Myopic and Confused

It seems that this person intends to confuse the issues by promoting the GNU/Linux system under the brand of "Linux". I will use the Linux brand specifically to refer to the famous operating system kernel that was originated by Linus Torvalds.

If your intent is to promote Linux and make it more popular, then it would be possible that demanding total freedom could lead to the death of Linux popularity. Since I don't care for Linux's success or failure (in terms of popularity), I'm not going bother to imagine how this situation could be possible, I'll accept the assertion as it is.

I, as a libertarian, intend to promote personal freedom and I don't really care about Linux or GNU in particular. GNU is 100% free so I have no problem endorsing all GNU software. I would also endorse free Linux variants such as gNewSense's Linux variant; I will avoid the "vanilla" Linux system as it contains proprietary blobs. I don't blindly disregard all things “closed source” or “proprietary” or “commercial”, I emphatically oppose anything that would cause me to relinquish my essential liberties.

This guy rehashes the same old assertions to show that one doesn't earn enough money to make a living when one grants freedom (as opposed to earning a living through disrespecting freedom). He links people that develop free software with people that don't eat or pay rent. This person is ignorant about why people profit from proprietary software in the first place and so, lacks the imagination for ways to profit without disrespecting freedom.

This guy doesn't seem to understand the notion of artificial scarcity and how it applies to the proprietary software business. Proprietary software business models succeed because people are ignorant and amoral to freedom AND because of the institutions in place to support the notion of artificial scarcity. Proprietary software masters do not financially profit in places that do not respect the institutions of artificial scarcity. The people that do profit in these places are the "unauthorised" distributors of proprietary software. These "unauthorised distributors" are not bound by artificial scarcity and they profit by delivering a useful service that people are willing to pay for.

So think about these things: to profit, you must deliver a useful service that people will pay for and you should do so without withhold freedom from your customers. Suggestions include selling software support, selling software related services and bundling the software with hardware. All throughout the history of the FSdaily website contains examples of businesses that make money without disrespecting freedom and because of this, I'm not going to bother to mention specific examples.

Another note is that people get rich by solving various problems (which would include financial problems). Solving problems require imagination, intelligence and foresight. I find that people are poor because they do not solve their own problems. Based upon this single article, I would conclude that this author is one of the many poor people of the world with limited imagination as he doesn't imagine ways to financially succeed.

In conclusion, the demand for total freedom may lead to the death of Linux. If it does, I don't really care as I already live in freedom. Proprietary software businesses succeed because of society's conditioning to proprietary software and because of the institutions that support artificial scarcity. Having examples of people that don't succeed in business doesn't mean the same will happen to other people that try.