Political Ideology of Ubuntu, and any Linux OS

[JustinAlf]

I was pondering this question just the other day. Which Political idology fits Ubuntu or Linux OS's the best? At first I said a liberal ideology, seeing how the conservative moto would be that microsoft is in a free market societiy and the market should dictate how much it costs and how well the project really is. However, it is with private donation of time and not government mandated requirments that make linux programs so great, which would stray away from a liberal ideology that states that the government can help in these matters. I think an argument can be made for both sides, and as a Political Science major, I love to argue these points. What do you all think?

[jkblacker]

Perhaps you're being over-restrictive in looking only at liberal and conservative? How about libertariansm or anarchism?

[truthfatal]

First off, I'm not sure how well any thread involving politics will fare outside of "The Backyard" forum...

As for relating "Linux" in general with a political ideology, I don't think it works. Labels like "Liberal" or "Conservative" do not necessarily encompass a preference for a particular economic model....

[LaRoza]

I don't think Linux will fit in any political category. What would you go by? Linus himself? RMS? Or all the other developers? I see Linux as an accomplishment of Programmers.

[original_jamingrit]

Yeah, this was talked about in another thread. Limiting it to democratic parties doesn't seem right. I'd say that Ubuntu is kind of libertarian-socialist, whereas other distros might be better compared to technocracies or meritocracies, depending on how much hand-holding new users can get. And windows might be thought of autocratic, or extremely capitalist.

Speaking strictly within a democractic domain, and going by just the software on the Ubuntu CD and Synaptic, I'd say that Ubuntu could be a kind of socialist-conservative.

[Nezing]

I see linux as the death knell of Microsoft.

:guitar:

[mselva]

Justin -

"Liberal" used to indicate a belief in individual liberty and unfettered markets. However, over the past 50 in the USA, the L-word has been associated with increased government involvement far beyond what was called for in our original Constitution. The term "classical liberal" is now used by many to refer to the original emphasis on individual liberty and free markets, as seen in the writings of Adam Smith, F. Hayek, et al.

Classical liberalism does NOT exclude private group efforts such as the Ubuntu community. In fact, Ubuntu is a great example of what people can accomplish when operating on the basis of "enlightend self interest." As far as I know, governments have NOT been involved day-to-day operations of Ubuntu. I hope it stays that way.


I was pondering this question just the other day. Which Political idology fits Ubuntu or Linux OS's the best? At first I said a liberal ideology, seeing how the conservative moto would be that microsoft is in a free market societiy and the market should dictate how much it costs and how well the project really is. However, it is with private donation of time and not government mandated requirments that make linux programs so great, which would stray away from a liberal ideology that states that the government can help in these matters. I think an argument can be made for both sides, and as a Political Science major, I love to argue these points. What do you all think?

[LaRoza]

I see linux as the death knell of Microsoft.

:guitar:

How can I join that politcal party? :D

[mike102282]

I wanna join too!

[LaRoza]

I wanna join too!

Let's all march on their HQ!

[RussianVodka]

I like to think of Linux as socialized medicine. It doesn't always have everything you need (just like Linux is missing some programs like Adobe Acrobat, some poorer countries with socialized medicine can't remove brain tumors), but as far as everyday use, Linux (and socialized medicine) are a superb alternative to having your well being depend on paying protection money (or what ever the mafia calls it) to large corporations.

[EvilMarshmallow]

You know, in some ways I'd say it's almost more like a religion than a political ideology.


You have the fanatical extremists who want to march on Redmond and burn it to the ground (jk LaRoza) :) ...
You have the elitists who think that they're better than everyone else because they've attained a certain "level of understanding" within the OS...
You have the people who just use it because it's cool, but never get involved beyond more than a token contribution...
You have endless arguments with people who don't see the same way (heathen Windows users!) ...
And then of course you have those who just want to believe that there's something more than Microsoft when it comes to using their PC!


Yeah, all we need now is a couple of car bombs and protests outside a MS-sponsored trade show, and we'll be a religion!

Getting back on topic, I'd agree with the libertarian-socialist description; that's pretty accurate as far as I can tell.

