Linus’ thread: (CW: bigotry and racism in the comments) https://social.kernel.org/notice/AWSXomDbvdxKgOxVAm (you need to scroll down, i can’t seem to link to the comment in the screenshot)
Political? For everyone outside of America that’s just common sense.
In Canada it’s starting to become “political” since our morons are egged on by the morons down south.
It’s so exhausting, they treat it like a sport, it’s not about making anyone’s lives better it’s all just about their team winning
It’s people creating their own victories because they’re lacking their own.
Love your username, btw!
Hello I’m a trans person from the UK here to tell you this is sadly not the case at all.
Outside the US this no longer has to be political, is probably more what it really is.
Well, unfortunately we have more than our share of the brainwashed here…
Politics used to be something people engaged in. Now politics is the core to a lot of people’s identities, which means disagreement or debate is perceived as a personal attack and people will embrace a tremendous amount of cognitive dissonance to avoid being wrong.
I despite this “trend” of considering just simple opinions and basic statements as “political”. It’s been watered down and turned into a meaningless tag.
Average US American : “Outsider America… You mean, the Moon?”
The entire middle east has entered the chat
Most of Asia enters the chat with abysmal LGBTQ+ rights.
All of human civilizations outside this recent small blip in history in the developed western world.
Aye, I wonder if cavemen cared what some minority in the tribe might be doing or just shrugged their shoulders about it. Is it human nature to find it hard to accept? Oh weren’t the Romans ok with it, that was a while ago.
FOSS is an active political statement!
Was just coming here to say that. The entire Ethos of Open Source is basically the people owning the digital means of production. So some people really not grasp that?
So some people really not grasp that?
Actually, yes, the original FOSS movement had more right-libertarian roots than anything to the left, although nowadays some might see it as “common ground”.
The politics of folks like RMS (personal issues aside) were far above average, but the Free Software Movement was very steeped in liberalism from its onset, and that explains many of of its present shortcomings. Its biggest failing was to believe that Free Software would ultimately win on its merits. In the early days this was understandable, when free software was often playing catch-up to replicate the functionality of established commercial offerings. When the GNU project was just a C compiler you could install on proprietary UNIX systems to dick around with.
Today though, Free Software is more often than not superior to commercially available offerings, with the exception of some niche industrial segments. But still, Free Software adoption by end users remains incredibly marginal. No matter how many merits Free Software stacks in its favor, the “Year of Linux on the Desktop” never comes. We are still drowning in proprietary iOS and Android phones. The overwhelming majority of PCs still ship with Windows. All of it deliberately engineered to become E-waste in a couple of years.
Folks, this won’t change unless we take over the factories where these PCs and phones are manufactured.
Hmmm. Ad machine maybe. For profit has bigger advertisement budgets than donation based.
Ideology runs this way unfortunately
Sadly, there’s an entire generation of libertarian anti-GPL “open source” developers that think the preservation of free software goes too far.
… What? I may be dumb. I don’t see how libertarianism is compatible with being anti FOSS.
The idea is that for code to truly be free, you should be able to make it proprietary. If you can’t do that, then it isn’t really free. That’s how I understand the idea anyway
But that’s not being anti, just accepting the possibility of it. Like i consider myself a libertarian and if you wanna make it close source, ok, I may dislike it but I won’t regulate against it. But being anti would imply I would go out of my way to censor your ability to do close source.
It’s a GPL license thing. If you make a derivative work of GPL code, you’re NOT free to do what you want with it. This is where the 'anti come from.
Ah. Well I’m pro theft so just use it and close it if you want and pray for the best! Hide the evidence to not get sued.
There are two parts to this. On one side, you have the “please follow the GPL if you’re using GPL code” – which is really just asking someone to honor a contract, more or less.
Then you have people like RMS, who believe that there should not be such a thing as proprietary software. They don’t care if you aren’t using the GPL – no software should be proprietary, period.
This fact eludes some folks.
“Wait, FOSS is political?”
“Always has been.”
I can relate to the “how the fuck is being a concerned human being extreme/poltical?” energy in the post hard.
Hate is mainstream politics now, sadly. So yes, not hating is political as well.
