Slashdot Mirror
Cuba Launches Own Linux Variation
willclem writes "According to Reuters, it seems that Cuba has launched its own variation of Linux in order to fulfill its government's desire to replace Microsoft operating systems. 'Getting greater control over the informatic process is an important issue,' said Communications Minister Ramiro Valdes, who heads a commission pushing Cuba's migration to free software."
That is to say, that's one of the smarter things I have heard about a government lately.
Since when is russia a communist or socialist country?
I am from Finland so I think I dont have your mindset. Could you explain to me, why exactly would we ever want to hope that. Cuba isnt any threat to the safety of the world or anything...
Still the same AC here... I hope you arent referring to Cuba Missile Crisis, because that indeed was very long ago. Even if you arent and there has been something later than that, it is hardly a valid argument. Doesnt USA target numerous countries with nuclear missiles? And support more countries that have those?
I can tell that there are a lot of people who are more worried about Israel than Cuba, seeing Cuba isnt even very militaristic country. Why in hell would they fire a missile to a country they cant invade? Just because they are (nearly) communists and thus evil?
If you wish to not answer because of it would take this too far offtopic, I can understand that and not automatically assume that you somehow lost. Just felt the need to mention that at least over here, I have never heard that Cuba would have somehow threatening imago.
I agree that the connection of open source with Socialism in peoples minds and the negative effect this could have on its adoption worries me.
Beyond this though I am sick and tired of the irrational fear of socialism in the United States. Im not saying lets become the USSR that obviously did not work out so well but we are still stuck at a point were it is impossible to have rational discussion about anything that gets labeled as socialist. Its a giant hypocritical mess. Look at public roads thats a beautiful example of socialism central to our society.
I think generations of Americans have been conditioned/brainwashed to attack at the first mention of the word socialism before considering what is being proposed. The irony of it all is that public schools the major institution doing this brainwashing is a socialist model.
I don't believe that socialist systems work everywhere. I am a fervent capitalist and believe in designing free markets with appropriate incentives. All I want to do is be able to have a rational debate about plans that might contain socialist components without people freaking out.
Public schools are a socialist model, as are the police, the justice system, the libraries, the firemen or the free-health-for-all (at least in Europe).
I don't see what's wrong with this "socialism" me neither!
Sorry, I just have to contribute my 2 cents regarding this statement.
In the old days, capitalists were the people who owned the means of production and simply profited from this ownership. The Forbes richest people in the world are the people we're talking about. In fact, these capitalists don't even need to actually support capitalism as a great ideal.
Now-a-days every layman who supports capitalism calls himself a capitalist. We lose an important distinction here, and I really think you might be better off by understanding this. Perhaps it will give you some more insight into each system and help you further refine your values.
In a very real sense, you are probably a socialist who happens to support capitalism. For example, do you pay Geico for car insurance (socialist) or do you own Berkshire-Hathaway (capitalist)? Do you invest in a 401k (socialist) or do you own your own investment firm (capitalist)? Do you fly commercial or in a private Lear jet? Do you go to work in the morning or do workers come to your building? I think you see where I'm going.
Anyway, I think it's an important distinction... more details here:
Capital
and here:
Capitalist
But not owning capital doesn't ipso facto make you a socialist. Buying car insurance is a capitalist, free-market transaction.
Besides, most people in the West are capitalists, as they own part of all of either a house or a car. A 'socialist' investing in a 401K with a stock aspect may become a part owner of Berkshire-Hathaway, which is a publicly listed firm.
By your definition, almost nobody is a capitalist as most firms are publicly listed and hence socially owned.
In short, I think the reason the distinction has blurred in usage is because it has genuinely blurred in reality. And a socialist is certainly not the same thing as someone with no money. Just see Polly Toynbee.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.