[forrestcupp]

I kind of prefer to look at it as an operating system that performs tasks for us. It's not a religion or political movement. Just an operating system that makes my computer do things for me. It doesn't have spirituality, mentality, or emotions. It's made up of code. 1's and 0's. I use it to write posts on this forum among other tasks. I don't worship Linux or allow it to control my life. I control it to do what I want it to do.

[Kimm]

I like to think of Linux as socialized medicine. It doesn't always have everything you need (just like Linux is missing some programs like Adobe Acrobat, some poorer countries with socialized medicine can't remove brain tumors), but as far as everyday use, Linux (and socialized medicine) are a superb alternative to having your well being depend on paying protection money (or what ever the mafia calls it) to large corporations.

By "Socialized Medicine" I guess you mean tax-funded?
Its pretty wrong to claim that only poor countries use this system, and that it is limited. Sweden works this way and we have pretty much the worlds finest hospitals here

[LaRoza]

You know, in some ways I'd say it's almost more like a religion than a political ideology.


You have the fanatical extremists who want to march on Redmond and burn it to the ground (jk LaRoza) :) ...
You have the elitists who think that they're better than everyone else because they've attained a certain "level of understanding" within the OS...
You have the people who just use it because it's cool, but never get involved beyond more than a token contribution...
You have endless arguments with people who don't see the same way (heathen Windows users!) ...
And then of course you have those who just want to believe that there's something more than Microsoft when it comes to using their PC!


Yeah, all we need now is a couple of car bombs and protests outside a MS-sponsored trade show, and we'll be a religion!

Getting back on topic, I'd agree with the libertarian-socialist description; that's pretty accurate as far as I can tell.
1. I was joking, Microsoft is a great gaming company, (XBox and such)
2. Anyone who thinks they are better than others because of knowledge is woefully sad. Knowledge should be spread freely.
3. Not anyone I know.
4. ...but I like crashes!
5. We all have to have hope...

I would suggest eliminating the car bomb reference, that is one part of one religion, most religions are good, even though certain people may at times do evil things in the name of religion.

Oh, by the way, I need some volunteers for a strike force on MS...

[RussianVodka]

By "Socialized Medicine" I guess you mean tax-funded?
Its pretty wrong to claim that only poor countries use this system, and that it is limited. Sweden works this way and we have pretty much the worlds finest hospitals here

I never claimed that [B]only/B] poor countries use the system, I just said that sometimes ultra expensive surgeries are not an option for some countries, just like ultra expensive software isn't an option for some people. Then again, just like you can have "free" brain surgery in many countries with socialized medicine, you can run Adobe Acrobat in Wine (also for free :-\").

But to be fair, if you live in a country with privatized medicine, like Windows, chances are you can't afford legit copies Adobe Acrobat (or a decent brain surgery), and so you're stuck being sick and nonproductive.

And that's my rant. I'm just so sick of having to pay $175 a month for my Universities health insurance (here in the US). And without it they won't let me attend. By god, I can't wait till I graduate and hopefully move to another country.

[raul_]

I put this thread in the "Humm. If Linux was a color, what would it be?" category

It is not, period.

It is not supposed to be. I think entering those discussions and saying things like "Kim Jong Il uses Linux", like I saw mentioned in the forums, it's meaningless and avoidable :rolleyes:

[LaRoza]

"Kim Jong Il uses Linux"


Does he?

[Tmi]

Does he?

Would make more sense than using Windows :)

[LaRoza]

Would make more sense than using Windows :)

He is not known for making sense, but he can't be all bad. Sure, he screwed up his country, starved his people, was able to **** off his only ally (China) and is a risk for the region, but at least he uses Linux.

Overall, he must be a great human being,:D.

[23meg]

I kind of prefer to look at it as an operating system that performs tasks for us. It's not a religion or political movement. Just an operating system that makes my computer do things for me. It doesn't have spirituality, mentality, or emotions. It's made up of code. 1's and 0's. I use it to write posts on this forum among other tasks. I don't worship Linux or allow it to control my life. I control it to do what I want it to do.

