It's Linux a Communist operating system?

It's Linux a Communist operating system?

Attached: kkk.jpg (603x453, 20K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/69ZyX5sN2NA?t=38
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria
libertarianism.org/encyclopedia/law-merchant
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I don't think so
It's more close to ancap than communism

It's not even an operating system you brainlet.

Yes and the userbase are entitled cunts who need to be thrown out of helicopters

Noice posing CuckBSD user. More pictures of their gatherings

Annualized capacity?

Linux is ancap.

are these people on the pic supposed to be a bad thing?
>2018
>not even woke by now
at what time will you realize it's not a good thing? when jews and blacks will literally start shitting into your mouth personally?

>t. never lived in Communist country

No, it's pure ancap.

It's similar. But not related to Soviet or China's communism.
You realize what Communism is, right OP?

drumpf won, Cletus
Im sorry you don't realize the Russians are the real threat

>It's Linux a Communist operating system?
so you are asking
>it is linux a communist operating system?
that does not make any sense. Come back when you can speak and write English

it's for anyone who doesnt like being cucked

just choose the ''right'' distro

Attached: 1416890882224.jpg (1024x768, 191K)

not caring about profit is the opposite of ancap, idiot. if anything, apple is closer to ancap, because they don't care about bullshit regulations and do what they think is right in order to maintain the market share, like the whole slowdown thing.

Linus Torvalds says he was influenced by his hardcore communist father while choosing a model for Linux. His father isn't even much of a commie nowadays though

>It's Linux a Communist operating system?

No: youtu.be/69ZyX5sN2NA?t=38

You mean people think it's great until they try it and realize that they get absolutely nothing?
Sounds like communism alright

it's funny that whenever i bring up profit seeking, linux users are always against it. how is that ancap, you fool?

>it's funny that whenever i bring up profit seeking, linux users are always against it
I'm a Linux user and I certainly don't disagree with profit seeking. I wouldn't have a job if it weren't for intellectual property and seeking to maximise profits.

Contributing to open source is not mutually exclusive with earning money from intellectual property, you can do both things at the same time.

Big if true.

Anarcho capitalism, as in unregulated, laissez faire markets.

if it was ancap it'd be wtfpl/public domain, or proprietary freeware.
gpl requires government copyright protections to be enforced

This.

>gpl requires government copyright protections
Or just an acknowledgement that violating the terms of an agreement (in this case, the GPL) is by definition a violation of the NAP, so you can napalm bomb the shit out of violators or bring them to the merchant courts.

>intellectual property
that is what us libertarians/ancaps are against, you fool. abolish the state and the law. the law is so powerful but so stupid that anyone smart can lobby them into making stupid laws such as patents and shit. if people can steal your idea and make more profit than you, then it's your fault for not doing business good enough, and the law shouldn't protect your incompetence.

>that is what us libertarians/ancaps are against,
That's untrue.

>abolish [...] the law.
That's also untrue.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria

libertarianism.org/encyclopedia/law-merchant

>if people can steal your idea and make more profit than you,
Stealing is a violation of the NAP, you tool. Are you implying that ancaps don't believe in private property?

>then it's your fault for not doing business good enough, and the law shouldn't protect your incompetence.
You clearly do not understand ancap ideology.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring 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.

Attached: 1502119424218.png (1000x820, 1.13M)

>That's untrue.
no that is true, you fool. you aren't ancap enough

>That's also untrue.
we're against centralized law. we're for polycentric law.

>Stealing is a violation of the NAP, you tool. Are you implying that ancaps don't believe in private property?
you only own what you can defend.

>You clearly do not understand ancap ideology.
you imply that ancap needs the state in order to exist. ancap is the true "survival of the fittest".

>you only own what you can defend.
I can defend my intellectual property, with a automated gunturrent if necessary. It's just a matter of keeping the original source code secret.

You actually need a state with centralized laws to defend copyright infringements (as in, GPL only works because copyrights works).

Isn't it ironic that the proprietary software developers call us communists? We are the ones who have provided for a free market, where they allow only monopoly. If the users chooses this proprietary software package, he then falls into this monopoly for support. The only way to escape from monopoly is to escape from proprietary software, and that is what the free software movement is all about. We want you to escape and our work is to help you escape. We hope you will escape to the free world. The free world is the new continent in cyberspace that we have built so we can live here in freedom. It's impossible to live in freedom in the old world of cyberspace, where every program has its feudal lord that bullies and mistreats the users. So, to live in freedom we have to build a new continent. Because this is a virtual continent, it has room for everyone, and there are no immigration restrictions. And because there were never indigenous peoples in cyberspace, there is also no issue of taking away their land. So everyone is welcome in the free world, come to the free world, live with us in freedom. The free software movement aims for the liberation of cyberspace and everyone in it.

Attached: 1492273516814.jpg (728x546, 49K)

i don't need to defend copyright infringements. but if you're not protecting your idea good enough that people will start preferring my version of your idea, and then attacking me would make people not willing to buy your products.

