I keep getting comments that Linux is more of a capitalistic organization than a corporation like MS because anyone is free to create their own version, etc... The comment is usually one that's supposed to make capitalism sound like a free market; maybe libertarians?

What did I miss? Did someone make a video essay about this or something. I am getting this comment all the time and it's nonsense.
@ward That’s the original definition of capitalism in economics. In economics the price is set by the market because everyone can create their own version and compete. I’ve always argued that nations like the US aren’t capitalist, they are something else.
@cyberspice not really... "In a capitalist economy, capital assets—such as factories, mines, and railroads—can be privately owned and controlled, labor is purchased for money wages, capital gains accrue to private owners, and prices allocate capital and labor between competing uses"

The key thing for me is labor... labor is paid in wages. That is what makes capitalism different imo. You are not keeping the fruit of your labor, you are giving it to the one who owns the means of production... the ones who own all the capital. It's a system where the minority can control a vast majority of the people. To discuss linux in these terms is basically nonsensical imo.

Markets existed far before capitalism as well. It doesn't make sense to discuss Linux in terms of monetary systems imo.
@ward And if you say well Linux devs don’t get wages they get something else. One of the problems with Linix is that people don’t want to do the uncool roles, write documentation, unit tests, bug fixing and so on. It why we’ve had multiple sound architectures and so on. A lot of the big distris are backed by money. I’ve published open source code and it was paid for by my employer because it was good for everyone. But it was paid with money for my wages because I still have to eat, have somewhere to live and so on.