When I first began using Linux as my primary operating system, I did so to try to solve some problems I was having with Microsoft Windows. My computer had begun to feel like it was not under my control. Updates were being downloaded and installed during inopportune times and they were requiring me to completely shut down my computer nearly every time, or nagging me to do it anyway. I was running anti-virus software that was buggy and bloated and slowing down my computer. In order to maintain all of the recent security updates, I had to literally hand over the contents of my hard drive to Microsoft on a regular basis to prove that I had not hacked Windows (Windows Genuine Advantage). My music, videos and even the font files on my computer were told what they could do by Microsoft’s DRM efforts. Being a lover of liberty and a bit of a security freak, I was rubbed the wrong way with many of the issues that Microsoft had taught me I just had to live with.
I decided to give Linux a try, just as a LiveUSB at first, so I could see what was possible. I dreamed of being able to replace every function I needed out of a computer with Linux. I knew there was nearly no susceptibility to viruses with Linux. I knew it was built with networking and network security in mind from the very beginning. The security freak in me liked it already. But, of course, it needs to work! While I do have a couple of needs that I cannot fill with Linux at the moment (Netflix and 3D parametric CAD package, i.e. Solidworks), I was very happy to learn that it did indeed solve my major computer frustrations and fill nearly all of my computer needs. So now, all of our computers run Linux, and we dual boot into Windows on a couple of them.
If you use Linux for a while, you get to know a very interesting culture that surrounds the FOSS (Free/Open Source Software) community. There are the Richard M. Stallman absolutists that believe every piece of software that runs on a computer must be FOSS and completely configurable by the user. I respect these guys. I can’t say I always agree, but I can always understand where they are coming from.
But I also learned of a group that I was quite surprised to find myself being lumped in with: Communists. While the price of FOSS is obviously appealing to anyone, the philosophy of the Communists especially appreciates FOSS. They get very uppity at the idea of having to pay people for things; especially if those people belong to large corporations. I find their hate of profits to be completely irrational. Profit is the measurement of how efficiently our endeavors are supplying the needs and wants of our society with our society’s resources. We do not have unlimited resources (man-hours, materials, etc.), so the only way to truly make everyone richer is to use those resources as efficiently as possible. So, in capitalism, we reward those who use our resources efficiently with more access to our society’s resources.
In order for a capitalistic system to work however, people must be allowed to own what they earn. And ownership of a thing means that you must be able to make all of the choices regarding what happens to that possession, barring any use that infringes upon the freedoms of others. That was the philosophy the United States was fighting for during the Cold War. The USSR believed firmly that only the state was allowed to own anything. The US fought this idea to maintain our rights to own what we earn.
Well, and this is where I might get a bit preachy, Microsoft and Apple are the new Communists. They have taught us that we should not be allowed to own our computers. They should. They think we shouldn’t have the right to own our music, videos, codecs or fonts. They prevent us from moving them from device to device as we see fit. Meanwhile, Linux lets you own everything about your computer and the software that it runs, from the operating system right on down to the files, codecs and fonts.
I want developers to be able to make a profit on what they create. Companies like Google, Mozilla, and Red Hat have shown that you can make a profit while giving people the source code and letting them own their computers and the software that runs on them.
So, there you have it. Not only do you not need to be a Communist to use Linux, but to be a true Capitalist, you SHOULD use Linux!
Brian Cox's Thoughts on Technology 
krisahil
July 11, 2011
Appreciate your comments — and I think there are more capitalists in FOSS community than we know. (We may not seem them often because they’re working to make money :-)
I work full-time using a FOSS web CMS/framework and am sometimes very perplexed by the politically left-leaning developers in our community. I love ’em, and they write great code, but sometimes I don’t understand the whole if-its-not-for-a-nonprofit-you’re-an-evil-guy attitude.
Argoson
July 11, 2011
You raise an interesting point, even though i think it is a bit outstretched. The computer’s penetration into our lives, making it almost important as basic needs for some, is an evolution. Mataphoricaly, You can see it like when you were young your parents made the decisions for you, for better or worse. Now that you are grown and independent, so are your choices. Until now, many users believed (and still do) that Microsoft was the parent when it came to deciding what to run on their computers, Apple was the cool parent / neighbour (not any more..).
