Cuba to migrate to open source

[Addis]

The Cuban government is to migrate thousands of its computers to open-source software, a change that would further distance the communist nation from U.S.-based Microsoft.

Several Cuban government ministers backed the move at a technology conference held late last week. Communications minister Ramiro Valdes gave a opening keynote that advocated open source, while Richard Stallman, head of the Free Software Foundation, also told the conference that proprietary software is inherently insecure.

A Cuban academic, Hector Rodriguez, is supporting the migration to open source by heading up a development program within one of the largest Cuban universities. Cuba's customs service has already migrated to Linux, while the ministries of culture, higher education and communications are planning to do so, Rodriguez told the conference.

Read the rest at ZDNet.

Very interesting, but I suppose it doesn't help the image of Linux being communist in some peoples' eyes. I heard there was talk about switching to Linux in Bristol, or some other place but it was cancelled because Microsoft made them a special offer.

 

[Big B]

Yes, comrade, we shall use the glorious Linux system to equally distribute our distros! I believe Lenin would approve of this.

In all seriousness, yeah, this won't help trying to point out that Linux isn't a commie OS (despite the absurity of it all).

 

[Swansen]

lol, how does that even work, communist operating systems, people are crazy.

 

[Anti-Trend]

Yes, exactly. I wrote an article about just that on my website some time back. :D But honestly, OSS in government is good for *any* nation, communists not excluded.

 

[DaRuSsIaMaN]

Well, I can see the association people might make about Linux being "communist." Yes, I remember AT's article, and it's good, but nonetheless the logic is explicable imo. Communism is egalitarian: it's supposed to raise up the poor classes and bring down the privileges of the rich in order to eliminate poverty and income inequality. In order for it to work, people also have to be content with a modest lifestyle rather than dreaming of mansions and driving Bentleys. The efforts and ideas behind OSS seem to fit this basic ideology, even if crudely so. The people making OSS want software to be accessible to everyone, right? Well, the communist ideology also aims at making basic elements of needs and comfort available to everyone. And providing public good without profit for oneself? That note is also present within communitarian /communistic way of thinking: like I said, people must be content to work and contribute to society even without any expectations of making a fortune. And finally, the fact that this not-for-profit entity is competing with giant corporations like Microsoft could also be seen as an ideology-driven attempt to undermine or bring down the high class in society, just like the communist revolutionaries aimed to do (and did).

So in my opinion it's quite easy to make connections between OSS and communism, and I can see why people might do that. lol. Of course, I still think it's a rather lame way of thinking nevertheless.

 

[Addis]

Well, I can see the association people might make about Linux being "communist." Yes, I remember AT's article, and it's good, but nonetheless the logic is explicable imo. Communism is egalitarian: it's supposed to raise up the poor classes and bring down the privileges of the rich in order to eliminate poverty and income inequality. In order for it to work, people also have to be content with a modest lifestyle rather than dreaming of mansions and driving Bentleys. The efforts and ideas behind OSS seem to fit this basic ideology, even if crudely so. The people making OSS want software to be accessible to everyone, right? Well, the communist ideology also aims at making basic elements of needs and comfort available to everyone. And providing public good without profit for oneself?

In the GNU manifesto, RMS wrote about how it was possible for profit to be made from the free software model. While developing the software is generally based on volunteer work, it is not necessarily so. Companies have the option of paying developers money to implement features in FOSS, while giving back to the community at the same time. Open source doesn't necessarily mean that you have to release changes to the source code either, only if you distribute your software must you supply the altered source code.

That note is also present within communitarian /communistic way of thinking: like I said, people must be content to work and contribute to society even without any expectations of making a fortune. And finally, the fact that this not-for-profit entity is competing with giant corporations like Microsoft could also be seen as an ideology-driven attempt to undermine or bring down the high class in society, just like the communist revolutionaries aimed to do (and did).

There are no high classes in the software world. Microsoft are not a higher class than anyone else, they never were. They may have the vast majority of the market share, but that doesn't relate to class. If you do apply the idea of class to software, then more often than not is the open source world which are driving the Bentleys and living in mansions (if you consider the quality of free software).

So in my opinion it's quite easy to make connections between OSS and communism, and I can see why people might do that. lol. Of course, I still think it's a rather lame way of thinking nevertheless.

I think people make connect Freedom and communism, not open source software and communism. They confuse certain aspects of a software ideology with certain aspects of Communism, but these connections are superficial and weak. Consider the connections, "classless society": is this necessarily bad? Is it good that in the world we have people in poverty without food or water, while others live in abundance? Are monopolies a good thing? Is Microsoft, the biggest monopoly of all doing good to society? No, closed source software and aggressive tactics used by MS have retarded technological progress in the last decade.

It seems to me, that people make a connection like:
Free and Open source software -> Equality -> Communism -> Totalitarianism.

 

[zeus]

Did the french ever make the change to linux? It came up in the news a good couple of years ago that they would.

 

[DaRuSsIaMaN]

There are no high classes in the software world. Microsoft are not a higher class than anyone else, they never were. They may have the vast majority of the market share, but that doesn't relate to class. If you do apply the idea of class to software, then more often than not is the open source world which are driving the Bentleys and living in mansions (if you consider the quality of free software).

Man, I didn't mean it like that :P. Bill Gates is the high class. And all the rest of the people making profit off the enormously wealthy company. With any huge company there are people behind it making huge wealth. You bring down their "capitalist venture" and u cut off their source of income. High class means rich people in the context of what I was trying to say.

It seems to me, that people make a connection like:
Free and Open source software -> Equality -> Communism

Yeah that's in a nutshell what I said too.

 

[Addis]

Man, I didn't mean it like that :P. Bill Gates is the high class. And all the rest of the people making profit off the enormously wealthy company. With any huge company there are people behind it making huge wealth. You bring down their "capitalist venture" and u cut off their source of income. High class means rich people in the context of what I was trying to say.

I wasn't harshly disagreeing with you, but I see what you mean.

Yeah that's in a nutshell what I said too.

My point about totalitarianism was was that people think that because free software promotes more equality, that it immediately brings all the negative aspects of Communism. While I don't agree with Communism (capitalist, like most of you guys), I think there are small aspects of it which are not necessarily bad.

 

[Swansen]

actually class as in like personal status its based on income, not how a person is perceived, ie higher class, lower class and middle class. So Dr you had is right

 

[DaRuSsIaMaN]

My point about totalitarianism was was that people think that because free software promotes more equality, that it immediately brings all the negative aspects of Communism.

Heh, you're probably right.

 

[Addis]

actually class as in like personal status its based on income, not how a person is perceived, ie higher class, lower class and middle class. So Dr you had is right

Social class refers to the hierarchical distinctions between individuals or groups in societies or cultures. Anthropologists, historians and sociologists identify class as universal, although what determines class will vary widely from one society to another. Even within a society, different people or groups may have very different ideas about what makes one "high" or "low" in the hierarchy.

There are more constituents to class than economic status.

 

[Anti-Trend]

There are more constituents to class than economic status.

Are you really 16, or are you 46? ;) You are wise beyond your years. Really though, that's absolutely correct. The idea behind concepts like the library of Athens is that people are naturally unequal, but that society as a whole can and will benefit from mass education and freely available public resources. The best will naturally rise above the ranks, with no intervention needed from governments or otherwise. But everyone involved will benefit from such a concept.