Really, when I say that I find that the socialism and linuxism they have similarities I mean it, but no, they get mad, like communism is a disease or something. I like him so much stallman like Allende but no, I don't dare to follow them to the letter, too much revolution is difficult for a human being to put into practice and time proved me right.
Classic communism failed
It is something that we all know having a minimum of general culture, a system that, because it was too strict and intransigent, demonstrated its uselessness with several different cases around the world.
The Russian case: The most resounding case of failure, was the one that the Soviets lived, they resisted doing business with the Western world, they prohibited private property, they were all the same (although there are always people more equal than others still in the communist system). His closure and his obsession with fighting the United States left thousands of people starving.
In China: The Chinese, much more alive than their neighbors, decided upon seeing how slow their economy was, to open up to the world. The usual communism did not serve them, but when they opened up to the world they grew so much that now they scare the first world.
Cuba: They stayed the same as always, from 1950 to today and although they blame the blockade, the failure of the economic model that causes thousands to seek one way or another to escape from their countries is a sign that the fault lies with none other than themselves.
Is strict linuxism going in the same direction?
Why do I say that it can go to failure? Follow an extremist ideology like that of stallman, which is a great guy, but a little over the top, it becomes difficult to bring to real life.
What the FSF It is, from my point of view, to think that we are all the same and to believe that everyone can be liked with a single business model: support and free software. Free software is great, I love doing something, sharing it and still being able to earn money. But not everyone think the same and they wouldn't have to.
If you use proprietary software you are immoral
Please, I know that proprietary software (as Stallman likes to call it) is not the best, that it would be best to see the code, but use only free software it is a utopia for 99% of users. What's more, longing for all software to be free one day seems like a nice dream to me, but totally far from reality. I would also like software to be always free, but companies have the right to choose their business models and free software will not always be the most profitable option.
Yo I was one of those I wanted use only free software and be totally legal, but look what things are, using only Linux, I cannot say that I am one hundred percent legal. It is not even enough to just use free software to stop being "illegal". As I write this article, I am listening to music with a playlist I made on Youtube, and guess what, yeah, all videos violate copyright from any of the record labels. Even if I wanted to, on my cell phone with mp3 all the songs I have are not free, because some I copied "the bad way" so what I downloaded most of them for free, legally and many others are directly free music. But they are not all, so I'm still a pirate.
I wanted to use only Free Software, but they told me that I was going to run out of Flash and what can I do without my You Tube videos? They told me to use GNASH, but it's useless for most things. I want to continue having my spinning-cube but they told me I couldn't without a "proprietary" controller. Only for that I am immoral in the eyes of Richard Stallman.
Many forget that torrenting with the series they like the most also violates copyright and is as bad as using a friend's "backup" Windows XP. And with XP the private copy is not valid, because you use a password to activate it that does not belong to you.
I do not feel with the moral level to question a windowsuario. For that I have a long way to go and most of the LAW's also.
If you want to be truly free, don't follow the LAWs
30 comments, leave yours
That you are a double standard does not imply that everyone else involved in free software is. It is one thing to have to use proprietary software because there are no free alternatives (patents, technologies, etc.) but that can be used legally, Nvidia provides the driver for their cards for free, and Adobe provides the Flash player for Linux at no cost and another very Different is that under that premise you use content that you obtain illegally (songs, series, etc.), beware that there may be legislation, I ignore the country from which you write, in which not everything you do is illegal, it may it is a civil offense only and may even be a criminal offense. But I insist that the fact that for apples or pears you have to use proprietary software does not give you the freedom to violate the rights of others. I use and promote free software for its benefits and benefits, when I have no choice but to use flash or windows for work reasons, I don't see a major problem either, as long as it is legally.
Anyway, I think I've gotten a little upset ...
It happens to you like the capitalist communists, who want equality, fraternity and socialism but as long as they have a BMW in the garage and a house on the beach.
You can live perfectly without these luxuries as you can "cyberlive" perfectly without any proprietary software at all.
I am not a communist but do you think the capitalist system works?
Do you think it works for the millions of people who starve every day in Africa?
In history it has been shown that by taking things to extremes, they always end badly.
