Advanced

Aligning Linux Distributions with Presidential Hopefuls

Posted by gadolphus on · 34 comments
The VAR Guy; By Christopher Tozzi
Mail this story
Print this story

Most politicians probably don’t use Linux. After all, some of them have barely figured out computers at all. But since the American presidential campaigning season is once again upon us, I’ve been wondering to myself lately: If the candidates did run Linux, which distribution would they choose? At the risk of offending various groups of people, here are my answers, for better or for worse.

To be clear, and to temper some of the passionately loathsome comments that a post like this might inspire, I’ll preface these thoughts with an assurance that they are not intended as an endorsement of any candidate, party or ideology. Personally, I’d like to resurrect Rousseau’s state of nature, if only I thought it could endure. And there would be no Linux there, since everyone would be running around the forest. But that’s neither here nor there. Linux Distributions of Choice

That said, here are my picks for presidential candidates’ Linux distributions of choice:

First, let’s start with the current leader of the Republican pack, Mitt Romney. If he ran Linux, I’d pin him as a Debian user. It’s a bland but predictable distribution, the Old Faithful of the open source world. Although not particularly stylish or sensational itself, it nonetheless has provided the foundation upon which myriad more trendy distributions have been built by borrowing its ideas and adding flair. And it’s also the distribution many of us will default to from time to time — not because we think it’s the best, but because it’s better than all the others.

Moving on to Ron Paul, gNewSense would clearly be his distribution of choice. It’s radically free — as in, no proprietary code whatsoever, anywhere — and it doesn’t worry about offending anyone on its crusade to spread the Free Software gospel. It’s also one of the few distributions endorsed by Richard Stallman, who happens as well to be a fan (with a few reservations) of Paul.

Newt Gingrich is a tough call. My guess is that he’d refuse to use Linux at all, since he’s such a path-breaking, unconventional guy — or at least believes he is. Maybe he’d run one of the BSDs, but more likely he’d have an operating system custom written just for him. And then he’d pout when his adversaries used their superior resources to denounce his OS and scare users away.

Then there’s Rick Perry. A man so strongly committed to cultivating an image as a rough-and-tumble cowboy would probably not spend much time in front of a computer, but if he had to, it would run Slackware. Like Perry, Slackware — as the oldest continually existing Linux distribution — once promised to go far, but it stumbled in the face of more polished contenders backed by stronger organizational networks. Now everyone’s just waiting for Slackware to cash in its chips, but at this point, chances are it will at least outlive Perry’s campaign for the Republican nomination.

Last but not least among the Republicans are John Huntsman (who, at the time of this writing, was still in contention) and Rick Santorum. The former, I suspect, would choose Mandriva Linux, which is like Huntsman in that everyone ignores it but doesn’t know why. It’s actually a very solid distribution with a great focus on user-friendliness; unfortunately, it never seems to get the media attention it deserves.

As for Santorum, he’d most likely go with Fedora. Although it has the potential to appeal to a wide swath of open source users, Fedora mostly focuses on a narrower, geekier base that demands cutting-edge code. Similarly, Santorum’s fierce commitment to a conservative constituency will probably prevent him from gaining the broad support he needs to overcome his competitors.

And finally, on the other side of the fold, there’s Barack Obama. He’d doubtless run Ubuntu, the distribution that tends to set ambitious goals that get people excited, then breaks hearts when the harsh realities of real life — not to mention uncooperative partners elsewhere in the open source channel — inevitably cause it to fall short of realizing all of its lofty objectives. Its survival will depend on its continued ability to inspire the masses, as well as the absence of any competing distribution that promises to do a better job. A Final Thought

Since I’m writing this from Paris, where I’ve been expatriated for most of the last two years, the American presidential campaign has much less of an immediate impact on my life than, say, the European sovereign debt crisis and impending collapse of the euro. Also, I cast my absentee ballot in New York, where my vote for president doesn’t actually matter at all, thanks to the way the electoral college is stacked.

But these things are still lots of fun to follow, and I’ll be eager to see where the worlds of both open source software and American politics find themselves next year at this time.

Full Story

  Nav
» Read more about: Story Type: Humor; Groups: Debian, Fedora, Mandriva, Ubuntu

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (34)

14 earlier comments in the full thread.

Actually, I think there is too much political ideology here masquerading as humor.
Thank you Caitlyn for stating the obvious.
> I think there is too much political ideology here masquerading as humor.

Well, it's either funny or it;s not. If you think it's not because of political affiliation, the problem may be with you and not the humor.

Or it may not be funny. That's up to the reader to decide.

But let's take the posts in reverse order, shall we? Koriel's statement is merely a slight exaggeration of existing union rules that I've encountered half a dozen times or more in my life, and could probably find a dozen ready examples of if I searched. My statement is merely the repetition of the oft stated positions that the government knows how to spend money better than individuals do and that such government spending is good for the economy, both of which I thought you agreed with. And Bob is merely extrapolating Krugman's expected position on the matter from dozens of his articles on the subject. Bernanke's position on the matter is less certain, I'll admit.

