Comment: Freedom and the Linux syndrome

(See in situ)

Freedom and the Linux syndrome

What am I talking about you find yourself asking. Well, simply put, we all support freedom but we all have our different falvors or breaking points regarding this freedom much like the battle between Linux and the Microsoft desktop wars.

Long story short; Linux is a very secure, robust, modifiable, free, visually stunning piece of software that is far more capable than Windows ever could be. It even gives the user the ability to change it if there is a feature missing or one the user does not like. Did I mention its free? So, why does Linux lose and everybody pay hundreds of dollars for Windows? A fragmented community lies behind Linux while Microsoft has a marketing department that is second to none.

While my fellow geeks run around supporting the different flavors of Linux and espouse the virture of their flavor of choice Microsoft simply offers one version of Windows (that they hamper to sell different "versions") and then deploy sales staff that could sell a deep freezer to a north pole inhabitant. The support around a unified, single version OS allows Microsoft to win.

If the Linux community were to ever rally completely around one single flavor of Linus then Microsoft would be doomed. All of the little quirks that affect the FOSS movement would quickly and utterly be demolished and a pristine and sparkling OS would emerge. However, minor differences keep people from switching. Sometimes these differences are so minor you actually have to know what and where to look for them to even notice.

This is how we lose. The Republicans and Democrats are the Mircrosoft of the political world. It doesn't matter how vile the candidate is or how much their views oppose the voter's view they will still support the party candidate; period end of story. Several opposing factions instantly come together to form a super faction whose sole goal is to get their letter elected and their morals be damned.

Freedom lovers, however, are more like Linux users. They vote on the principles they absolutely believe in and thus fall. They do not fall because they are fewer but because they are fragmented. Much like a Linux user there can be no compromise. As admirable as this is this actually helps the Dems and Repubs secure nearly every major election.

However, if freedom lovers were ever willing to put their differences aside, figure out a way to find a candidate everybody supported, and get the organization the Dems and Repubs have to solely support this one, mutually acceptable (not perfect) candidate then we'd be a force to be reconed with. We may not win at first but we's most certainly start by making a large splash.

I'm not advocating that Rand is or isn't the best person for the job here. What I am advocating is that we will NEVER EVER find one person that makes everybody 100% or even 90% happy. We can, however, find a candidate that leads us in a net positive freedom direction. And though we may not get everything we want so long as our end result is a gain in freedom then we'll have won.

Remember this; our oponents almost never go for the strait up 100% screw us win. They take our freedoms little by little, day by day, chip by minute chip. If we're ever to get those back then we will have to learn to settle for smaller victories like our oponents. We can't win this war with a single shot. They know that. We just need to accept it.