As with the "no true scotsman" argument, you both have to agree upon on a single definition for capitalism.

Keep in mind that capitalism is not anarchy. e.g. it certainly requires that fraud be prosecuted. At some point, intentional confusion and misinformation become fraud. Likewise, capitalism is aided by an informed market.

There's also soft toric lenses for astigmatism.

If linking with the kernel creates a derivative, how can Linux link non-GPL drivers, but a non-GPL kernel cannot link a GPL driver?

While I don't like the physically centralized registry of Windows, having a standard format and api for easy, live, dynamic modification and notification of configuration is a great boon.

Text files which each have a different format, which must be parsed and altered in their entirety to maintain consistency, and which often are not live, are not as useful or advanced.

The only meaningful act of an omnipotent and omniscient being is to limit its own power and knowledge. In essence, to create separate entities of free will and abide by rules for its existence.

If it's not too much trouble, could you please elaborate on a couple of points?:

(1) Examples of the "trade giveaways" where the U.S. gave up its natural trade advantages.

(2) The key differences between global trade and global economy. You seem to suggest that economy leads to homogeneity while trade does not.

Then why not implement it as a non-profit rather than a government program?

Capitalism means getting to choose what to buy. Socialism means everybody is forced to pay for a particular option, even if everybody doesn't want it.

Because the freedom of Linux also results in an abundance of fragmentation. Diverse Window Managers aren't even close to the worst of it.

What is remarkable is how the freedom to share and customize can actually result in less sharing of code. Too many options breeds confusion which can be a significant impediment to actually getting things done which is the purpose of freedom.

It's also fascinating to consider the parallel pitfalls of freedom in economics. It can be chaotic, confusing, lacking controls, and often more difficult, but the system as a whole evolves better.

Similarly, Linux evolves and I am confident that it will eventually solidify on excellent general purpose solutions. I just don't know when that will happen.

His example link doesn't actually use the unicode symbol for division. It uses a forward slash. Maybe slashdot has issues with unicode.

Thanks!

What is the difference between a reasoner and a rule engine?

Kernel devs focusing on one distro would not force anyone to use it, nor would it prevent competition or niches, since it is all still open source (unlike Windows). It is a preference, not an ultimatum.

What it would do is go a long way toward establishing standards and increasing flexibility which are sorely lacking. Making that one distro (or meta-distro) more flexible (to accomodate derived distros) and standards based is far better than having thousands of rigid and incompatible options.

The community can, of course, still evolve new standards through competition. They just won't have to do it in parallel for each major distro (or desktop).

Freddie and Fannie may not have cut the subprime loans but they did guarantee or hold 1/3 of all subprime loans and 2/3 of all Alt-A loans, significantly increasing the market for such loans, in part due to their affordable housing requirements.

I just wanted to add my vote of confidence to your posts here. I hope Linux will evolve to have more stable interfaces / contracts (in addition to any new rapidly developed ones), which would actually encourage modular design and decentralized development of those modules, and not require constant centralized monitoring and integration by each distro.

Sadly, it often seems that this evolution is hindered by those who refuse to see its faults.