[Politics_Observer]

Here is an excellent website where you can take a look at the newest releases of all the VAST different types of Linux operating systems out there: https://distrowatch.com/ .

Distrowatch lists about almost 300 different various kinds of Linux OSes that are currently active in their own database: https://bit.ly/2BJvuaN

[James Redford]

Here is an excellent website where you can take a look at the newest releases of all the VAST different types of Linux operating systems out there: https://distrowatch.com/ .

Distrowatch lists about almost 300 different various kinds of Linux OSes that are currently active in their own database: https://bit.ly/2BJvuaN

Thank you, Politics_Observer, for providing some leads on where people can obtain a more liberty-orientated operating system than proprietary operating systems.

For those who do choose to use a Linux/BSD operating system, the following is a very rational theme for such systems:

* Computing Machine, https://github.com/Jamie-Michelle/Computing-Machine , https://www.pling.com/p/1315191/ .

For more information on this theme, see:

* Jamie Michelle, "Introducing the Computing Machine Desktop Theme", XFCE Forums, Aug. 27, 2019, https://forum.xfce.org/viewtopic.php?id=13299 , https://web.archive.org/web/20200710010 ... p?id=13299 , https://archive.is/fr8sN , https://megalodon.jp/2020-0710-1002-49/ ... p?id=13299 , http://www.freezepage.com/1594342926ASFGZPSKII .



* * * * *

Continuing with the thema that your post invokes, the concept of "intellectual property" is fallacious and unjust. The entire point of valid property rights is to resolve disputes in scarce resources. Thus, if John takes someone's lawnmower then that person no longer has that lawnmower. Yet if Mary copies some output of someone's intellect, it subtracts no physical holding from that person.

So-called "intellectual property" cannot rise to the level of valid property for the reason that it is not a scarce resource: and hence everyone, in principle, can have their own copy of an intellectual creation without subtracting any physical holding from its creator. Enforcing fallacious "rights" in "intellectual property" actually violates genuine property rights, for then actual physical force is used against the physical property of people (including the property in their own bodies) who had not physically harmed, altered, or appropriated another person's physical holdings.

For more on the fallaciousness and unjustness of so-called "intellectual property", see the below paper:

* N. Stephan Kinsella, "Against Intellectual Property", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring 2001), pp. 1-53, https://cdn.mises.org/15_2_1.pdf , https://webcitation.org/6E9neqZI3 . N. Stephan Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008), https://cdn.mises.org/Against%20Intelle ... erty_2.pdf , https://webcitation.org/5nvOa8JMd .

(For the above article Stephan Kinsella was awarded the Ludwig von Mises Institute's O. P. Alford III Prize for the scholarly article published during 2001-2002 that best advances libertarian scholarship, at the eighth Austrian Scholars Conference, March 16, 2002.)