ITT: burgers still fearing the gommie boogy man

Attached: 1517630857241.jpg (742x726, 101K)

>agreement
>contract
completely meaningless without a third party to be the arbiter or reguiring both parties to give up something as collateral for the duration of the contract.
ancap is trustless, that means that a contract or licence that extends into perpetuity is inherently unenforceable.
shrinkwrap "you must do exactly as I say if you use this software I'm giving away for 'free' " licences would be so completely abusive (someone used your software without realizing it was in something or even the terms of that license, but too bad now he's your fuccslave for life) or else unenforeceable as to be non-existent.
instead of making autistic demands on "free" it would be either sold outright as a 'service' (no license, no copyright, no exclusivity) or just truly be free.

"Intellectual Property" doesn't exist. There is no law for it either. Stop thinking it exists. It's just a brainwashing term used to lobby profits.

You're shifting the goal point, user. The point is that ancap ideology has plenty of room for intellectual property.

If you can't duplicate my idea without literally breaking in to my private property to steal my source code, which is clearly a violation of the NAP, then how does this somehow make ancap anti-IP ?

To answer that rhetorical question for you, it doesn't. On the flip side, free software, as in GPL'd software, relies on copyright laws to work. In an ancap society, there would be no such thing.

So your claim that
>intellectual property is what us libertarians/ancaps are against
is just plain wrong.

In fact, the only discussion among libertarian thinkers regarding IP is not about whether or not it should exist (clearly they agree that it does, just as the right to private property exist), but rather how it should be enforced.

>"Intellectual Property" doesn't exist. There is no law for it either.
Then what are patents and copyrights then?

>completely meaningless without a third party to be the arbiter
I don't see how ancap ideology somehow removes this possibility. See lex mercatoria.

>Troll the journalist
>He shows your words as a fact
U S A
S
A

No. Linux is a socialist operating system, but it's not a communist operating system. As with communism, there are elite designated distributors of wealth (FSF, Torvalds). Also as with communism, everything you produce using the wealth they give you belongs to the people (GPL). However, unlike with communism, the wealth distributed is not limited in quantity, and you are free to copy or redistribute it in indefinite amounts and may even use it to conduct capitalist business. Also unlike communism, the elite distributors do not have absolute power, nor do they command total and exclusive reverence; since the wealth distributed is software, a kind of information, and is therefore not limited in quantity, you can take as much as you like without depriving anyone else, and if you work hard enough to use it in creative ways, you can quite plausibly become just as big a name as the original distributors, something many people have actually done (e.g. maintainers of the various Linux distros).

You're free to make profit from free software, just as I am free to fork your free software and not charge for it.

imagine going through an expensive, tedious arbitration process for every single download, install, or reselling or products using your source code.
You'd spend more than a human lifetime in arbritration, or paying detectives and mercs to find and punish innocent people who had unknowingly entered into a contract they didn't know the terms of, and paying off god knows how many other people to keep good pr.
ancap markets favor deintermendiation and on the spot deals. if you can't see that you're blind

>If you can't duplicate my idea without literally breaking in to my private property to steal my source code, which is clearly a violation of the NAP, then how does this somehow make ancap anti-IP ?
look user, you're missing my point. there are people who patent their brand name, and that's stupid as fuck. in your case here, this is not patent related anymore, this is theft.

>On the flip side, free software, as in GPL'd software, relies on copyright laws to work. In an ancap society, there would be no such thing.
that's true, that's why we ancaps don't believe in patents.

>clearly they agree that it does, just as the right to private property exist
you can't really steal ideas... it's not theft, it's just you being pissed...

>software contracts and arbitration are going to be tedious and expensive because I say so
mkay

the fact that someone made a free software is not ancap at all.

Parents and copyrights.

>what are patents and copyrights
Jew propaganda. Try thinking for yourself on occasion.

Free as in freedom.

Linux is a kernel.

No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.

Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?

(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.

Attached: 45.jpg (696x391, 18K)

>there are people who patent their brand name, and that's stupid as fuck
Brand names are irrelevant to intellectual properties, and also not subject to patents.

>in your case here, this is not patent related anymore, this is theft.
So clearly intellectual property == private property. QED.

>that's true, that's why we ancaps don't believe in patents.
You seem to confuse patents and copyrights.

>you can't really steal ideas... it's not theft, it's just you being pissed...
See above. The right to keep my source code secret is inherent in my right to private property. You can not demand this source code through ridiculous claims such as "you don't own your own ideas".

>missing the point

>muh jewish boogeyman

Linux will always be Linux, however the combination of the GNU system and the Linux kernel is GNU + Linux.

Attached: 1519695583409.jpg (904x1024, 635K)

>and also not subject to patents
what are?

>So clearly intellectual property == private property. QED.
that's not what i meant by intellectual property. i meant someone copies you after you let your ideas spread.

>The right to keep my source code secret is inherent in my right to private property
change 'right' to 'ability' then you get ancap. you can try to defend it, and if the risks of stealing it is lower than the benefits, someone would steal it. there's no such thing as right and wrong, only risks and benefit.