Will Linux Win the Next Presidential Election?

i_like_spam writes "Douglas Karr has posted an interesting breakdown, complete with bar charts, of the operating systems and server software used by the websites for 23 declared and undeclared presidential candidates. The breakdown shows that there is nearly an equal split between Linux and Windows servers among the whole candidate pool. More interesting, all of the Democratic candidates except for Hillary favor Linux or FreeBSD. 69% of the Republican candidates, in contrast, prefer Windows. Is this preference for OSS or Microsoft a true reflection of differing political philosophies? And, more importantly, will Linux win the next election?"

Even More Shocking

[eldavojohn (898314)]

69% of the Republican candidates, in contrast, prefer Windows.

What's even more shocking is that the other 31% of the Republican candidates are running Ubuntu Christian Edition [blogspot.com] while it turns out in the end that the very core of their operating system is the same kernel that Ubuntu Satanic Edition [ubuntusatanic.org] runs on.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

And don't even get me started on Hillary, there's solid proof that her servers resolve to the IP address 66.66.66.66 and that good packets go in but only packets with the evil flag flipped to '1' come out.

I suppose that's politicians for you, though. 'Does not compute' with them, can't pretend we're living in a society where everyone feels equally represented without them.

Intelligent Design? Or Evolution?

[ringfinger (629332)]

Did Ubuntu Christian Edition come fully formed as a distro? Or did it evolve?

These stories of a Finnish student designing Linux must be garbage. We all know that Linux is too complex to have evolved over time to its current state. It could only have been created by an Intelligent 'designer'

Re:Intelligent Design? Or Evolution?

[by Anonymous Coward]

"You're "joke" is pretty flawed. Linux does not have the ability to replicate itself without human intervention; therefore, it does not have the ability to evolve."

Last time I checked, I didn't have the ability to replicate myself without human intervention either :-) :-)

Re:Intelligent Design? Or Evolution?

[Mister Whirly (964219)]

Luckily, God designed me smarter than Creationists....

Re:Even More Shocking

[by Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget also: Ubuntu Satanic Edition uses the text editor of the beast, Vi Vi Vi.

Re:Parent was funny, not insightful! :(

[Khomar (529552)]

For starters, there is _NO_ ubuntu christian edition.

Actually, there is [christianubuntu.com]. It looks to basically be Ubuntu with some free Bible and other related software included. The link that the grandparent posted was a mock site.

Doubt it

[blhack (921171)]

Lets me honest, it is VERY unlikely that these candidates even KNOW what operating system their web server is running. Furthermore, i would doubt that most of them know what an operating system, or a web server even are.

Re:Doubt it

[sumdumass (711423)]

Well, A more accurate survey might be how they actually stand on issues like open document, looking at open source as possible solutions instead of just buying MS products. It seems to me that more of this has happened in the last 8 years then the 8 before. But then again, a lot of strides in open source and alternative software has come around in the last 8 years so it might just be a maturity thing too.

And this still doesn't touch the individual candidates position, it could very well be some staffer telling them to vote this way or what ever. But it would still be interesting to see what these candidates would say if confronted with the question of open source verses closed and what makes the best tool for the job.

Re:Doubt it

[blhack (921171)]

I have to disagree. While one could assume that all of the staff members on a political campaign share the values of the candidate they are supporting, it is also very likely that there were just some nerds who needed a job. It is also quite possible that the decision was not even made in house. The choice of op-sys could have fallen into the hands of nerds who run the hosting company where the site is hosted.

Re:Perhaps your bias is showing?

[BlackCobra43 (596714)]

The lack of a sufficient population precludes a Student test; any sample would be meaningless.

What About Independents, Libertarians, socialists

[ehaggis (879721)]

What do they use? We have more than two parties you know.

Re:What About Independents, Libertarians, socialis

[jellomizer (103300)]

Plan 9, Minuette, SkyOS

Interesting omission

[benhocking (724439)]

Interesting that in the short list you provided, you omitted the party [wikipedia.org] that some people credit for causing Gore to lose the 2000 election. (I'm not making that claim, I'm just pointing out the claim.)

You're kidding, right?

[jimbobborg (128330)]

Most, if not all, the candidates don't have a clue about what their website is running on, much less care about it. I really doubt that Hillary discussed Windows versus Linux versus BSD. Get real. It seems to me that most in Congress are technophobes, and have people do stuff for them.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[moderatorrater (1095745)]

Agreed. This tells us absolutely nothing about the candidates themselves. However, what it can tell us is what their supporters believe. And the prediction that linus will win is easy, linux is used by the most candidates. One study I'd like to see is if political affiliation correlates to a particular OS for average users.

Not the party but the supporters

[jellomizer (103300)]

Not as much the Party Ideals that choose the Operating System, But the more active supporters who choose the OS.

