Will Linux Win the Next Presidential Election?

i_like_spam writes "Douglas Karr has posted an interesting breakdown, complete with bar charts, of the operating systems and server software used by the websites for 23 declared and undeclared presidential candidates. The breakdown shows that there is nearly an equal split between Linux and Windows servers among the whole candidate pool. More interesting, all of the Democratic candidates except for Hillary favor Linux or FreeBSD. 69% of the Republican candidates, in contrast, prefer Windows. Is this preference for OSS or Microsoft a true reflection of differing political philosophies? And, more importantly, will Linux win the next election?"

Comments

Doubt it

[blhack]

Lets me honest, it is VERY unlikely that these candidates even KNOW what operating system their web server is running. Furthermore, i would doubt that most of them know what an operating system, or a web server even are.

Re:Doubt it

[blhack]

I have to disagree. While one could assume that all of the staff members on a political campaign share the values of the candidate they are supporting, it is also very likely that there were just some nerds who needed a job. It is also quite possible that the decision was not even made in house. The choice of op-sys could have fallen into the hands of nerds who run the hosting company where the site is hosted.

Re:Doubt it

[sumdumass]

Well, A more accurate survey might be how they actually stand on issues like open document, looking at open source as possible solutions instead of just buying MS products. It seems to me that more of this has happened in the last 8 years then the 8 before. But then again, a lot of strides in open source and alternative software has come around in the last 8 years so it might just be a maturity thing too.

And this still doesn't touch the individual candidates position, it could very well be some staffer telling them to vote this way or what ever. But it would still be interesting to see what these candidates would say if confronted with the question of open source verses closed and what makes the best tool for the job.

What About Independents, Libertarians, socialists

[ehaggis]

What do they use? We have more than two parties you know.

You're kidding, right?

[jimbobborg]

Most, if not all, the candidates don't have a clue about what their website is running on, much less care about it. I really doubt that Hillary discussed Windows versus Linux versus BSD. Get real. It seems to me that most in Congress are technophobes, and have people do stuff for them.

The candidates don't care

[moderatorrater]

Does anyone actually believe the candidates care about what they're running? If you look, almost all of them are using a hosting company which, to me, indicates that they just don't care what OS they're running. Like every other client in the world, they're just worried about having a web page up and running and they don't care if it's a kitten in a box typing out the html every time a request comes in. They just care if it works. While interesting, I can't for the life of me understand why people would think it's a political issue what OS their sites are running on.

Good to know

[bahwi]

But it's the last thing I care about in this election. With the Iraqi war, the illusion of "terrorism", Big Government Republicans(let's get rid of state rights AND build new, extraneous federal agencies like TSA and DOHS). I could care less if they thought apple iie was the newest type of computer on the market and urging everyone to upgrade to that that is fine. OSS needs to win on a technically better standpoint not a political motivation. It also needs to win because of an Open Government standpoint too, not just because it is OSS.

Re:Good to know

[Overzeetop]

Terrorism is real. It is being perpetrated by the leaders of most first world countries to scare the population into reducing freedoms and minimizing privacy rights at an alarming rate.

Oh, you meant the people who hate us and want to blow us up? Well, in the grand scheme of things (AIDS, cancer, automobile accidents, floods, tornadoes) I suppose there may be a small percentage of deaths attributed to such actions, and they also serve to scare portions of the population.

Yeah, there is terrorism out there, but mostly it's a smokescreen for larger, more expensive governmental oversight of the people who are unlikely to ever kill large numbers of people with the intent to scare a community or a nation.

Re:Good to know

[bahwi]

No, just the current concept of people attacking for the sake of frightening us is an illusion. There's reasons they came after us, but what is presented to the American people is an illusion. Ron Paul(a great Republican) said it best:

"If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free, they come and attack us because we're over there."

9/11 wasn't ideological. It was an attack plain and simple. They don't have troops, they can't win a war, they can't get us out, these are the things that are their only recourse. We call it terrorism because "No one would want to attack us for the things we do" even though we've been meddling with their governments and lifestyles for over 50 years.

No and No

[Dynedain]

Is this preference for OSS or Microsoft a true reflection of differing political philosophies? And, more importantly, will Linux win the next election?

No and No.

If you honestly believe that a candidate's webserver reflects their political leanings, you're sadly delusional.

If you're planning your vote based on the candidates choice of webserver OS, then you're really missing the bigger issues.

There is not a single thing done on any of the candidate sites that are platform specific. And I doubt any of them developed their sites "in-house" (within the campaign staff). I would bet that every single one of them found a developer and/or hosting company to design and build their site. And they probably went with whatever that developer/hosting provider recommended for a hosting plan.

While looking at the differences makes for an interesting exercise in alleviating boredom, it says nothing about the overall race or candidate's positions and abilities.

And I say this as a web developer who works on both Windows and *NIX servers and usually recommends Apache on Linux or FreeBSD.

Re:Perhaps your bias is showing?

[BlackCobra43]

The lack of a sufficient population precludes a Student test; any sample would be meaningless.

Re:Why?

[Brandybuck]

Republicans are rich and Democrats are not (except Hilliary)

Except Obama... and Edwards... and Gore... ...

it's the Duopoly

[ChristTrekker]

True, that. (Thanks for the figures. I didn't have them handy.) We don't have a Democratic and a Republican party, we have a single Politician Party. One monster, two heads, that call each other names in order to distract us.

Re:What About Independents, Libertarians, socialis

[db32]

No we don't. We have Republicans and Democrats. Anyone from any other so called "party" is really just an enemy of one of the existing parties which would make them a member of the opposing party. Where the hell have you been? If you don't hate gay marriage, then you are a godless liberal Democrat. If you support the death penalty you are christian conservative Republican. All the people who don't agree with the whole party are flip-floppers or traitors to the other party.

Re:Who gives a crap? Just vote for the right perso

[GodfatherofSoul]

Don't tell me about the importance of elections; we've seen the results of uninformed and apathetic voters over the last 6 years. Even some of the most die-hard dittoheads are abandoning ship (you'll hear a lot more people calling themselves "Libertarian" rather than "Conservative" nowadays). But, you're telling me that you don't find it interesting that there's such a disparity in Linux preference and that it doesn't belong on Slashdot?

Re:Intelligent Design? Or Evolution?

[DavidTC]

Exactly which parts couldn't have arisen, of course, are subject to change as soon as the old examples get explained.

It's the 'There's a unicorn hiding behind that tree' method of science, forcing real sciences to drag everyone over and explain that, no, yet again, there's no unicorn there, whereas the IDers then spy another likely tree and start exclaiming how there's a unicorn behind that one.