Is this the right society for Ubuntu/Linux

[p3d4l]

The question I'm posing is: Is this (capitalism) the right society for Ubuntu (and linux in general) to spread and take over the computing world? [:)]
Surely a society that doesn't have private property (including Windows!) would have every computer running Linux (or maybe another open source OS..) because it would match how that society is run. Today private property is the way we do things and so the majority of computers run a privately owned OS (Microsoft Windows).
I am not saying that Ubuntu or Linux will never be able to become the most widely used OS instead of Windows under capitalism, but surely it will have a tough time doing so..?
Be nice to see what others think about this.

[bluenova]

If you read the MS Windows licence, you will find that the end user never owns Windows, it's always owned by Microsoft. The user just buys the limited right to use it.

[p3d4l]

Hence it is owned by a private company right?

[Bachstelze]

Free (as in 'Freedom') software is not owned by the end-user either, it is owned by whoever wrote it.

[zcal]

We might ask the same question about Microsoft´s right to exist and take over the computing world in this society. Should monopolies have that right? ;)

Anyhow, I think that Linux/GNU is doing exactly what is needed for this capitalistic society. It´s demanding innovation through competition, not within the Linux world (although there is some, sadly) but within the world of proprietary software. If M$ weren´t worried about the impact Linux makes on its sales it wouldn´t need to do anything about it.

Let´s say Linux distros begin implementing a brand new feature to computing that magically makes everything vastly better. Is M$ going to sit back and let that happen? No! You can bet they´ll be soon patching Windows up with something similar. It´s in this way that the Linux community helps keep a certain monopoly in check (Apple does too). That is, it´s keeping M$ from getting lazy and never improving their product(s). It´s an absurd example though, I know. :rolleyes:

Hey, I´m not sure if Ubuntu will ever become the power house to replace M$ at the top of the OS game, but as long as it continues to attract new users it will certainly keep the giant on its toes.

[spark64]

Don't You think that in society without a privat property You would not have your own pc in a first place ?

[EdThaSlayer]

Capitalism kind of helps us distribute Linux. Since todays society has several people who might not be able to afford "M$ *******" they have something else that they can use. I mean, if you compare the oppurtunity cost associated with using Window$ to using Linux, Linux basically carries a very small oppurtunity cost(the cd or dvd that you have to buy) while Micro$oft ******* has a large oppurtunity cost associated with it(the license which takes a big chunk of your money). If you don't know, oppurtunity cost is something you have to give up to get a product. Iam in economics so thats why I talk like this.

[Sluipvoet]

Without capitalism: no computer, no internet,...

[Bezmotivnik]

Without capitalism: no computer, no internet,...
The Internet didn't come from "Capitalism," but the American military establishment.

The modern programmable electronic computer came from the British intelligence community [the above-top-secret "COLOSSUS"].

[mips]

Without capitalism: no computer, no internet,...

:rolleyes:

[jsandys]

Without capitalism: no computer, no internet,...
An interesting article in Salon about how open source would really benefit Cuban programmers. But open source requires an open society where people can share ideas with each other.

Also in Cuba you need authorization of the Ministry of Internal Commerce just to buy a computer. With Cuban computer professional making an average annual salary of $180 it would be difficult for them to afford the $269 entry fee for Windows XP Pro.

Ubuntu, Linux, and open source have the potential of increasing communication between all the peoples in the world and maybe make it a more peaceful place.

You may need to activate a temporary membership at this "capitalist" website:
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/10/27/cuba_libre/index.html

[p3d4l]

Without capitalism: no computer, no internet,...

Why would there be no computers or internet under a different type of society? Surely under a society that encouraged to share ideas ect.. you would have even greater use for the internet and such...

[justin whitaker]

Most of you guys are missing the point: Capitalism is a friend, not an enemy of open source.

It's basic market forces at work.

If enough people walk away from Vista, and go to OSX or Linux, then Microsoft has to innovate or litigate to hold its near-monopoly position.

If we were to diagram what is happening, Porter 5 forces style, then Linux is a challenger in a mature market called Operating Systems. The Operating systems market used to have high barriers to entry: you needed proprietary code and years of development to compete.

The GPL and FOSS completely rewrote that equation. Now, there are no barriers to the game, you can create your own Operating System today, and even sell it if you like. The GPL does not prohibit that.

Other market participants, and participants of other markets like IBM, Novell, etc., suddenly realize that they can wrestle back some of their own market share in their respective markets by getting involved in development of open source.

Linux as a whole(the new entrant/challenger) benefits from these Capitalist's participation, and in turn that solidifies the entrant's position in the Operating System market, and strengthens the challenge to the monopolist's position.

So yes, Linux can be described in purely market terms.

Everyone wants to attach political and religious terms and call it a movement: to my mind, open source is no more than "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Be nice. Play fair. Share. You know, Things I Learned In Kindergarten (TM) type of behavior, not some declaration of war against Capitalism.

There is no reason why you can't be open and capitalist, save in the mind of people that want to use open source as a means to further their own political agenda.

[p3d4l]

Most of you guys are missing the point: Capitalism is a friend, not an enemy of open source.

It's basic market forces at work.

If enough people walk away from Vista, and go to OSX or Linux, then Microsoft has to innovate or litigate to hold its near-monopoly position.

If we were to diagram what is happening, Porter 5 forces style, then Linux is a challenger in a mature market called Operating Systems. The Operating systems market used to have high barriers to entry: you needed proprietary code and years of development to compete.

The GPL and FOSS completely rewrote that equation. Now, there are no barriers to the game, you can create your own Operating System today, and even sell it if you like. The GPL does not prohibit that.

Other market participants, and participants of other markets like IBM, Novell, etc., suddenly realize that they can wrestle back some of their own market share in their respective markets by getting involved in development of open source.

Linux as a whole(the new entrant/challenger) benefits from these Capitalist's participation, and in turn that solidifies the entrant's position in the Operating System market, and strengthens the challenge to the monopolist's position.

So yes, Linux can be described in purely market terms.

Everyone wants to attach political and religious terms and call it a movement: to my mind, open source is no more than "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Be nice. Play fair. Share. You know, Things I Learned In Kindergarten (TM) type of behavior, not some declaration of war against Capitalism.

There is no reason why you can't be open and capitalist, save in the mind of people that want to use open source as a means to further their own political agenda.

Surely if everyone shared their ideas under capitalism, the market would collapse, because all the latest innovations would be available to everyone.

[Rede]

Surely if everyone shared their ideas under capitalism, the market would collapse, because all the latest innovations would be available to everyone.

Er, actually, the opposite would happen and there would be more competition... kinda like the way there are many different Linux distributions.

People still make money with FOSS like Linux. The market exists, its just a different market.