And with that in mind, as a Linux user myself, I sing the last words from the US national anthem: “the land of the free and the home of the brave”
Shimi
July 12, 2011
Some commercial CAD software for linux(the first three are really recommended from what i have seen):
VariCAD:
http://www.varicad.com/en/home/products/description/
Briscad:
http://www.bricsys.com/en_INTL/bricscad/index.jsp
ARES Commander:
http://www.graebert.com/en/cad/ares/99
DraftSight:
http://www.3ds.com/products/draftsight/free-cad-software
QCAD:
http://www.qcad.org/
ARCAD:
http://www.arcad.de/index.php
Siemens NX:
http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/products/nx/index.shtml
2briancox
July 12, 2011
Thanks for the link on Siemens NX, Shimi! I didn’t know about that one. Although I’m having a bit of difficulty navigating their site to find some actual product specs.
I knew of all the other solutions but they only do 2D well, not 3D. And they don’t do .SLDPRT files. They’re mostly only interested in being compatible with AutoCAD, which isn’t very good for 3D either.
David Gerard
July 12, 2011
Don’t forget that Cygnus (now part of Red Hat) was a business founded on the GNU GPL – the original “share and share alike” licence. Others saw the GPL and thought “sharing? Communism” – Michael Tiemann saw the GPL and saw a business plan.
2briancox
July 12, 2011
Good point, David. The visionaries of Free Software were definitely denounced by many erroneously. Such it usually is with people whose vision changes the paradigm.
While we still have capitalism driving the Free Software business model, it is definitely a different capitalism than existed when Microsoft rose to power. While it is always difficult for society to let go of its current structures, it is a necessary step of allowing the economy to grow and flourish.
But usually people only realize this in retrospect. When software patents are finally dead and buried, we will finally realize that our old IP laws that were designed to promote innovation had long since become a burden to the growth of technologies.
Martin Owens
July 12, 2011
You have a good post. But I do have a couple of additions:
1) Free Market Capitalism requires strong markets as much as it requires strong companies.
2) Profits are large when markets are weak or destroyed (monopolies)
3) Profits are low when markets are working (efficiently)
There is a large difference between revenue used to pay producers in a free market system and profits which act as rents upon that system. High rents which can only really be enforced with a broken market system, such as we have with desktop software. Anywhere you see large amounts of profit, wonder why the market is failing in that area.
The only external point is that capital investment will want returns to make investment worthwhile. The only way to really do this is to turn them into risk based lending agreements with fixed terms. Anything otherwise has every company in existence fighting to abolish the free market system through monopoly control to bolster their profit and their returns.
Ford
July 12, 2011
It seems as if you are implying that profit isn’t normal, and that profit is in someway evil and/or immoral. Personally, I think that profit is wonderful. People deserve to be rewarded for their efforts, and typically people are only going to charge what the market is willing to pay. In the information technology sector ignorance is the main reason why companies can get away with charging what they do. Government intervention in markets is what leads to monopolies and other forms of abuse of the system. For example, software patents are a government intervention that allows one company to patent nearly anything it wishes. For example, individual companies getting individual tax breaks through exemptions made in law by congress and paid for by the corporation. Profits being high? You could argue that any FOSS-based software company stands to make ridiculous amounts of profit since they do not have to pay as many people as a non-FOSS-based software company. Lower over-head means that a non-FOSS-based software company could theoretically charge just a much for their software as their competitors (or close to it), while having less expense and thus a higher profit margin… leading inevitably to… OMG MORE PROFIT!!!! THEY MUST BE EVIL!!! ON NOES, SMASH THE STATE!
2briancox
July 12, 2011
I agree that high profits are possible under a monopoly system. But I wouldn’t characterize the profits without monopolies as being low. I would just say that they are not artificially inflated by the corruption inherent in a monopoly.
