Linux

hideshow 17 child comments

parent

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 3 months ago (6 children)

FOSS is inherently political, it's about whether or not you should have complete control of something you own. That's a political stance.

Everything anyone cares about is political.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] bitfucker@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

I'd say FOSS is not more political than paying taxes. FOSS is just another way of using the copyright law enforcement without which FOSS cannot exist. If no copyright law enforcement is in place, then the GPL license wouldn't have power. So FOSS is just another way a law abiding citizen may use their rights/entitlement and perform their obligation with copyright law like how they have right/entitlement and obligation from taxes.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 3 months ago (3 children)

FOSS is not more political than paying taxes.

If we're including the other option, not paying taxes, then I agree. The choice of whether or not to use FOSS is as political as the choice of whether or not to pay taxes.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] bitfucker@programming.dev 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

Coming back here from another discussion, I do find it funny now that a legal entity can choose to not pay taxes but a human cannot avoid that in any reasonable way

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 months ago

I mean you can if you're rich enough. But yeah.

parent

[–] bitfucker@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago

That is a good point

parent

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 months ago

I’d say FOSS is not more political than paying taxes.

Which already means a lot: not paying rent for the right to exist as a natural person in an environment managed by what is essentially a rent-seeker who got there beforehand and accrued more power, is already quite a political decision. And I've not even gotten to the political point of if the resources acquired via taxing are used correctly or for the benefit of that local society.

parent

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 months ago

As other answers have made patent, I think the point is quite clear. When you look at the viable options for personal computing currently, Linux stands as the one that actually has some thought and backing to it to work in a social manner (rather than an anti-social manner). And so on.

That said, I don't exactly get why you are downvoted. I think the distinctions are important to point out and the question important to ask. It's just that Linus personally is mistaken about it.

parent

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 5 points 3 months ago (8 children)

FOSS cannot exist under capitalism, as it is quite literally the definition of Marxist Praxis. Linux is quite literally the single most wide spread and successful example of communist production in world history. It is, by its very existence, a "social warrior" project.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 months ago

See that's what's confusing about it. He's saying one thing and doing another.

parent

[–] bitfucker@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Why? The proof that linux exists under capitalism already proves your point does not hold

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Linux, in fact, does not exist under capitalism. The Linux Foundation does not own capital. It does not pay taxes. Value is neither rented nor extracted from the workers who fully retain all ownership of the labor value of the product of Linux. The same way a commune can exist despite capitalism also existing, it does not mean that commune exists under capitalism.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] bitfucker@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

Hmmm, I guess it depends on what you mean by capital. Because The Linux Foundation certainly has assets that they could donate to other FOSS project

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 5 points 3 months ago

The actual definition of capital. By the people that invented the term. A resource that is rented to another in exchange for part or all of the value generated by that resource. The Linux Foundation, being a non-profit, does not own any capital whatsoever, otherwise they would lose their non-profit status.

parent

[–] abc@suppo.fi [S] -3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Then why did almost all of FOSS predominantly start in capitalist, free market economy countries?

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

Why did communism?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] abc@suppo.fi [S] -3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Russia: a tsarist autocracy.

China: an imperial monarchy.

Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, North Korea: colonial or agrarian societies.

Cuba: Batista's corrupt military dictatorship.

Has communism actually ever risen from a free market capitalist country? The other way happened a lot. Marx was definitely wrong about this one.

As for FOSS, I believe the key is personal freedom, not the economic system that much. Linus just did what he wanted to do and he didn't need any permission.

edit Downmodded and no replies. You guys usually have a great answer to everything, but I guess this one was too tough.