is because they make you pay out for it. In Photoshop CCs case, I just don't want a subscription service, if I buy a software product I want to own it, not rent it.

Free software like the GIMP, or MyPaint, or Blender, or whatever generally tends to have all the basic functionality you need while still being attainable. It's actually the best that way, I mean, how in the world are you supposed to learn 3D modeling, digital painting, graphic design, etc. if you can't even afford the tools with which to learn on? It's a gateway for people to learn skills and make things with.

>complains about communism
>rides putins dick
Wew lad

>muh russians

FPBP

pay out the ass*

Kill yourself OP.

So what you want is free as in free lunch, not free as in freedom. Interesting how that's the opposite of what GNU claims?

What? I like the ability to do whatever I like with the software, not just get it for free.

linux is socialism, and if youre not a socialist then fuck you

Gratis tends to be a natural result of libre. It's OK for that to be a good reason. If Adobe wants me to shell out money for Photoshop, they're not getting it because businesscucks think they deserve it. They will get it if I actually need Photoshop. I don't.

(I'm not the guy you responded to.)

Code isn't subject to scarcity, so calling GPL code socialist/communist is not even wrong. There is no scarcity-economy of code. That's kind of the whole point.

>Code isn't subject to scarcity
wrong. wrong. youre wrong

But thats actually correct. A libertatian does not hide his work, he is proud of it. Not only about that it works, but also how it works.
Big problem is, that in the end there will always be some leechers trying to steal and unrightfully copy your code, but that's what intellectual property laws are for.
In the end a lawful society will do justice for the contributor of free code, and punish the secretive thieves.
And if justice fails, so god have mercy with us.

Oh shit. How many more copies before the Linux kernel succumbs to bitrot and all of my servers crash? Can I fix this by putting money into my CD tray?

Scarcity causes prices because you can't fulfill demand. Anyone with an Internet connection can download a GNU/Linux ISO, the supply perfectly matches demand. No scarcity.

(And no, stifling competition is not scarcity.)

OP is fucking braindead. Doesn't understand the difference between a kernel and a product. Doesn't understand communism.
If anything, it's way more comparable to libertarianism or socialism, but then again IT ISN'T A FUCKING GOVERNMENT OR AN ECONOMIC PARADIGM IT'S A KERNEL.

...