Linux embodies capitalist ideals, because nobody is locked into any one distro, and there are few barriers to entry.  As I have proven with Swift Linux, you don't need permission or authorization to start a new Linux distro.  Some people complain that there are too many distros, and I couldn't disagree more.  The presence of so many distros illustrates that there are so many ideas.  Most don't work out, but the few that do really advance the Linux world.  And just about everyone agrees that first-time Linux users should pick from one of the top few distros for better support.

For the first few years, Linux didn't come with GUIs.  But by 2000, several distros came with GUIs, and it essentially became mandatory for all other distros to include one.  Today, only distros like Arch, Slackware, and Gentoo can attract users without one.  Where would Linux be today without a GUI?  

There was once a time when trying out Linux required installing it.  Then KNOPPIX pioneered the live CD that gave you the option of either trying out Linux or installing it.  As a result, the live CD capability became mandatory for every distro.  Today, only distros like Arch, Slackware, and Gentoo can attract users without this feature.  KNOPPIX has lost its prominence, but the live CD lives on.

The "creative destruction" process works in the Linux world.  Perhaps the leading distro stops evolving, dies, or jumps the shark.  At least one of the hundreds of other distros will manage to fill in the void left by the departing distro.

If we're seeing the beginning of the end of Ubuntu, there are other distros eager to fill the void, and the people who want fewer Ubuntu derivatives will get their wish.  CrunchBang was originally Ubuntu-based but is now Debian based.  Linux Mint seems to be in the process of switching from Ubuntu to Debian and currently straddles both bases.  I suspect that these won't be the only distros to make the switch.

Several once-prominent distros rose and fell before Ubuntu began.  The cycle will continue as long as we're using computers.

In contrast to the open source world, the world of Microsoft Windows, Office, and other products is just a Communist country governed by Microsoft.  Instead of smoke-belching Trabants, Microsoft puts out bloated, insecure, unstable, and uneconomical software and operating systems.  A few people at the top benefit at the expense of the people.  Thus, Communism and crony capitalism aren't that different from each other.

-- 
Jason Hsu <jhsu802701 at jasonhsu.com>