Free and Open Source Software

I used to think so. It's ideologically sound except for allowing corporations the same free use as anyone else. There are plenty of forward thinking people who would never want to support the oppressive evil of massive technology corporations and would never intentionally help them. Then they publish free software and directly help them anyway. It's not a coincidence that most "free" software is funded by the US tech industry who is directly benefited from it. I'm not sure of a way to change it that would help regular people faster than it helps private industry crush regular people.

No. It strongly depends on the project, they can be organized very differently. You can always fork, but you can also always try to topple dictatorship

Are they programming on a Mac?

Yes. It is pretty much exactly how we would do software development.

I had the same exact thought after Steve balmer called it communist cancer, but then I came to a conclusion. Open source, and fair source software is communist, but free software is not. Free is as freedom and not price. You can make money off of it, but why is it different than OSS. The difference is that Free software protects the user's rights as opposed to OSS. Protecting the user's rights and freedoms is important.

I think that communism-capitalism are very inadequate dimensions for discribing the world.

I'm definitively printing this and putting it on my wall

BoringCactus wrote a tentative post-mortem to "open source"/free software (five-and-a-half years ago already?!) that I find/found interesting and somewhat relevant to your question.

tl;dr : No, FOSS project are used by military and fascists

long: It's link to a common misunderstanding of "mean of production". FOSS developers do not own the mean of production. Mean of production is not just the tool to produce goods and services, but all the industry needed to make them available : promotion, distribution, ... Socialization (for anarchists) or collectivization (for comies) of industries mean that workers own and manage (or self-organized) every establishment needed for this and organize together to get their power back. In this case, we could abolish some industries, change them, or choose where to send the production or not. This is the same for cooperatives and self-managed places; it's may be some interesting experience or complementary with class struggle, but is not a revolutionary move in itself

If we take the words of Saint Richard Stallman as true in the sense that in his day all software developmet was 'open' but at some point some decided for whatever reason to start "closing" stuff then one could say all software development did not have any anarchist or communist intention in the beginning, it just turned profit-driven in the way.

No. I'm staunchly anti-communist and also a staunch supporter of free software. It's also possible to have another combination of beliefs on these things, but these are mine.

I suggest reading the section "Why Don't You Move to Russia?" of this: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html

By contrast, I am working to build a system where people are free to decide their own actions; in particular, free to help their neighbors, and free to alter and improve the tools which they use in their daily lives. A system based on voluntary cooperation and on decentralization.

Thus, if we are to judge views by their resemblance to Russian Communism, it is the software owners who are the Communists.

I agree with that. Free software is about building a society more strongly based on individual rights. At least Marxism-Leninism certainly isn't about that, though anarchism can be argued to be to some extent.

Only problem with communism is that humans are unable to practice it without turning to fascistic practices. As an idea it is beautiful. “To each according to their needs.”

No there are clear rules