Yes - if you don’t hate hate then you are to be hated.
That’s what “being political” means. Otherwise you’d be apathetic, cynical and not concerned about anything.
Linus has always been political and principled, I mean he chose the GPL for a reason! Glad to see him state all of this outright though, it only makes me respect him more.
I could have sworn I saw him saying years and years ago that he probably wouldn’t go GPL if he went back and did it over. I thought it was strange at the time.
Linus gives exactly zero fucks about saying exactly what’s on his mind. And it’s almost always massively based. He’s always been great about that, we don’t deserve such a great mind.
Remember the time with the anti vaxxer, man was firing with all cylinders
Seriously, we are super blessed to have him.
Holy shit a based Linus is not what I expected to see today. Makes me prefer Linux even more than I already did.
What would you use for a synonym for based? I keep seeing that used. I always thought it was just some alt-right meme bullshit, but I’m learning I was wrong. I still don’t get the use. My mind always thinks “based on what?”
“Based” is typically used to describe someone who says/does something without caring if they’ll be judged for it. Most commonly, it’s shorthand for “That’s a controversial opinion and you are bold for saying it, but I agree with you.” It turns the previous sentence into an adjective, which is a little weird but it makes sense eventually.
So if I had to choose a single word as a synonym, I would say “Bold”.
Yeah idunno, based can mean completely different things context-wise
What would you use for a synonym for based?
W
Hard fisagree. Linux isn’t political. Everyone has an opinion, it’s obvious Linus would too. But I am pretty happy that his opinion is one I personally agree with. Linux can be uaed by anyone though, and nothing stops far right activists (terrorists) from making a distro, which would still be Linux. There’s a heavily religious distro too, but that doesn’t make Linux as a whole religious.
Does that really make it totally apolitical though?. Like obviously it’s not inherently attached to a wide reaching political ideology, but it still is political in the same way that any free software is kind of political.
IMO the GPL and similar licences are inherently political, and Linus very intentionally chose to release the Linux kernel under the GPL licence rather than under BSD or a proprietary licence.
The very concept of free software and open contribution is political. That as a thing doesn’t necessarily exist within every political framework or culture. But that’s the nature of politics, ultimately in some way basically everything can have a political framing, and since politics are essentially “opinions on the way things should be” it’s ultimately inescapable.
Everything can have a political framing, but that’s not the same as saying that everything is political.
Only “opinions on the way things should be” are political, and not everything is an opinion.
Linux is not an opinion, even if you can have an opinion about the role of Linux in society, or about the intent in its creation. You can even say the creation of Linux might have been politically motivated, or that its license was designed with a political purpose (like all licenses are, including the most restrictive and non-free), but that’s not the same as saying that Linux on itself is political.
Personally I disagree but that’s ok, we can’t all see it the same way :)
I don’t think we get to use cold reason to determine if something is political or not, just like a dictionary doesn’t control the meaning of a word, nor does a small group of ants decide what the colony does next. If Linus came out as a right wing extremist, it wouldn’t matter how apolitical the linux source code is, people would decide to distance themselves from him and everything he represents. Something is political the moment a society perceives it as relevant to their politics.
There’s a heavily religious distro too, but that doesn’t make Linux as a whole religious.
More than one! There’s Ubuntu Christian Edition (if I had to guess, that’s probably the most popular one), Computers4Christians, there used to be Jesux (using the Christian Software Public License), Jewbuntu, Bodhi Linux, and (jokingly, but real) Kubuntu Satanic Edition at the very least.
And, while not Linux, I have to mention TempleOS, the open source Christian OS designed by a schizophrenic who claims it was written to God’s specifications. It was written in HolyC and was just so out of place in 2005 when it was released.
None of this matters in the context of your comment. I just wanted to throw it out there because I find the whole thing fascinating.
IIRC templeos is not open source. But I didn’t know there were more
I had to go look it up to make sure I was remembering right. Wikipedia says it was released as public domain under the open source model.
The whole thing would be incredibly hilarious if it weren’t for mental illness, much like my life.
That’s interesting, I thought the reason why it can’t be messed with and improved for daily use is that it’s closed source and therefore can’t be updated. But guess I was wrong fair enough.