I think most people can agree that the ideal should be maximum profits with near zero corruption.
amadensor
July 12, 2011
One more capitalistic thing: The cost of the service to be provided must cover the cost of production plus the cost of distribution. Once these are covered, then there is room in the margin for competition, and those most efficient will have lower costs, and can therefore have larger margins. FLOSS reduces the cost of distribution to near zero, and at the same time spreads the load of the cost of production very thin, while saving TCO, meaning that there is the possibility of a negative cost of production (it is cheaper to tweak an open package than to buy a commercial one) that could conceivably cover the very small cost of distribution.
Capitalism, where there are many competitors that drive the price down to a reasonable level of margin is the very heart of FLOSS, it is just that unlike physical goods, the cost of production is also driven to zero (no raw materials) and this throws the whole economic model for a loop, making it confusing to many people. Example: The first copy of a piece of commercial software is like on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The second copy sold has a marginal cost of media an printing ($5 if in a traditional box, fractional cents if a digital download). This is also the issue facing the music and movie companies. There are new business models to be found here, and capitalism will find them.
2briancox
July 12, 2011
I think your last sentence there is exactly true. The future of computing, because of the power of FOSS model, has changed and the world will eventually have to adjust to compete on everything.
One thing I have firmly come to believe is that, eventually, almost every consumer computer product will be FOSS. The speed of development may be slow, but it cannot be stopped and it will ALWAYS push forward.
So, in my view, the entire market needs to adapt. You cannot cling to an old model in the age of rapid progress that we have had since the internet explosion.
arne banarne
July 12, 2011
By reading your article, I get the impression that you do not know the difference between capitalism and market economy. Don’t worry though, as many people don’t… but what you probably want to praise is market economy, not the capitalism. The capitalism bit is simply that someone let other people work for them, putting their hands on profit made from paying the employees as little as one can get away with.
2briancox
July 12, 2011
I can’t help but think your definition has been formed by your personal resentments.
Capitalism is a system of designating a nation’s resources by means of measuring profit as a unit of resource-efficiency. The endeavors that can demonstrate they supply the needs and wants of our nation more efficiently can have access to more of the nation’s resources. A company that is more efficient at providing a particular need will earn more profit and be able to sell its stock or bonds at a more favorable agreement. Thus they have access to more resources.
By rewarding efficiency and punishing inefficiency, the resources of the nation get used as efficiently as possible. This, of course, means that everyone will be richer since there are now more resources available per capita.
jsp722
July 12, 2011
One problem with capitalistic ideology is that those who allow themselves to be brainwashed by it tend to identify personal fulfillment with becoming an eunuch working for some corporation, while seeing anyone enjoying their personal freedom as “resentful” people “neeeding to be employed”.
jsp722
July 12, 2011
The nature of capitalism is competition, and the nature of competition is dominance of the few over the many, hence monopoly and lack of freedom. People were fooled by capitalistic propaganda into believing that capitalism would bring them freedom, while it is exactly what takes their freedom away. As opposed to the claims of capitalistic propaganda, communal collaboration is what brings diversity and freedom of choice, while capitalistic competition only brings the choiceless dictatorship of monopolies. If one wants to achieve the propagandized benefits of capitalism, such as diversity and freedom of choice, one has to give up capitalistic sociopathic ideology altogether. That’s why FOSS is indeed anti-capitalistic by nature, and what’s not good about it?
Now, as refers to profit, capitalist or not everyone wants it — profit is by definition what one wants. What is healthy or sickly is the way the profit is earned: through sharing with the community, as with FOSS, or through depriving the community of something, as with closed source software, capitalism, mafias and gangsters in general.
2briancox
July 12, 2011
I knew I couldn’t avoid attracting a few of you. Welcome.
Barista Uno
July 12, 2011
Nothing wrong with developers and companies making money on Linux. On the other hand, Linux itself is a reminder hat there are more important things in this world than money – not least of them the spirit of creativity, the spirit of sharing and the spirit of freedom.
2briancox
July 12, 2011
Absolutely!
Tyler
July 12, 2011
I am sorry Brian but you clearly have no understanding of the Communist argument. Although I am not one myself, a simple reading of Marx would show that you have not done any of the original reading.
