Q: Linux vs Objectivism?

[jts]

In May, 2013 I bought a new computer. It had Windows 8 on it. I used that for a while and then installed Xubuntu on top of it. Xubuntu is one of about 600 distros of Linux. I no longer have Windows and have only Xubuntu. So far as I know, Windows 8 has nothing on Xubuntu 13.04. Whatever I could do on Windows 8, I can do the same thing on Xubuntu.

Xubuntu (like most Linux distros) is zero price. Most applications that run on Xubuntu are zero price. The few that are not zero price, I don't need them.

All the Linux distros are in fierce competition. http://distrowatch.com/

Each has its own angle on the market. For example Debian goes on the idea of being the biggest and the mostest. Damn Small Linux (DSL) takes smallness to a ridiculous extreme, you can put it on a floppy disk. Mint Linux tries to make it easy for people coming from the Windows world. Ubuntu is based on a philosophy expressed by a South African word 'ubuntu' which has no exact translation in English but means 'we are what we are because others are what they are', or the idea of community. A person is said to have ubuntu if he interacts with people in such a way as to benefit both himself and others. Xubuntu is a variation of Ubuntu that uses xfce (a simple desktop environment) instead of gnome or KDE or unity. Xubuntu is for old computers and is easy on computer resources. I switched from Ubuntu to Xubuntu when Ubuntu gave me an error message telling me that my graphics card is not good enough to run unity. Altho I now have a new computer with a better graphics card (or processor or whatever), I find Xubuntu perfectly satisfactory.

Here is probably the best web page claiming (rightly or wrongly) that Linux is better than Windows.

http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/

I think some of the points in the whylinuxisbetter page are overstated. I will point out a few that I think are not overstated.

Update all your software with a single click:

http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/items/global_update/index.php?lang=

Everything that you have on your computer that has an update for it gets updated by a single click. That could be from one item to hundreds of items. This is done by the update manager.

Need new software? Don't bother searching the web, Linux gets it for you:

http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/items/search_software/index.php?lang=

Xubuntu and all the ubuntus (Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Lubuntu, etc.) and Debian (which Ubuntu is based on) and a few others have a large repository of software of about 30 or 40 thousand software packages, all continuously being updated and nearly all zero price. You can search thru this via the Synaptic Package Manager or the Ubuntu Software Centre. Whatever you want is downloaded and installed using the Debian package management system and it figures out all the dependencies and puts everything where it belongs and does everything necessary to make it work, and it always works. If you are a software developer for the Linux world, it is to your advantage to put your software in the repository (or have someone else with the technical knowhow do it for you).

Too many windows? Use workspaces:

http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/items/virtual_desktops/index.php?lang=

I never saw any workspaces on Windows 8.

My question is:

How can Linux be as good as it is and be contrary to Objectivism? (It is contrary to Objectivism in not being based much on the profit motive. It smells like altruism. Not quite socialism because there is no government involvement and no violation of rights.)

[BaalChatzaf]

My question is:

How can Linux be as good as it is and be contrary to Objectivism? (It is contrary to Objectivism in not being based much on the profit motive. It smells like altruism. Not quite socialism because there is no government involvement and no violation of rights.)

You got it wrong. these Linux variants are small stones hurled by little shepherd boys which slay Giants. The software nerd genius nerd-boys cutting the big corporations down at the knees. It is a glorious display of smarts. It is egoism running at full tilt.

Profit and glory is not always monetary and material.

Look at this twerp Snowden, for example. He has mighty nations in a snit. He has knotted up their underpants and he did it with his little computer and fantastically large gall. That is egoism, my lad. Not always constructive, but in the right hands it makes for a rather grand show.

Suppose I could invent a device the size of a bread box that could shut down all the power grids in the country. On a bad mood day I could conceivable ly deploy it. Why would I do such an awful thing. . Simple: I might do it because I could. That is egoism run amok. A really very smart maladjusted sociopath could "show the world". The astonishment and awe he would garner would be his profit. and he would make a cent at it. He would laugh "Bwahahahahha" (or is it Mwahahaha?) and let the world be amazed at what he did.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

My question is:

How can Linux be as good as it is and be contrary to Objectivism? (It is contrary to Objectivism in not being based much on the profit motive. It smells like altruism. Not quite socialism because there is no government involvement and no violation of rights.)