I have the occasional 100% free friend, but they impose their freedom on the rest, with which they become, in their ideal, impostors.
Freedom is respecting the opinion and decisions of others. I love free software, but you have to think about the real needs of the users you work with, and the impact it would have on their lives. For one, free software is the ideal, and that others use it would be the best. But the rest have learned with Windows, and changing "does not cool" or "feel like it." That is the reality, and we cannot impose Linux or OpenOffice because it is the best, because the best for me can be the worst for you.
I believe in a world in which everything has to have room to enrich us all. An idea, an option or an ideal is not enough. Respect and share all ... that is freedom.
@John Doe: That's not the point. This article is not an apology for capitalism but a defense of gray, with respect to black and white as Krlos understood it.
@McLarenX: You use Linux without Flash? Hai never downloaded an mp3 for the p2p?
I do not consider the military dictatorships of the countries mentioned as communist models. I still think that this model is about to be released and that it should come out of the polls like any other democratic model. Although I agree with you that extremes were never good.
mmmm, I am a bit confused to understand the comments. Get me out of a doubt, would it be illegal or immoral to use proprietary software? Regarding mp3s and others, illegality is defined in the context of the laws of a country or human group. Now immorality is something else, since it is ascribed to discussions of a "universal" character and has to do with the old discussion of "good" and "bad." Obviously speaking of immorality can go a long way.
I don't see anything wrong with using proprietary software if I need it. I think there are people who have needs to share their creativity (as narcissistic as that can be) and others who have to respond to more basic needs such as having enough money to live (or get rich as the case may be), with I mean the people who create the software and their motivations. It seems that all production of man has its price minus the software, which seems unfair to me. Everyone can do what they want with their product, and among that is selling it, as others sell support and services.
I do not believe that you can live in white or black exclusively, just as we cannot (or cannot bear) spending ALL the time with those we love (at times it is necessary to separate), or sustain a political ideology without negotiating, or have faith and not have a healthy doubt. When there is no conflict of parts, there is no growth. I fear that the extremism of some software developers may lead to a stagnation of technological development (thinking of the "Taliban" of Linux and Windows).
Again I spread out a lot.
Historians consider the Russian Revolution to be the first and only communist government. But neither Russia, nor China, nor Cuba are communists, but socialists. Socialism and Communism ARE DIFFERENT THINGS.
If you read the Communist Manifesto of Marx (Guide to Communism for Dummies) you will find that in order to exercise pure communism, the State must not exist. And in Russia, China and Cuba the exact opposite happens: there was / is a giant state that encompassed everything.
@FaQ: Thanks for the note, I'll take it into account. Let it be clear that the theme of communism is not the emphasis of the article, but rather to understand how totalitarian regimes with a totalitarian system closed to the world (the Pinochet dictatorship did not serve me for example) but connected by a similar ideology, it ends with succumbing or opting for the relaxation of the measures imposed to survive, what I postulate will be what is going to happen with the anti-windista linuxists (come on, the radicals, those of Stallman).
FaQ: Clarification is appreciated, but the subject is different ...
In some comments, the theme of communism, capitalism and so many isms is very much echoed, but you can leave labels aside and see the message of the post.
ffuentes is right, taking the affection that one has for free software to the extreme can be taken badly, people who have just learned that it is free software are "scared" when instead of highlighting the good of linux, there is much room for the bad which is windows.
Is everything in Mircrosoft bad? Linux is perfect? BILL GATES in ascii da 666? Are Microsoft donations not to help but to create grim consumerists? I do not believe it.
I'm going to touch ffuentes' morals a bit ... xD
In Spain, the legislation stipulates that it is not illegal to download an mp3 via p2p. Don't even hang it up. The illegal thing is to hack it. In other words, get it out of the CDAudio.
Just like the movies: P
Flash provides free support. Only in some countries are the required codecs considered illegal. And the drivers, today, are the companies that provide them completely free.
So ... on that side, and at least in my country, the issue is settled.
Now the issue of communism. I don't think they have as many similarities as they want to be seen (surely MS and Mac, North American companies, agree to see Linux as communism, I have no doubt about that).
