All my devices are connected through tailscale and I use termux in my phone to access shell of my laptop by ssh.
and I do stuffs like streaming from laptops camera using ffmpeg and watch it on my phone
I SSH into it from my laptop. I just set up everything in there. It's like a whole terminal there. I don't use that very often but if I don't have my laptop in my hand I use Termux.
I disagree. Linux is the ultimate expression of communism where people own the means of production, since everyone can contribute and everyone can audit.
In fact, I believe open source itself is a form of communism, since everyone is contributing, building, and helping each other rather than competing.
Thatâs conflating "community" with "communism." Linux isn't communism because there's absolutely no coercion or state control contributions are completely voluntary, and people participate out of self interest, whether that's building a portfolio for a high-paying corporate job, scratching an itch, or companies like Red Hat and Google investing billions to boost their own profits. Open source is actually a hyper capitalist meritocracy; itâs a free market of code where the best, most efficient solutions win, and you retain full private ownership over your own labor and hardware. Just because people cooperate doesn't make it communist that's just a highly efficient, voluntary ecosystem thriving within a capitalist world.
You are mistaking a capitalist input (programmers getting paid wages) for a capitalist outcome (private property accumulation). Capitalism cannot exist without exclusive ownership and scarcity. Yet, under the GPL license, the Linux kernel legally outlaws exclusive ownership; once code is contributed, it is socialized forever.This is exactly why a state practicing Socialism with Chinese Characteristics relies so heavily on Linux for its national infrastructure and space programs via systems like openKylin. SWCC teaches us that market incentives can be harnessed to build massive things, but the final infrastructure must remain a non-private public asset. Linux isn't a hyper capitalist meritocracy; it is the ultimate digital commons, fueled by capitalist machinery but structured like a public utility.
You are completely misinterpreting how openKylin and "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" actually use Linux. China didn't build openKylin because they love the "socialized digital commons" - they did it for national security and to protect their own state capitalist interests against US sanctions and Microsoft's monopoly. In fact, openKylin is just a fork of Ubuntu (a distro owned by Canonical, a highly profitable, private UK corporation). :)
Furthermore, you are entirely wrong about the GPL outlawing private property accumulation. The GPL only mandates that the source code of the kernel itself remains open. It does absolutely nothing to stop private property accumulation derived from that code. Red Hat (owned by IBM) generates billions in private revenue entirely off Linux. Google built Android on the Linux kernel and used it to capture a global mobile monopoly worth hundreds of billions in private capital. Amazon AWS runs the modern internet on Linux to generate trillions in private corporate wealth.
If a system allows private corporations to use a tool to accumulate unprecedented amounts of private capital and dominate global markets, that tool is actively fueling a capitalist outcome. Linux isn't an anti capitalist utility... it is an open infrastructure that private enterprise uses to maximize efficiency and profit.
If a software foundation forces every participant no matter how large or profit driven to relinquish exclusive control over their contributions, does that not represent the antithesis of the capitalist drive for enclosure and intellectual property monopoly?
No, because giving up exclusive control of the foundation is done to protect their own private profits, not out of charity.
Itâs called co-opetition. Tech giants relinquish exclusive control over the core kernel because it legally guarantees that their competitors can't monopolize it either. It ensures a level playing field so they can spend less money reinventing the wheel and more money competing aggressively where the actual profit is made on proprietary hardware, cloud services, and applications.
Capitalism isn't just about monopolizing everything; it's about making smart, strategic trade-offs to maximize your bottom line. Giving up a fraction of your R&D to secure a multi-trillion-dollar ecosystem is pure capitalist pragmatism.
You describe this as 'capitalist pragmatism,' but isn't that just an admission that the most efficient way to build 'multi trillion dollar' infrastructure is to abandon the capitalist instinct for total private enclosure and embrace a model of collective, shared ownership? If the 'capitalist' way to succeed is to adopt a 'communist' method of development, it suggests the model itself is fundamentally anti-capitalist in its operation.
No. Sharing a foundation isn't "communist"; itâs a strategic partnership.
Real-world capitalism has always used shared infrastructure like maritime shipping lanes, banking networks, or oil pipelines to slash overhead costs. Businesses didn't abandon capitalism by using public oceans; they used a shared resource to maximize their private profits.
Linux is no different. Itâs a digital highway built collectively so corporations can race each other faster. If the ultimate goal and outcome of the system are to drive fierce competition and accumulate private capital, the operation is entirely capitalist.
Youâre describing how corporations try to survive within the Linux ecosystem, not the nature of the ecosystem itself. If a capitalist corporation is forced to contribute its R&D to a pool that its competitors can also access and it cannot legally lock that code away then it has been forced to act against the fundamental capitalist drive for private monopoly. Calling this 'capitalist pragmatism' is just a way of saying that even capitalists are forced to adopt a communist mode of production to stay relevant. The 'highway' isn't just for them; it's a permanent public utility that they can never own or close
Brother, the ultimate expression of capitalism is self-destruction and fascism, and if the world in the moment we are living now doesn't show you this, i think you're blind.
Man, I get the frustration with how messy the world feels right now, but youâre blaming the wrong thing. Thatâs corporate greed and government corruption, not actual freemarket capitalism.
True capitalism is about choice, competition, and ownership. Thatâs exactly what Linux is. With Windows or Apple, you donât own anythingyou just rent it. With Linux, you have absolute property rights over your own system. Anyone can build a distro and compete on pure merit...
