Shouldn’t Obama use Linux, and not a Mac?

amcpherson's picture

For those of you who haven’t heard, Barack Obama will be the first president to have a laptop on his desk at the oval office. (He does however have to give up his trusted Blackberry.)

Google CEO Eric Schmidt, in a conversation with Arianna Huffington on MSNBC, today said that he hopes Obama uses a Mac and not a PC. Excuse me Eric (and Arianna) isn’t there another option you may be missing?

Regardless of your politics, it’s clear that Barack Obama’s campaign used the Internet to greater effect than any other campaign in history. Just check out his transition web site Change.gov to see this efficacy in action. He has stated he will create an office of the CTO for the United States. He has harnessed YouTube, text messaging, email fundraising and participatory campaigning to great success. So really, a Mac?

I think all reasonable people would accept that a Linux-powered laptop would be the politically correct choice for Obama or any president of the United States. Why?

  • Transparency — Linux code is more secure since it’s open.
  • Participatory — open source is the paragon of meritocracy.
  • Free — Mac may be the choice of the media and entertainment elites (come on, you know who you are) but Linux is for the people, by the people. It’s Mainstreet’s answer to the elitism of Madison Ave.
  • Open — if Obama reports a bug correctly all Linux users benefit. Anyone can become a member of the Linux community.

On CNN, Obama has even been labelled the Open Source President by a Republican strategist who quotes from The Cathedral and the Bazaar. (No kidding! You should watch it.)

[See post to watch Flash video]

So given all of that, shouldn’t he use open source?

Let’s take a stand against the command and control systems that create Windows and Macs. No matter who you may have supported in the election, let’s send a message to the office of the President that our government should support open standards and open source.