What what I mean? Well, communism starts from the premise that everything belongs to everyone, yes. Same as the source code. Now, things change, from the moment I can edit that source code and then sell it in a totally legal way.
There will be those who do not want / can pay, right?
Similarly, neither Stallman nor Tolvards are "little father Stalin." And the rest has said it in a very clear way FaQ xD
Communism is not socialism. In that regard, linux can be a strange thing within capitalism, yes. But nothing prevents anyone from taking the code and creating a sales product. Something totally capitalist. And if not, think of Red Hat or Mandriva.
Another issue, radicalisms, are bad no matter how you look at them. Unfortunately, if I am into video editing, I will buy a Mac and (much to my regret for the price) I will pay what they ask for the software. And I do not see that illegal or immoral. I see it necessary.
I wish there were free software better than proprietary. This is not always the case and sometimes you have to pay. But I don't think I will become a capitalist freak.
I see bad pirating because yes (case of using pirated windows just for not wanting to learn something more legal) and I hope they introduce little by little systems that prevent people from pirating an OS but obviously, if I need to use it, and it is up to me property… I don't see anything wrong.
Although I don't like it, yes.
I do not know, I think there is not as much history as you want to see. No matter how you look at it.
And Bill Gates in ascii does not give 666, but I am sure that if I heat a windows CD in the fire, I get the inscription of "A system to tie them all and bring them to the darkness" (That is not mine, but it made me very funny when I read it).
Ala, there I leave the tochopost.
@Nacho: Thanks for stopping by, I already explained that this issue of communism is not the emphasis above, but I am still hanging a sentence in the inkwell of your comment.
In that regard, linux can be a strange thing within capitalism, yes. But nothing prevents anyone from taking the code and creating a sales product. Something totally capitalist.
Is creating a sales product capitalistic? Did the State provide everything in the USSR? Everything Everything everything? Even the most insignificant?
Private enterprise did not exist and large industries were nationalized, but producing a product to sell does not seem like a capitalist attribute to me and I am sure that many Russians made things and sold them, even though private enterprise did not exist as such. Even the state itself creates products that are sold (not everything is free in communist systems), money still existed.
Yes, but the very purpose of capitalism is to make money. I can make a linux and sell it for 1 euro, but I can also sell it for 20, looking to make money.
And that is quite capitalistic. When I sell a linux, I seek to make money, not that the GNU, the SL or the mother that gave birth to them (a certain linux tovarich tolvards) become famous, or whatever.
I seek my benefit.
It's that Stallman is too strict about that.
As an example he does not use the web as we know it, he sends an email to "his" server to read the web, then he sends him an email back with only text, and that is just what stallman checks.
Live like on Mars.
If we are all damn copycats, well almost all of them are people like that super yonky who can fulfill everything to the letter
Ah, the wget xD I had heard, but I thought it was a joke: /
I think the post is very right, as I said in a comment above, that that I use linux or openoffice and that it says that it is the best does not mean that it will do the best for everyone. and in relation to Stallman that man is smoked, supposedly he does not use a cell phone because the system is closed xD, that is already being freaked out in the head.
How right you are, the truth is that I do not stop using Windows because of photoshop, and because of my printer, if Ubuntu supported that, I would use Ubuntu for all my tasks, but neither way is it: S
I just hope that much of the hardware and software I use is 100% compatible with linux
Hmm, I agree on some things (such as your point of view of seeing gray, that not everything is black or white, and that the extremes are bad) and I disagree with others: it seems to me that I look for similarities of free soft with communism is to mix pears with apples. I have also heard people make an analogy with religion ... for me they are different things, and mixing them can confuse people. There are socialist and other very capitalist defenders and developers of free software (such as Sun, IBM, Linus Torvalds, Eric Raymond). Ok ok, I know the idea of the article was not that, but it is an unfortunate analogy ...
Another issue, you decide to download music, videos, protected by copyright is to be a pirate: S It depends on the country, in Argentina the law is doubtful and there is no jurisprudence to know if it is legal or not 
The case of software is different, because the law specifically clarifies that "The backup copy may not be used for any other purpose than to replace the original copy of the licensed computer program if that original is lost." In other words, using a crack is illegal, there is no doubt.