You got it wrong. these Linux variants are small stones hurled by little shepherd boys which slay Giants. The software nerd genius nerd-boys cutting the big corporations down at the knees. It is a glorious display of smarts. It is egoism running at full tilt.

Profit and glory is not always monetary and material.

Look at this twerp Snowden, for example. He has mighty nations in a snit. He has knotted up their underpants and he did it with his little computer and fantastically large gall. That is egoism, my lad. Not always constructive, but in the right hands it makes for a rather grand show.

Suppose I could invent a device the size of a bread box that could shut down all the power grids in the country. On a bad mood day I could conceivable ly deploy it. Why would I do such an awful thing. . Simple: I might do it because I could. That is egoism run amok. A really very smart maladjusted sociopath could "show the world". The astonishment and awe he would garner would be his profit. and he would make a cent at it. He would laugh "Bwahahahahha" (or is it Mwahahaha?) and let the world be amazed at what he did.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ayn Rand wrote about two kinds of egoism -- traditional and hers. See pages 535-6 here (a search for "egoism" will get you there.

[Jerry Biggers]

This is somewhat off the topic of Linux,

but there is a confusion here of the terms, "egotism" and "egoism". They are not synonymous. Not even close. The first refers to arrogant behavior and boasting of one's importance to others, usually in a manner to make his listeners feel inferior. Egoism, on the other hand, refers to an ethical position - in the case of Objectivism, living for one's self, not sacrificing to others, nor forcing others to sacrifice for me.

However, no matter. Even Ayn Rand got it wrong in The Fountainhead, but corrected herself in her Introduction in the twenty-fifth edition of The Fountainhead, published in 1968, and most likely included in all subsequent printings.

"Are there any substantial changes I would want to make in The Fountainhead? No - and therefore, I have left the text untouched.

But there is one minor error....which I should like to clarify... The error is semantic: the use of the word 'egotist' in Roark's courtroom speech, while actually the word should have been 'egoist.' The error was caused by my reliance on a dictionary which gave such misleading definitions of these two words that 'egotist' seemed closer to the meaning I intended (Webster's Daily Use Dictionary, 1933). (Modern philosophers however are guiltier than the lexicographers in regard to these two terms). "

Of course, opponents of Objectivism, particularly leftist journalists and academics, like to eliminate this distinction, and insist that Rand - Objectivism - advocates sacrificing others to one's self. Ironically, many advocates of liberalism/socialism, act in a very arrogant, condescending, and egotistical manner. The late economist, John Kenneth Galbraith, in his TV and lecture appearances, comes to mind. Oh, and the current Head of State, Mr. Thompson.

[merjet]

This is somewhat off the topic of Linux,

but there is a confusion here of the terms, "egotism" and "egoism". They are not synonymous. Not even close.

How so here? You are the first to use "egotism" in this thread.

[Jerry Biggers]

This is somewhat off the topic of Linux,

but there is a confusion here of the terms, "egotism" and "egoism". They are not synonymous. Not even close.

How so here? You are the first to use "egotism" in this thread.

Correct. And that's the distinction I was trying to make. I was referring to post # 2, two of the examples that BaalChatzaf used, certainly his reference to Snowden's actions, and his fantasy of himself creating a "breadbox" device and shutting off all power ("That is egoism run amok!"). In both cases, these are examples of egotism, not ethical egoism.

[merjet]

I was referring to post # 2, two of the examples that BaalChatzaf used, certainly his reference to Snowden's actions, and his fantasy of himself creating a "breadbox" device and shutting off all power ("That is egoism run amok!"). In both cases, these are examples of egotism, not ethical egoism.

I interpreted his example to be what Rand called traditional egoism (no 't').

[BaalChatzaf]

I was referring to post # 2, two of the examples that BaalChatzaf used, certainly his reference to Snowden's actions, and his fantasy of himself creating a "breadbox" device and shutting off all power ("That is egoism run amok!"). In both cases, these are examples of egotism, not ethical egoism.

I interpreted his example to be what Rand called traditional egoism (no 't').

One of these forms of ego in disorder consists in considering one's self more special and more exceptional than the facts dictate. Now matter how special we think we are and how much Better than we think we are compare to the average man, we will all end up as worm food or ashes. So much for our specialness.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dldelancey]

I don't think it's contrary to the profit motive at all, if you accept that not all profit is monetary and that profit can be indirect.

I know lots of programmers who participate in the development of free and open source software, especially high profile software, because they can add that experience to their resumes. It's experience they may not get in their "day jobs" and that can be turned into opportunity later.