Every piece of technology invariably comes with ideology embedded in it, and conveys the message intended by that ideology; the medium is the message (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message). The very existence of Ubuntu and FOSS in general depends on the free operation of an open community to exist, and the overall world view of its participants and the essence of the social processes involved in its creation is inescapably conveyed in how it's designed. Same goes for any other OS (think Windows).

The fact that you use a product doesn't mean you have to worship the ideology behind it; the point is that most people do, mostly without even knowing. GNU/Linux users being tied to the ideologies behind FOSS would be too blatant an example; people's thinking and behavior is shaped by the way their cars, mobile phones, and the streets they walk in are designed as well.

[Dimitriid]

If you watch the sample videos that come with the system you got Mark talking with Nelson Mandela about the meaning of Ubuntu which is pretty much emphasis on community. Those ideas on top of the development and support model Ubuntu and Linux in general are build upon makes me relate it closely to Socialist ideals. The fact that Socialist governments in Latin America for example are trying to move into free software makes me think so even more.

But nevertheless, relating an OS to sociopolitical systems its a bit far fetched so take it with a grain of salt.

[forrestcupp]

Every piece of technology invariably comes with ideology embedded in it, and conveys the message intended by that ideology; the medium is the message (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message). The very existence of Ubuntu and FOSS in general depends on the free operation of an open community to exist, and the overall world view of its participants and the essence of the social processes involved in its creation is inescapably conveyed in how it's designed. Same goes for any other OS (think Windows).

The fact that you use a product doesn't mean you have to worship the ideology behind it; the point is that most people do, mostly without even knowing. GNU/Linux users being tied to the ideologies behind FOSS would be too blatant an example; people's thinking and behavior is shaped by the way their cars, mobile phones, and the streets they walk in are designed as well.

That's true to an extent. But it's pretty obvious that some people in the Linux/FOSS community take that waaay too far. I use Ubuntu because I like it as an operating system, not because I think it is immoral to use Windows or any other idealogical reason.

[LaRoza]

That's true to an extent. But it's pretty obvious that some people in the Linux/FOSS community take that waaay too far. I use Ubuntu because I like it as an operating system, not because I think it is immoral to use Windows or any other idealogical reason.

Heathen :D

[23meg]

That's true to an extent. But it's pretty obvious that some people in the Linux/FOSS community take that waaay too far. I use Ubuntu because I like it as an operating system, not because I think it is immoral to use Windows or any other idealogical reason.

You're entitled to your reason for choosing Ubuntu; as I put in different words in my first post, the extent to which you knowingly and openly sympathize with the announced ideology of a product, and a concept of morality that's based on it, are independent of my point.

[JustinAlf]

What makes the Ubuntu bettor to use then Microsoft is it's usability, not that it's more morally acceptable. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[Kimm]

The fact that Socialist governments in Latin America for example are trying to move into free software makes me think so even more.

This probably has lots of reasons. For one, they usually don't have very good relations with the US, so using an American product that has the potential to spy on their most closely guarded secrets might not be smart. Its also free, making it simpler for the general community to adopt.

But you still have a point. I'm a member of the Swedish socialist party and we have goals specifically for Open Source:

From our website (translated):


The development of Open Source Software shows that a new method of production with great advantages over the market economical model. We work for broader knowledge and adoption of operative systems and other software that are Open Source. Schools and socialized workplaces should actively open for such development. We also want that socialized workplaces try to find ways to support the development of Open Source Software. For example, all software manufactured for this sector could include free distribution of the Source Code.

[original_jamingrit]

I put this thread in the "Humm. If Linux was a color, what would it be?" category

It is not, period.

It is not supposed to be. I think entering those discussions and saying things like "Kim Jong Il uses Linux", like I saw mentioned in the forums, it's meaningless and avoidable :rolleyes:

Incidentally, the South Korean government is supposed to be a proponent, or at least planning on benefitting from Open Source.

http://www.techlearning.com/story/showArticle.php?articleID=193006191

Not recent news, but it's not something people talk a lot about either.