Linux *is* centralized, in a hiearchy even. Anti-"IP" is not anti-property, but rather anti-usury. Socialism is by definition statist.
I was with you on your comments (and strangely even agreed
with them)
until I got to "anti-usury." I am against "intellectual property" as defined by software patents, but I can't make the
connection to usury.
Usury. The well-known "Microsoft Tax." Made sense to me.
I think that what people forget is that there are reasons that all operating systems on the market in today's IT world are there because they have something that the user wants. In the case of Linux it is an inexpensive OS that can be used in non-fault tolerant environments without having to purchase too much additional functionality while having a wide choice of companies and organizations to provide OS support. Windows on the other hand is not as stable as Linux, however has it's own strengths in the fact that it is the most recognizable OS on the market today. If you were to set someone who was relatively computer illiterate down in front of Windows and Linux, which one do you think they would recognize? Novell is still a viable OS because it does what it was designed to do very well and that is file and print services.
I do not understand what you mean by the "Microsoft Tax". If a company or person creates a product and markets it extremely well (regardless of whether it is good or not) and there is a demand for that product, why would they not price it based on the demand? That does not seem like a tax to me, that seems like capitalism to me. Now, if you want to go to a more model in society where by the rich should foot the bill for the poor, then you should be looking at the communist party. Equal distribution of wealth and price controls on products to squelch capitalism are a couple of the main foundations of a communistic society.
Phil