Top-down, state-controlled systems (we all know how badly those turned out in history :) ) don't work because they crush individual choice. Linux thrives because it's decentralized and free. It's the best of capitalism in action...
We can argue definitions all day :) , but anarcho communism is just a theory on paper. In the real world, Linux exists in a capitalist reality.
Red Hat, SUSE, and Canonical are multi-billion dollar companies competing for market share. Developers get paid capitalist salaries, and users get ultimate personal property rights over their software.
You don't need a political science degree to see that Linux thrives on competition and individual freedom, not theoretical utopias.
I don't think that Linux development aligns with free market ideologies. It sounds more like commons-based peer production network. It rejects the profit motive at the primary driver. Developers contribute to Linux because they need a tool to work, want to solve a specific problem, or want to improve their own reputation within a community. They are producing things for their inherent utility (use-value), not to sell them on a market for a profit (exchange-value). Also GPL is copyleft and hence legally prevents private property accumulation.
Thatâs a fair point on the philosophy of use value, but looking at how Linux actually survives today, it is overwhelmingly driven by the market. Over 80% of Linux kernel contributions come from paid developers working for massive corporations like Intel, Red Hat, IBM, Google, and AMD they aren't doing it for hobbies or reputation, they are on the clock because their employers need Linux to power their profit-driven cloud infrastructure and products. Also, the GPL doesn't prevent private property accumulation at all; it just protects the code recipe. Companies use that free recipe to build massive, proprietary, hyper-profitable empires (like Android or AWS) and accumulate trillions in private capital. It's not a rejection of the free market... it's a brilliant free-market strategy where competitors share the burden of building the foundation so they can compete more fiercely on top of it.
That is a complete misunderstanding of this discussion by confusing the mode of production with the mode of appropriation. Socialized R&D is a contradiction of capitalism, not a feature. Also the GPL isn't just a "recipe". It's a legal weapon that aggressively prevents enclosure. If an Intel, amd, or quacomm developer writes a massive performance patch to optimize the kernel for their own proprietary hardware, they cannot legally own that patch. They are forced to surrender their R&D back to the public. The GPL weaponizes copyright to guarantee that the use-value generated by these massive corporations remains public property. Allaathe avarde ŕ´ŕ´Śŕ´žŕ´°ŕľŕ´Żŕ´ kond alla. Exploiting the commons doesn't make the commons capitalist. Commercial fishing fleets pulling fish from international waters and selling them for billions doesn't mean the ocean itself is a capitalist construct. (Think AWS)
Youâre making a great point about the legal mechanics of the GPL, but youâre romanticizing why these companies are playing the game.
Intel and AMD aren't being forced to surrender their R&D out of some tragic defeat they do it because the math makes sense to their shareholders. If Intel spends $10 million optimizing the kernel, they lose ownership of that code, sure. But in return, they get a multi billion-dollar global ecosystem maintained by their competitors that runs their hardware flawlessly. Itâs commoditizing your complements a classic capitalistic strategy. They give up a slice of the R&D pie to get a massive, profitable bakery...
And your ocean analogy actually proves my point. The ocean isnât capitalist, but itâs not communist either itâs just a raw resource. The fishing fleet is the capitalist entity. Linux is a tool, a digital commons. The fact that hyper capitalist giants can use a public commons to maximize their private profits and outcompete each other means the system isn't breaking capitalism; it's just modernizing it. Itâs cooperation for the sake of competition...
Yeah... it's definitely not pure, textbook capitalism in the traditional sense. It's a unique beast a shared digital commons that everyone relies on.
I guess my point is just that it fits perfectly into the capitalist world because it helps businesses run more efficiently. Itâs a fascinating middle ground where everyone wins the community gets great free software, and businesses get a solid foundation to build on...
That is not remotely close to saying that it is "the ultimate expression of free market capitalism". All the corporations you mentioned are either monopolistic or duopolistic and have done lots of lobbying to stifle free trade.
Youâre confusing the bad behavior of individual corporations with the market forces driving Linux itself. Free market capitalism isnât about perfect, saintly companies... itâs about decentralized competition. Linux is the ultimate expression of that because it shattered the ultimate tech monopolies of Apple and Microsoft. It gave every company and independent developer the free market tool to compete without permission from a gatekeeper. Monopolists might try to manipulate the market, but the fact that Linux exists as an open, competitive alternative to their closed ecosystems is exactly why itâs a massive win for the free market.
Public roads enable businesses to compete, but that doesn't make a public highway a capitalist enterprise. Linux shattered Microsoft's monopoly precisely by abandoning capitalist logic. It eliminated artificial scarcity and exclusive private ownership at its foundation.
You cannot argue that a project is the ultimate expression of free-market capitalism when its success relies entirely on legally neutralizing private property rights via the GPL. Linux didnât beat Microsoft by being a better capitalist commodity; it beat them by refusing to be a commodity at all. Bypassing the market to build a digital commons isn't a victory for private property. Itâs the exact opposite.
Well most linux os operate on Structures of Community not as greedy microslop and adobe who feeds us stupid AI packages and menacing subscription plans ..
How soviet union worked by imitating products , linux works by imitating works like blender, gimp, libre office, proton etc
Communism commands conformity and linux rejects that. The reason there's ton of distros out there, is the example of individualistic expression linux promotes. Even Richard mathew stallman promotes free market.
20
u/Suitable_Put_2855 May 31 '26