TIL that operating system Linux is an example of anarcho-communism

Linus' power doesn't come from Ownership, but respect. Anyone can fork it and do what they want, but because Linus is respected, everyone else follows suit.

Anarchism would function in a similar manner, it wouldn't be a bunch of opinionated people doing whatever they want, but people generally listening to experts who don't actually hold systemic power.

Problem is that the average person cannot discern between an actual expert and a charlatan.
- Skilled programmers can see that Linus is an expert. It works in tech. It probably works in any professional environment - anywhere where skilled people are picking someone highly skilled.
  For the average person, we have clearly seen average people suck at picking expert leaders, though it works fine in small groups
  
  There's a word for this, the promotion of leaders based on merit instead of popularity - Technocracy. And it's not a distinct ideology but a syncretic one that has been adopted by many groups with differing politics. The most prominent example would be the Technocratic faction of the People's Republic of China, which was opposed to the Maoists back in the 50s and 60s; they argued for society to be led by experts instead of Democratically with a strong emphasis on Peasant participation (the standpoint of the Maoists). China today follows a moderate path taking from both factions.
  In the West, however, Technocracy is mostly associated with Liberals; however, I would argue that the modern Liberal view of Technocracy is fundamentally flawed, since it relies on Capitalism distributing wealth meritocratically (which Socialists understand is not the case).
- And yet Linux works fine. Not everyone needs to be a dev, devs can tell the difference between an expert and a charlatan.
  
  I meant that as a reply to the second paragraph which generalised anarchism; including the non-Linux world.
  I also disagree that this isn't an issue in the broader Linux community however. See for example the loud minority with an irrational hate against quite obviously good software projects like systemd who got those ideas from charlatans or "experts".
  
  I know, I used Linux as an example. Just like not everyone needs to be a weatherman to trust weatherman that can recognize experts among themselves, so too can engineers recognize experts among themselves, and so forth.
- Yep. This is why the voice of the people should generally speaking be ignored. This is also why 90% of people should be ignored when deciding economic policies.
I would disagree and say it's more akin to a philosopher king hence less anarchy and more monarchy. It's all good until the king dies and let's see who succeeds them.
It will be most telling when Linus dies.
- No, a king's power derives from authority, not from the good will of its subjects
  
  See and I see it more as in modern times where it's a simple figurehead.
- But a king must have power and authority, Linus just has influence and labor, thus expertise.
How often does forking actually work in the real world? Pretty much never.
- Many times, and it's always an option for FOSS software. What do you consider "working?" Mass adoption, or satisfying needs and use-cases?
  
  Many times what? Most forks die within a few months. Especially for big and well known projects. For example, io.js was a fork of NodeJs. Didn't last long and was killed by NodeJs. All the Firefox forks are pretty much dead as well. Linux also had plenty of forks by people who disagreed with Linus and where are they now? I bet you don't even remember their names.
  Forks don't work unless the original project is dead.
  
  This is incorrect. It's true that most (in fact, I would say almost all) forks go nowhere but that doesn't mean forking isn't incredibly valuable. Even the example you cite, "original project is dead" isn't just incidentally useful, it's critical to open source. Other examples include:
  project's core team is part of a for profit org that is moving the project in a bad, profit motivated direction:
  project's leader suddenly and dramatically loses respect (maybe he killed his wife or something);
  project's leader dies without leaving a digital will regarding who controls the core repo;
  project continues to direct effort into features while falling to address major security concerns;
  project is healthy and useful in every way but there is an important use case not being addressed, and the fork would address it.
  Even if 99% of forks fail, that's irrelevant because 99% of original projects fail in the same ways. Forks are critical to open source.
  
  Your comment doesn't make any sense, sorry.
  
  Try reading slower. Look up words you don't understand with a dictionary.
  
  Try getting a brain.
  
  It seems to me that you've just made up your mind and as such are not invested in even trying to understand other arguments.
  
  So mass adoption is your answer, and I'd say you're misguided. The purpose of FOSS isn't to make a profit, but to satisfy uses and needs. If a few people have a need for a fork and use it, then it's a success.
  You're judging FOSS software by popularity, rather than use, as though it's for profit.
  
  There's no success.
  
  You're misinformed. It's okay to admit when you're wrong.
  
  No, you're just a delusional zealot.
  
  What is a success?
  
  Most new businesses fail as well. Maybe we shouldn't be starting new businesses either? Or perhaps this more about people being unprepared and out of their depth whether it's starting a new business or forking a code base. And not the individual actions themselves.
  
  All the Firefox forks are pretty much dead as well.
  Firedragon and LibreWolf seem to be pretty healthy. I've been using LW daily for over a year and FD daily for 1-2 years before that.
  
  plenty of Firefox forks are still thriving and getting updates
- What do you mean by "actually work in the real world"? I can go on GitHub right now and fork a project within 5 minutes. So can you. It works.
  
  And?
- I would say we should just let unjust societies fail so just ones can take their place, but that seems to be the natural course. We're seeing that right now.
- Opnsense is a fork of pfSense. It's wildly successful. Plex was a fork of XBMC (which itself became Kodi). Plex is also wildly successful. You should probably think before you speak.
  
  Plex is a commercial and proprietary product.
- Nextcloud is a FOSS fork of OwnCloud. Both projects are great in their own way, hugely successful and serve a lot of people very well. They just moved in different directions.
  This is just one example of many. Ability to fork is super important to ensure that projects stay open source, like in this example.
  
  Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
  this example
  Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
  I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

You can fork it, sure Linus is very respected and his decisions are considered very important but you can fork it and change however you want so it's still compatible with Anarchism.

Youre thinking of python I reckon -link to wikipedia

The article you link literally lists Linus under the referent candidates section.
- So I did miss that Linus is in the article, but the reference to him says he was awarded the title, which makes it sound like an honour rather than a hierarchical system. I don't believe that he's ever been anything other than the projects owner/founder but I'm happy to learn if I'm wrong.
  
  Yes, that's just how open source works. Of course they always serve at the pleasure of the community, otherwise forks would happen. Nobody said otherwise. As the "Usage" section of that article implies, the "benevolent" bit comes from the feedback loop of a happy community supporting their dictator-for-life.
  
  I mean how the community refers to him. I've never read a thread where someone called Linus a BDFL, I have with python. If they do, they do. Just haven't seen it myself.

Free software doesn't have owners. If someone else did a better job of being the "benevolent dictator" of a fork of Linux, everyone would start using that fork. Arguably this is a more free-market system than non-free software.

I'm worried we're gonna have a situation like the death or Tito