Democrats generally have a younger following then the republicans. More younger people know how to use Linux and know enough about it to use it properly. So Democrats will typically use Linux.

Republicans tend to have an older following and they will use what they know. If they don't know then they will use what most people seem to use. So that will be windows.

Also Open Source People tend to bereave in a more socialistic view that is more compatible with the democrats views so Linux and OSS People will be more likely to support Democrats.

Hillary Clinton is a more of a moderate candidate so bulk of the Linux supporters (who are typically more liberal) will not be as much encouraged to help her, while the general moderate population will be more willing to support her, so they will use what they know and the general population knows windows.

The candidates don't care

[moderatorrater (1095745)]

Does anyone actually believe the candidates care about what they're running? If you look, almost all of them are using a hosting company which, to me, indicates that they just don't care what OS they're running. Like every other client in the world, they're just worried about having a web page up and running and they don't care if it's a kitten in a box typing out the html every time a request comes in. They just care if it works. While interesting, I can't for the life of me understand why people would think it's a political issue what OS their sites are running on.

Good to know

[bahwi (43111)]

But it's the last thing I care about in this election. With the Iraqi war, the illusion of "terrorism", Big Government Republicans(let's get rid of state rights AND build new, extraneous federal agencies like TSA and DOHS). I could care less if they thought apple iie was the newest type of computer on the market and urging everyone to upgrade to that that is fine. OSS needs to win on a technically better standpoint not a political motivation. It also needs to win because of an Open Government standpoint too, not just because it is OSS.

Re:Good to know

[Overzeetop (214511)]

Terrorism is real. It is being perpetrated by the leaders of most first world countries to scare the population into reducing freedoms and minimizing privacy rights at an alarming rate.

Oh, you meant the people who hate us and want to blow us up? Well, in the grand scheme of things (AIDS, cancer, automobile accidents, floods, tornadoes) I suppose there may be a small percentage of deaths attributed to such actions, and they also serve to scare portions of the population.

Yeah, there is terrorism out there, but mostly it's a smokescreen for larger, more expensive governmental oversight of the people who are unlikely to ever kill large numbers of people with the intent to scare a community or a nation.

Re:Good to know

[bahwi (43111)]

No, just the current concept of people attacking for the sake of frightening us is an illusion. There's reasons they came after us, but what is presented to the American people is an illusion. Ron Paul(a great Republican) said it best:

"If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free, they come and attack us because we're over there."

9/11 wasn't ideological. It was an attack plain and simple. They don't have troops, they can't win a war, they can't get us out, these are the things that are their only recourse. We call it terrorism because "No one would want to attack us for the things we do" even though we've been meddling with their governments and lifestyles for over 50 years.

Giant douche runs Linux, Turd sandwich Windows.

[HornWumpus (783565)]

Used rubber runs BSD.

Vote Giant douche.

There really is a strong correlation!

[CaptainPatent (1087643)]

Even the more moderate Republican candidates such as Ron Paul and Rudy Guliani are running Linux whereas most of the true right wingers are running windows and most of the true left wingers are running linux or BSD.

Perhaps this can be construed as a statement of American corporatism seeing as the fundamentals of a Republican viewpoint involve making sure there are plenty of jobs by making sure the corporations do well. This would mean that "buying American" is the way to go. The Democratic viewpoint however, encourages the little man to do well so saving money and being a savvy consumer on an individual level are preferred along with "giving the little guy a chance" so various flavors of linux and BSD come into play there.

Definitely an interesting find!

No and No

[Dynedain (141758)]

Is this preference for OSS or Microsoft a true reflection of differing political philosophies? And, more importantly, will Linux win the next election?

No and No.

If you honestly believe that a candidate's webserver reflects their political leanings, you're sadly delusional.

If you're planning your vote based on the candidates choice of webserver OS, then you're really missing the bigger issues.

There is not a single thing done on any of the candidate sites that are platform specific. And I doubt any of them developed their sites "in-house" (within the campaign staff). I would bet that every single one of them found a developer and/or hosting company to design and build their site. And they probably went with whatever that developer/hosting provider recommended for a hosting plan.

While looking at the differences makes for an interesting exercise in alleviating boredom, it says nothing about the overall race or candidate's positions and abilities.

And I say this as a web developer who works on both Windows and *NIX servers and usually recommends Apache on Linux or FreeBSD.

Re:Given Diebold...

[Farmer Tim (530755)]

Given the pervalance of Diebold machines, I'd say just about anyone could win the next presidental election.

That's exactly the kind of uncertainty that Diebold's backers hope to eliminate.

Re:Why?

[Brandybuck (704397)]

Republicans are rich and Democrats are not (except Hilliary)

Except Obama... and Edwards... and Gore... ...