In defense of Linux

Yesterday, I published a post describing my modest user experience installing a single program on Linux. The verdict was that for most people, even if they are libertarians through and through, convenience in the here and now can easily prove more important than abstract ideals. This is true in far more cases than just when choosing between a graphical interface and a console. In the same way, people neglect to carry means of self-defense, don’t set passwords on their phones, and have sex without a condom.

Naturally, the post sparked a lot of debate, because the war between adherents of different approaches to interacting with computers has dragged on since deep antiquity. And, as I understand it, every revival of this eternal bickering always consists of at least two posts: the first condemning Linux, and the second defending it. Today is time for the second.

I installed a version of Linux that was positioned to me as being quite close to Windows in terms of interface. It installed easily and effortlessly. All typical applications, such as office suites, browsers, Telegram, or password managers, are installed without any console via the graphical shell. If my task were to move all my daily work to open-source software, I would move to Linux without any problems and wouldn’t notice much of a difference. Meanwhile, there are many atypical tasks for which I would need the help of someone with deeper system knowledge even under Windows.

The world is full of technically complex devices that no one has the slightest need to study thoroughly. The magic of the division of labor lies in the fact that everyone focuses on what they have a relative advantage in. Every object has its nuances, and some people specialize in them to increase their value. But at the same time, for the average user, it generally makes no difference which system they use to perform most of their tasks; any will do.

So, I will clarify my answer from yesterday to the question of why libertarians don’t use open-source software. Yes, they use what is convenient, but often a large part of that convenience boils down to the network effect. If advertisements for computer technician services mentioned not the setup of Windows and installation of antivirus, but the selection of a Linux distribution and system configuration for the user’s tasks; if information on government resources were stored in odt rather than docx; if hardware Bitcoin wallets were sold in mobile phone stores—that would be clear evidence of the network effect working in favor of open-source software and decentralized money.

What is needed for libertarians to use open-source software? Simply to start using open-source software.

This post was written on Linux, and future ones will be written on it as well. There is no reason to delay adopting useful habits.

Useful habits

Open source, libertarianism, and laziness

Why do libertarians dislike talking about open-source software and its advantages? Shouldn’t a libertarian use only free software (Linux instead of Windows and MacOS, LineageOS instead of Android and iOS) if they respect their own freedom and privacy? Free software helps protect against surveillance by the state and corporations—it allows one to achieve true freedom. Or do most libertarians not respect their own privacy? If it is too difficult to understand all the technical intricacies, why not pay others to create accessible programs and educational materials?

Richard Stallman

Someone recently tried to teach me how to write Telegram bots. For some reason, this meant I had to install Linux. The system was installed without any problems, but then the “dancing with a tambourine” began. Let’s install Python. Open the console, write this specific incantation. Did it work? Come on, send a screenshot. Aha, a correction, write this incantation instead. Now let’s install these libraries. Write this incantation. That’s it, launch PyCharm. Why not from a shortcut on the desktop? Why must even such an elementary action be done from the console? And now in PyCharm, open its internal console and write this incantation there to install the libraries. Wait, we already installed them! It doesn’t matter, they need to be installed locally for each project. And don’t forget to select the interpreter. I’m already in PyCharm; it’s an IDE, why do I need ten interpreters to choose from? What prevents them from making one by default and ten optional ones for the masochists? Who taught you UX?..

I have nothing against open-source software or content. I went to Wikipedia and made edits to the article about David Friedman. Five minutes—and millions of Russian-speaking users get access to up-to-date information. Spontaneous orders are power! But if handmade clothing is expensive and uncomfortable, then only historical reenactors will wear it. If an open-source OS requires far more effort for simple things than a proprietary one, then only geeks obsessed with security will use it.

Whoever steals the Windows source code from Microsoft and posts it in the public domain on some maximally decentralized platform will do humanity a huge favor. Because this system quite deservedly holds its market share—even despite being proprietary and spying on the user. I have written repeatedly that we are already ready to live in conditions of “new sincerity,” where everyone can and has the full moral right to spy on everyone else, so the system’s spying is not perceived as something terrible—as long as it doesn’t steal your money or snitch on you to the Investigative Committee (and people stay on VKontakte even knowing that it snitches on users). There are many examples of software that was proprietary for some time and then was released into the public domain, and thereafter is developed by the community. And obviously, the weaker the state protection granted to IT giants, the more often this will happen.

I had never heard of Lineage OS, so I looked it up, and it turned out that my phone model is not supported. So, when I change my phone, I’ll buy one with this factor in mind (if supported models don’t turn out to be disproportionately expensive), and then we’ll see. I hope it will be more like the Wikipedia experience than the Linux one.

Using open-source software is like being a vegan. If you live in India, it’s no problem; there’s plenty of delicious vegan food everywhere. If you’re in Russia, you pointlessly condemn yourself to a more expensive life of lower quality for the sake of certain ethical principles. The more these principles mean to you, the greater the sacrifices you will make to follow them. Free software is cool, but software that is convenient to use is much cooler for the vast majority. The market has decided.

Forgive me…