For this reason, each one has their own ethical values and considers certain acts morally correct (of course, they should comply with the laws).
I for my part:
- Everything I have on my pc is legal. The software is 99% free and the rest freeware or with its licenses.
- I have music and videos downloaded from the internet. But I do not consider them illegal, because I do not profit from them. I prefer to download the music for free and then pay $ 100 in a recital or $ 20 in the movies.
- I do not buy movies, music or soft tricks in any way. They are illegal (without a doubt, because there is profit) and I do not want to contribute by promoting the misnamed Piracy. And many people laugh when I tell them this, it is NOT the same to download music as to buy the trucho cd. I suppose that if I needed (for work or whatever) some professional software (those that are worth more than $ 1000) and I could not afford it, I would have no choice but to hack it and yes, I would. Luckily, it is not my case.
And obviously I am not 100% clean, xq, for example, I have crossed red traffic lights (and probably still do). If you think about it, respecting some laws is often impossible and nobody does. If the copyright laws are followed to the letter, I would have to listen to the music with headphones, so that my neighbors do not listen to it illegally: S
Well, I re sarpe, I do not extend more: P
I recommend reading this article:
Comparing Free Software with communism (or socialism) is wrong. Free software was born, and grows with the free and consensual support of its members. It is not imposed on the majority as the state imposes its rules on supposedly "socialist" nations, in which the differences with capitalist states are minimal.
I think that if RSM is a bit strict in its philosophy and discourse, it does so to prevent us from falling into mediocrity and hypocrisy ("I use free software only when it suits me, if it is cumbersome or ugly, I use proprietary software"). Go!!
Fun fact: in case you haven't noticed, RSM is an anarchist, not a communist, and that can be seen both in his writings and in his statements.
It's RMS (Richard Matthew Stallman); RSM is a TV show: P
For the rest, I agree with what you say ...
Hehe, it's RMS, sorry. :)
There are too many impressions in the article. First, when the FSF says that it is immoral to use proprietary software, it refers to the issue of the rights that we have and that are violated by proprietary licenses, that is, what it is about is to defend our computer rights, which in history is a recent event (there are no clear laws and most have been made by monopolies).
Second, free software is part of the current economy, it promotes the free market and local development in opposition to the monopoly, that is, it seeks to diversify the market and make it sustainable. To achieve this, you have to have access to technological production, that is, the code. . . but this is only the tip of the iceberg.
It is not about white, black, or gray. It is an opportunity to reorganize things and make them balanced for everyone.
I hope my opinion helps. . . Greetings!
@rocandante: Thanks for stopping by, even though you don't agree with me, your opinion helps a lot to have different points of view.
I will try to answer your points of view:
1- You say it yourself: The FSF says it is immoral use proprietary software, I have not been wrong, at least in that.
2 - I return to explain for the umpteenth time that the great reason why I use what I call classical communism as an example is because of the similarity of these two movements in one point: That they are intransigent and if I hurry, utopian.
Long live Red Star Linux!
So that you know something as you say, of general culture, the communist system is not bad, on the contrary it would allow you to live in a better way in which you currently live, but you only try to criticize it without knowing it, also so that you know a little more , has failed as you say, thanks to the imperialist countries that know that socialism is a danger and close the doors to their economy, therefore communism must be worldwide, aaa and something else, there have not yet been communist countries because Without a doubt I assure you that they would continue standing, there have been socialist countries like the unfortunate extinct URRS, but they have only achieved socialism which means that there is still a struggle on the part of the proletariat to achieve communism, which is the happy ending, and the goal of the oppressed. Well if not, then send me an email to send you some information or recommendations from socialist and capitalist books so that then you have a good verdict.
aaa, sorry, I reread what you wrote, and one day you have the courage to follow the Marxist-Leninist philosophy, why imagine if you do not create revolutions, you or I, who is going to do it? do not think so negative there is always a good reason why fighting is worth it.
Hi, I'm Lluis Visa, my credit card is the following: 9130 1000 3009430, thank you