And linux!
I mean, Linux (and the entire ecosystem) is a fundamentally socialist concept.
I would say GNU is one that’s openly socialist. If Linux’s (or rather, Linus Torvald’s) philosophy is socialist, they either do a very good job of hiding the fact or there is a lot I don’t know about them.
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!
Unpopular opinion: “Open Source”, spawned from Netscape spinning off Mozilla, laid out in definition by the OSI organization, and advocated for by AnCaps like Eric S. Raymond, was always fundamentally capitalist. Devs spending a lot of free time doing free work for companies was not an accident. Capitalists borrowing ideas from the left and twisting them for their own uses is not new, either.
Free Software is more rooted in communism. You’re doing this to help your community. RMS might have always denied it–probably because it wasn’t a good idea to advocate that way during the Cold War and after–but it’s a better philosophical fit.
It’s past time to divorce the two.
