I'm failing to understand that one.
ideablitz has the quaint idea that anything that isn't the proprietary property of a big corporation is somehow anti-capitalist.
Linux and open source generally are a threat to MS not so much by head-to-head competition, but because they represent a competing view of software. MS sees software as analogous to a piece of machinery, and would dearly like to be able to patent their products, but since they can't, they rely on secrecy, narrowly drawn licenses, and a huge legal department. Open source sees software as analogous to a mathematical proof which gets checked and refined by peer review (a surprisingly reasonable view given the Curry-Howard isomorphism between valid programs in an programming language and proofs in a related formal system).
The truth lies somewhere in between the two starting assumptions: software is in some ways like a piece of machinery, and in others like a mathematical proof. We can hope that market competition will eventually lead to business models for software development which adequately take both aspects into account.
The 'not ready for the desktop' problems with open source are due to the open source model not adequately addressing software as a product people use. The problems decried by MS-haters are due to either taking that aspect too seriously (the idiotic 'helpful' default settings) or not adequately addressing software-as-rigorous-proof (stability problems).
<<
"LINUX = COMMUNIST"
I'm failing to understand that one.
>>
You don't need to understand it, just accept it as fact, just like "Libertarian = Doper".