There is also value in the satisfaction of a job well done, or in bragging rights to introducing a Windows alternative, or in knowing that you did something no one else has done simply because you could.

Not every value equates to money, and as I understand it, Objectivisim is perfectly okay with that.

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

I don't think it's contrary to the profit motive at all, if you accept that not all profit is monetary and that profit can be indirect.

I know lots of programmers who participate in the development of free and open source software, especially high profile software, because they can add that experience to their resumes. It's experience they may not get in their "day jobs" and that can be turned into opportunity later.

There is also value in the satisfaction of a job well done, or in bragging rights to introducing a Windows alternative, or in knowing that you did something no one else has done simply because you could.

Not every value equates to money, and as I understand it, Objectivisim is perfectly okay with that.

I agree.

Objectivism isn't necessarily concerned with the profit motive. The primary concern is value.

There is much value to be had when tinkering with software. Though I am still a newbie in software design and development, I sometimes alter the programming within open source applications and programs.

Why?

Simple, it's fun.

There are other values too (as Deanna mentioned).

Objectivism would be more than okay with this, it's all standard procedure as I see it.

At the moment, I'm messing with Hyper-Visor and Ubuntu.

Why?

Simple, it's fun and I get to learn about a new OS (I'm kind of sheltered; I've mostly only used Windows and OS X).

[Darrell Hougen]

... Though I am still a newbie in software design and development, I sometimes alter the programming within open source applications and programs. ...

Holy smokes! I better be careful about what I download. :-)

Darrell

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

... Though I am still a newbie in software design and development, I sometimes alter the programming within open source applications and programs. ...

Holy smokes! I better be careful about what I download. :-)

Darrell

Hah, I don't resubmit altered programs for download. Even if I did, there are legions of programmers who are willing to test and fix those programs.

[jts]

Now matter how special we think we are and how much Better than we think we are compare to the average man, we will all end up as worm food or ashes. So much for our specialness.

Ba'al Chatzaf

At the risk of stating the obvious, some people achieve things that outlive them. Most of what makes our time in history so much better than hundreds and thousands of years ago was accomplished by people now dead: scientists, inventors, businessmen, writers, artists, etc.

And what kind of depressed state of mind holds to the idea that enjoyment of life is of no value because some day we die?

[Darrell Hougen]

... Though I am still a newbie in software design and development, I sometimes alter the programming within open source applications and programs. ...

Holy smokes! I better be careful about what I download. :-)

Darrell

Hah, I don't resubmit altered programs for download. Even if I did, there are legions of programmers who are willing to test and fix those programs.

Whew! Now I feel relieved.

Darrell

[BaalChatzaf]

Now matter how special we think we are and how much Better than we think we are compare to the average man, we will all end up as worm food or ashes. So much for our specialness.

Ba'al Chatzaf

At the risk of stating the obvious, some people achieve things that outlive them. Most of what makes our time in history so much better than hundreds and thousands of years ago was accomplished by people now dead: scientists, inventors, businessmen, writers, artists, etc.

And what kind of depressed state of mind holds to the idea that enjoyment of life is of no value because some day we die?

Certainly not mine. Special or non-special, all we have is our lives and a limited time to enjoy it.

We are all going to die sooner or later. There is not need to get our collective shorts in a bunch over it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Now matter how special we think we are and how much Better than we think we are compare to the average man, we will all end up as worm food or ashes. So much for our specialness.

Ba'al Chatzaf

At the risk of stating the obvious, some people achieve things that outlive them. Most of what makes our time in history so much better than hundreds and thousands of years ago was accomplished by people now dead: scientists, inventors, businessmen, writers, artists, etc.

And what kind of depressed state of mind holds to the idea that enjoyment of life is of no value because some day we die?

Certainly not mine. Special or non-special, all we have is our lives and a limited time to enjoy it.

We are all going to die sooner or later. There is not need to get our collective shorts in a bunch over it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I never took you for wishy-washy before. First: special--not! Second: special--depends!

We are all special. The problem is living up to our specialness. It's not whether others are or ever were aware of it. Fuck them! "Others" who live in your mind, but you don't live in theirs!

If you want to say these things ask yourself, first, if you would tell them to a child? If not, second, why to an adult? Were you bs-ing the child by what you did tell him? I doubt it. So why bs us?

--Brant