The only one that's remotely political is mine. The other two are at best only moderate exaggerations of factual situations. Union rules are what they are, and are supposedly not political in nature. Krugman is an economist, not a politician, and his economic positions are well known, and again supposedly not based on politics. Ditto for Bernanke. And since mine merely notes a rather mainstream economic position, currently being practiced at all levels of government in most countries around the world, I didn't see the harm in it. If Scott disagrees, he's welcome to delete it, of course.

Caitlyn, as you've demonstrated several times, you think any discussion of economics which doesn't agree with yours is political. It's not. It's economics. The two aren't the same, and discussion of economics and economic theories is not banned by the TOS. Whether it should be or not is a matter you'll have to take up with the management.

And again, if Scott disagrees, he's welcome to delete my posts. But until the discussion of economics is banned in the TOS, such "humor" is fair game.

Of course, if your position is that unions, union rules, Krugman's and Bernanke's positions, and various economic theories are explicitly political in nature and explicitly support one and only one political position then your argument is at least internally consistent. Except for the last, I doubt you're trying to claim that however.
My statements certainly were humour, being a product of 1970's Britain i was taking things as they were back then and then taking them to the extremes.

Don't worry though a lot of people don't appreciate my humour, its a burden I must bear.
It's not funny until someone gets hit with a pie.
> It's not funny until someone gets hit with a pie.

It that's what it takes to get Caityln to appreciate the humor of an opposing viewpoint, I'll volunteer.
Raspberry pie? As long as it doesn't have a use-case, it's covered under the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep bare ARMs.
Quoting:Raspberry pie? As long as it doesn't have a use-case, it's covered under the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep bare ARMs.


Masterful! Huzzah! cr wins!
I like to keep my ARMs bare on sunny days, and when the weather's warm.
Here I thought Bastiat's "Broken Windows Fallacy" was such a well-known economic principle that no one could confuse it for modern politics.

I mean really, it's a -broken-windows- story, both the office window and an instance of Microsoft Windows. How much more "On Topic" could I possibly be?????

Now I'm afraid that if I mention Nero actually setting the fire in Rome in order to rebuilt it to his own specifications, it will be taken as a political rant against the prevailing power structure. ....of 100 AD?

@Bob,

You anti-nerists are always distorting the truth! Always spreading false rumors about Emporer Nero. He may have been cruel, but it was only because he loved the Roman people so much. I've even heard some anti-Nerists claim that Nero played a fiddle while Rome burned.

Well, I'm here to set the record straight. The fiddle wasn't invented yet, so he could not have been playing one! It was actually Mrs. O'leary's cow playing a cithara while the city burned for seven nights.

I don't believe the cow was responsible for any broken windows though.
> Here I thought Bastiat's "Broken Windows Fallacy" was such a well-known economic principle that no one could confuse it for modern politics.

So did I, Bob, so did I. I thought the same thing about Keynes' economic theories about government spending. Obviously we were wrong.
I do not see anything that would be blatantly crossing the TOS myself. Disagreeing is disagreeing but not inherently a TOS violation..unless we all start cursing at each other which I do not anticipate..;-)

Thanks for the feedback, Scott.
Quoting: unless we all start cursing at each other which I do not anticipate..;-)
We can use raspberries, right? :-P
May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits!

How's that for cursing? No cussing, however, which merely demonstrates a lack of vocabulary.

Anyway, I think I figured it out. I said "Bernanke", Bernanke is a government employee, governments involve politics, therefore it could have been political.

I'm also only 3 hops away from Kevin Bacon.

I consider it impossible NOT to make "political" comments if such tortured logic trails must be traversed in order to avoid it. I recommend some thicker skin.
> We can use raspberries, right? :-P

Only if you include cream. :)

Hmm, a raspberry and whipped cream pie. That might be worth getting hit with, as long as I could keep it afterwards.

> Bernanke is a government employee,

Not technically. He works for the Federal Reserve, which is one of those "quasi- government agencies".

I was going to excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the matter, but it gets too long, so I recommend people who are interested take a look at it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

The actual nature, responsibilities, and powers of the Federal Reserve are an extremely interesting and entertaining subject, but not really appropriate for discussion here.

But that's why I felt the need to point out that he was an economist and not a politician in my commentary above. I was the one who explicitly mentioned government employees, but I only did that because government spending is an such a fundamental part of Keynesian theory.
> Not technically. He works for the Federal Reserve, which is one of those "quasi- government agencies".

But appointed by the President, and the Fed was created by an act of treas^H^H^H^H^HCongress.

While the Fed's status as "private profits at public expense" may be technically true, as its existence is as a govt-created monopoly and cartel, and The Bernanke has his job at Presidential suffrage, I don't think it's all that much of a stretch to say Govt Employee.

To call The Bernanke an economist is to insult economists.
> ...as its existence is as a govt-created monopoly and cartel, and The Bernanke has his job at Presidential suffrage, I don't think it's all that much of a stretch to say Govt Employee.

The best way to determine that for certain would be to see who signs his paycheck, and I don't honestly know who that is.
Probably the Comptroller of Some or Another Dept.

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post