While I would argue that a piece of software cannot be communist any more than it can practice Roman Catholicism, there are those who would have you believe that Linux (and indeed free software in general) are part of a larger communist agenda. Indeed, it almost seems like a reasonable assumption since the Linux operating system is free software developed by a large community of developers, most of whom are not even being payed for this massive effort. It isn't published by a single corporation like the other popular OS's, and the fact is that both the software itself and the precious trade secrets therein are being given away free of cost. Certainly, this is merely a ploy to subvert the masses away from the capitalistic software industry? As I will explain, nothing could be further from the truth.

Linux, also referred to as GNU/Linux, is a free, open-source operating system, licensed under the GNU Public License (currently version 2). This means that both the operating system itself as well as it's recipe, known as the source code, are freely available to all. Specifically, we are free to use it as-is, free to modify the code in order to make improvements, and even free to sell it at a profit. Sounds pretty capitalist so far, but how much profit exactly? Is there some price cap in place which is low enough to force closed-source software out of the market? No, in fact we can sell as high as we believe the market will bear. In fact, this is one of the defining points of the Open Source Definition:

1. Free Redistribution
2. Source Code Available
3. Derived Works Permitted
4. Integrity of the Author's Source Code
5. No Discrimination Against People Or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields Of Endevour
7. Distribution Of License
8. License Must Not Be Specific To A Product
9. License Cannot Contaminate Other Software


Also remember that monopolies in any industry are the enemies of a capitalist economy and that of innovation as well. After all, without competition, the free market upon which capitalism thrives will wither and stagnate. If anything, Linux and the Open Source movement serve to spur innovation and stimulate economy by empowering businesses and individuals alike and encouraging strong commercial competition. As such, Linux is a great example of how capitalism can be blended with a hefty dose of altruism.

As long as we're on the topic of communism, let's bring up communist Germany. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall the fences, minefields, barbed wire and turrets were intended not to keep people out of East Germany, but to keep them in it. Are Linux vendors deploying such tactics? Of course not, the whole concept behind open-source is freedom of every type. Indeed, it is Microsoft who's pulling tactics right from the communist playbook, by using FUD , lies , and outright threats to frighten their customers from leaving for freer lands. With that in mind, if anyone must be equated to communists, shouldn't it be Microsoft?

For an entertaining and enlightening overview of Linux and the Free Software movement, consider renting the movie Revolution OS.

When challenged with the inferiority of their favorite OS, a Windows fan might point out one feature or another as proof that their OS is better than the rest. But they make the critical mistake of confusing secondary functionality with the operating system's fundamental properties. MS Windows, in it's current state, will never be secure, nor will it ever be incredibly stable or reliable. Fundamental parts of the OS design are to blame for this, so this fact cannot change unless Windows is re-written, nay, redesigned from the ground up. Since this is extremely unlikely to happen, those who are not satisfied with the current state of Microsoft Windows should strongly consider migrating to an operating system with a fundamentally better design. Otherwise, MS will promise the world over and over again, and then deliver the same old stuff we've grown to hate. Remember, Microsoft is a marketing company much moreso than a technology company, and they always have been.

For my part, I made the decision to leave the Windows world a long time ago, and let me assure you, I haven't lost any sleep over it. The biggest problem I have with my OS is the ingnorance of many others concerning it, and this trickles down in the form of less 3rd-party software available than in Windows. That said, my Debian Linux distro has well over 15,000 software packages in its repositories for me to install, and I'm only using a mere few hundred. Besides this, I haven't payed a dime for software outside of retail games for years, all legally mind you, and I want for nothing.

So, in conclusion, if MS Windows is the OS you want, then run it! Buy it, use it and be happy. If you don't want Windows, there are a lot of solid choices today (all UNIX-like OS'es, not coincidentally) which are flourishing despite the MS monopoly. These include Mac OS X, the BSDs, and literally hundreds of unique variations of the Linux platform. All of these are more cost-effective in the long run than Windows (some more than others of course -- BSD and Linux are free), all of these are more secure, and all of them have better user interfaces (IMHO). Linux fits my needs perfectly, even for gaming, so I'm one of the lucky ones who has left MS behind with no regrets at all. If you can do the same, I say go for it!

The marketing power of certain companies distorts reality to such an extent that one is led to firmly believe that the serious defects of some software products are, in fact, the latest must-have functionality. (Incidentally, the computer world has a fitting expression for this: "it's not a bug, it's a feature!"). Another part of the problem is that the specialists who have the knowledge necessary to undo these traps and point out the dangers and manipulations without being mistaken for "bashers" or, in the case of competitors, sore losers, have kept their mouths shut for too long. It is a strange phenomenon: on one hand, no serious-minded scientist wants to publish an article in today's so-called computer press, lest his reputation become tarnished for having mingled with hucksters. On the other hand, without the support of serious scientists, the computer press has become a questionable mirror of the computer industry's advertising campaigns, and thus, even more peddler-like and less likely to be approached by real experts.

From an English translation of "CyberSnare" by Roberto Di Cosmo, first published in French in 1998. The rest of the article can be found here. It's amazing how insightful and relevent this article still is after 8 years, perhaps even moreso than when it was written.