You are merely trying to weasel out of your original statement.
I will repeat basically what I said, "Linux is free, Windows cost money, therefore if you use windows you are supporting the left, if you use a free version of Linux you are supporting no one".
Isn't it a shame that people on the left(some Linux developers, not all)are the ones who believe in freedom when it comes to computers, not necessarily free(meaning no cost)but free to use on any machine you happen to own without buying additional copies, free to develop it yourself if you wish and free access to the source code.
Microsoft does none of that.
If you were NOT implying that MS is to the right then what was your whole comment concerning Linux developers being on the left all about?
In my initial post you derived a dichotomy on my behalf somehow consisting of Linux vs. Windows. Here on my systems, I have Solaris 8 and 10, Linux, OpenBSD and FreeBSD and no Microsoft-based platforms.
It doesn’t follow from asserting that many of those involved with Linux are left-leaning leads to the conclusion that Microsoft’s politics are thus to the contrary. It’s certainly not and I doubt that Bill Gates will cast a ballot for a conservative any more than Linus Torvalds will.
Please calex59 don’t try to engage me in an argument since I have no quarrel with any of your points. You’ve explained quite well the concept of freedom as it applies to software. That’s at heart of its appeal to me since my preference is to be able adjust the application at the source code level to meet my needs.
In this particular situation of operating systems and applications, I can separate the art from the artisan. Although I vehemently disagree with the politics of Richard Stallman and those in free software of like mind, he does craft some great code. And since he gets not a penny from me to support his socialist visions, I’ll still gladly use emacs, gcc and other tools from the GNU project.
Evidently Jim Robinson also is able to do such a separation since FR’s webserver is Apache, typically hosted on Linux (as well as the BSDs or other Unices). And, to be sure, there are plenty of leftist sites using Microsoft’s IIS, CAIR is just one that comes to mind.
By the way. going down memory lane, I subsequently came across a ``spirited’’ thread well over 6 years old on this topic that produced some provocative comments:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/973863/posts
To directly respond to this part of your query, I was interested in differing viewpoints and anecdotes on the matter.
Some background context: Several years ago, a gentleman who attended Sunday School with me used to chat about SUNW's Solaris, at the time moving from version 6 to 7. He was a strongly-conservative Christian, ex-military, a bit gruff but still amiable. He was then working in IT for an oil/gas company here before getting transferred back to Oklahoma.
Anyway, he was quite annoyed with certain GNU Project applications that were ``infecting'' (his words) the operating system with the version change. In particular, the bash shell was added to the main set of packages installed as part of the Solaris base environment. He told me that he then made a point of removing ``all that pinko GNU stuff'' from the systems he maintained at his shop.
I countered that I thought the GNU version of awk (gawk) was pretty good and had some nice features beyond what the stock awk offered. But he was adamant in his opposition to the free software philosophy in general and GNU in particular. In hindsight, I believe he wasn't able to draw a line of demarcation between the politics and philosophy of the software's creator and the created product.
On the other hand, he may have just been a traditionalist since he's one of the few people I've known who actually preferred the line-oriented ed text editor to fullscreen editors such as vi.