Comment: what youve stated

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: ummm.... NO (see in situ)

what youve stated

is only part of what socialism is. Socialism is also using force in order to control markets. that is exactly what the 'opensource' designation does.

"There are dozens of OS systems built on the linux kernel that are not free, Redhat being one of the most popular but not the only."

now, theres a difference here. what redhat has done is created a model where they sell subscription services and software to work with their FREE OS. Opensource means that they 'legally' cannot sell the kernal or anything build off of the kernal.

"Economically speaking... WHO would buy a free version of linux? Nobody because its FREE so you must first add on something new and better to the linux kernel before people would start paying for it. You could try selling the free version of linux but only a total idiot would buy it."

and you've just proven my whole point. IF linux truly was as good or better for most people, then WHY does microsoft even exist? Linux has been around since before microsoft blew personal computing up. Why would someone pay for microsoft when they can get that software for free? because its better for the average folks. And thats because they are capable of selling their product. they have profit incentive where linux is severely handicapped by that removal.

the easiest way to get something done isnt to change the behavior; its to change the meaning of existing behavior. like a cut isnt a cut, torture isnt torture, its enhanced interrogation. war isnt war, its kinetic military action. declaring war now appare