News
Features
Guest Essay
Technicalia
Security
Community
Commentary
Home
ymmv
The impending death of Linux
When we look back, it's easy to marvel at how closely the evolution of computing has been parallelling that of human social systems. In years past, we had hierarchical, cloistered computer environments (mainframe-centric), echoing the 1950's paternalistic and patronizing era. It was a time when few people openly questioned the word or authority of doctors, judges, clergy and like professionals. Perhaps the epitome of patronization was the portrayal of married couples on American television as sleeping in separate single beds ... apparently it was too shocking to show innocent sweet mothers, and authoritative stern fathers actually sleeping together. After all, if they slept together then maybe, even ... no, I dare not say it, lest I shock you, you poor vulnerable fragile (weak) child.
In contemporary Western societies, the primary focus is now on self ... self (personal) computing, self-determination, self-fulfilment etc.
If we use social systems as a guide for understanding how Linux, with attendant Open Source Software (OSS) end-user applications will travel in the future, we can learn why it is basically doomed in its present OSS/GPL-centric format. In many respects, the GPL/OSS Linux world parallels the high and worthy ideals of communism. The only trouble, as the fall of communism has shown, is that it's a flawed system, which is not progressive, expansive and self-sustaining.
If we analyse what went wrong with communism (being as it is, and was a system focused on commonality and collectivism), we can appreciate that any social (or computing) vehicle which does not allow self-determination and self-betterment is doomed. That is, any system which does not honour the individual, by allowing for individual betterment, ownership and profit, is ultimately not sustainable. Communism, as can be witnessed in the few remaining communist states, gives scant regard to the rights of individuals. That's why China, for example, does not heed the USA's demands on "Human (read, personal) Rights." China (like all communist and totalitarian states) has its focus on the collective, even if that comes at the expense of individual well-being and "Human Rights."
Obviously, many Western societies (particularly the USA) have gone overboard in their zest to champion individuality. Ironically, their manic focus on the rights of individuals (e.g. the right to bear arms) has eroded social cohesion. Their championing of individualism has denied them any chance of achieving an egalitarian society.
Linux however, with its blind, obedient focus on the collective good, is heading the same path as that of communism. Anyone (company or person) wanting to profit from Linux, or own (i.e. not share the source-code of) their software, is vilified. They're Capitalists! They're Evil! They're profiteers.
We can appreciate that the zealousness of many Linux adherents is in part a reaction to the overt rapaciousness of many computing companies which seek profit at the expense of a cohesive, freely-available infrastructure. That zealousness parallels that of the anti-globalization protesters who rail again the naked (and arguably indecent) greed of many Western countries and citizens. The stampede to privatize our public infrastructures has greatly diminished (and possibly even destroyed) any possibility of an egalitarian society. (So if you want to be "happy," now and in the future, you have, and will have to be, rich ... damned rich).
It would seem evident that the ideal system (computing and social) is a marriage of collectivism and capitalism. As such, we should come to appreciate that unless Linux successfully marries capitalism (personal ownership, gain and profit) with the high ideals of collectivism (shared, open, free infrastructure for all), it'll go the same way as communism.
Copyright © 2002, Stephen Pirie
Each week, a member of the Linux community, sometimes famous, sometimes not, discusses an issue of interest in a Guest Essay. If you'd like to contribute, send your essay to us here.
Posted 1 April 2002