Capitalism, as stated by Marx, is a social relation between those who own the means of labour and those who don’t. This is done through wages and profit which you point out. However, by any definition, Apple and Microsoft would never be considered communist.
“In order for a capitalistic system to work however, people must be allowed to own what they earn.” How can this ever be realized by the majority of people? Capital is an added value to the labour of an item. Marx critiques this because the added values is claimed by those who did not do the labour on the item.
2briancox
July 12, 2011
Ok, let’s just make sure we are understanding each other very well here.
You are saying that the definition of what Capitalism is and isn’t is determined by the statements of … Karl Marx? My definition for what Communism is was clearly not the words of Marx but the policies and practices of the USSR. I felt my writing actually makes that fairly clear.
Look, I think you are missing the point of this article. I am not writing it to debate what the Communist argument against Capitalism is. I am not trying to persuade people to be Capitalists. I am sharing my point of view, as someone who is a Capitalist, on why Linux fits the Capitalist ideals. And why Microsoft and Apple are closer to the ideals of the USSR…which I am equating, for simplicity of posting these ideas, to Communism itself.
You say, “How can this ever be realized by the majority of people?”
I say, “No, I am not going to debate with you what the meaning of the word ‘earn’ is.”
The post is about my view of why Linux is very fitting with my view of what is good economically. Take it or leave it.
jsp722
July 13, 2011
> I am sharing my point of view, as someone who is a Capitalist, on why Linux fits
> the Capitalist ideals. […] The post is about my view of why Linux is very fitting with
> my view of what is good economically.
Judging from the enthusiasm governments of countries such as China, North Korea, Cuba, Russia, Venezuela or Iran are showing for Linux, they too believe that Linux fits very well with their views of what is good economically — which are not necessarily the same as yours.
The point is, while you may believe in some proclaimed ideals of capitalism, such as diversity and freedom of choice, you are fooled into believing that these goals and not the very opposite are achieved by capitalism. But then without fooled people capitalism could not exist anyway.
2briancox
July 13, 2011
Did you think I was arguing that Communists can’t find a reason to love Linux?
I wasn’t.
I was arguing that Capitalists can and do.
jsp722
July 13, 2011
> I am sharing my point of view, as someone who is a Capitalist,
> on why […] Microsoft and Apple are closer to the ideals of the
> USSR…
If so, why do Microsoft and Apple thrive in capitalist US? This is because Microsoft and Apple are more at home with the real capitalist ideals of monopoly, extortion, gangsterism and lack of freedom prevailing in capitalist US.
Barista Uno
July 13, 2011
Ownership is illusory. We never ever own anything. So what’s the argument about?
Adrian
July 13, 2011
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
I completely agree with you. From the point I began using GNU/Linux & BSD, it made perfect sense to me that someone could really take advantage of the free market and benefit.
It was, in a way, opportunity for small business to really have an “in” if they could provide a better service or product based on open source.
The communist concept applied to open source never made sense to me, since I grew up and eventually snuck out of a “real” communist state.
Thanks again.
jsp722
July 13, 2011
> Did you think I was arguing that Communists can’t find a reason
> to love Linux?
> I wasn’t.
> I was arguing that Capitalists can and do.
Real capitalists hate Linux, because they are not fooled into thinking that capitalism is about diversity and freedom of choice — rather, they are those who fool others like you into thinking like this. You are not the “capitalist” you think you are, you are just a naive cheerleader for it.
2briancox
July 13, 2011
Aw. Dang. Well that’s too bad I guess.
By the way, I found am interesting site you might like. They debate Capitalism vs. Communism. http://www.debate.org/debates/Communism-Capitalism/1/
The debate seems to interest you. Thought you might like to spend some time there. Or join in their discussion.
jsp722
July 13, 2011
Since I’ve never mentioned “Communism” in my posts, you must have had some hallucination (apart from your belief in freedom with capitalism).
Anyway, I have a suggestion for you!
http://www.santaclaus_and_freedom_in_capitalism.com
which is probably where you came from anyway…
click here
June 27, 2013
What’s up, its good article regarding media print, we all be familiar with media is a fantastic source of information.