Linux, and all open source, is anarchist! It’s just some people haven’t caught on to the philosophy.
Only sort of kidding
Linus is stellar example of “good is not nice.”
He will rake you over the coals because he cares about quality and expects better from everyone.
Good can be nice. This is just him personally and shouldn’t be seen as a guideline on how to be good.
I agree! Most good people are nice, it is complemntary after all.
At the same time, without getting trite, being nice does not make people automatically good, and is often a performance to get away with vile shit.
To paraphrase another idiom, people who are easily offended should be offended more often. People often dismiss others because they are not “nice” AKA not submissive or servile to their opinions or demands. Oh, this person is “mean” so I get to talk shit about them or ignore them.
Yeah, not every good person is a good role model, one can always act better than the people they admire.
This is one of the reasons why I respect him so much.
Linus delivering the well-deserved beatdown as always.
Now with 300% more diplomacy!
deleted by creator
“Commies? In MY computer?” More likely than you think.
BSD, Lunix, Debian and Mandrake are all versions of an illegal hacker operation system, invented by a Soviet computer hacker named Linyos Torovoltos, before the Russians lost the Cold War. It is based on a program called " xenix", which was written by Microsoft for the US government. These programs are used by hackers to break into other people’s computer systems to steal credit card numbers. They may also be used to break into people’s stereos to steal their music, using the “mp3” program. Torovoltos is a notorious hacker, responsible for writing many hacker programs, such as “telnet”, which is used by hackers to connect to machines on the internet without using a telephone.
I believe our best american hacker “4Chan” is our best bet against this Torovolts guy.
Linux isn’t political Linus is.
Linux and everything FOSS (and not only open source) IS political. It’s a clear ethical choice and it impact everyone who use the software. The entire FOSS movement IS political
Yep, and that’s what brought me to FOSS and that makes it so necessary. Not its allegedly technological superiority.
What’s preventing nazis, fascists, transphobes, Russians, republicans, right wingers.and other boogey men from using Linux?
It’s just technology.
A russian here, can confirm that nothing prevents me from using Linux. Had no idea I’m a boogey man though
I’d say this is the good thing about FOSS, even Iranian people can use it despite the US embargo. No one person nor a country should have the power to ban stuff from others.
Nothing, really. I’ve been daily driving Linux for years, couldn’t be happier. ;)
I still agree that Linux and FOSS in general is political, honestly. Not because I want to say “what isn’t political?”, but because a lot of things about Linux and FOSS stand for privacy, freedom, transparency, responsibility, accountability, voluntary effort that benefits others (it can benefit you as well, though), etc. - all of these things seem to me like a piece of political discussion at least to some degree.
The most important point about this, though, is the fact that being political does not necessarily mean that Linux or FOSS has to enforce some kind of opinion among its users or community or around its discussion. You’re right in saying it’s just a technology, but it doesn’t mean that using Linux or FOSS isn’t a political decision - even (or especially) if your sole reason to run Linux is money.
I used to get really pissed at people who considered everything to be political, but these days, I think I agree, because everything you like or don’t like about your life (including the tech you use) is influenced by politics, so you do discuss it one way or the other in most conversations. Especially tech, though.
Agree. Being “political” really means having to do with how people consider things in the world (should) work, be it technological, cultural, economical, etc. It’s not simply restricted to being associated to a political party/ideology.
deleted by creator
Red Star OS in a nutshell
Read your reply
IS political. It’s a clear ethical choice and it impact everyone who use the software.
NOT
IS trans political. It’s a trans clear ethical choice trans and it trans impact trans everyone who trans use the trans software.
at no time does linux talk about trans rights, linus does.
While this isn’t specifically about “trans rights”, it does seem to indicate that linux may have an opinion on the subject.
The Linux Foundation is not the Linux kernel, though.
Yes, because the kernel is a piece of software. It can’t have political opinions, yet.
The linux kernel isn’t sentient wtf
Can any person be not based?
One great thing about about software is you don’t have to agree with or care about what the creators thoughts and beliefs are, software is at the end of the day just software.
Doesn’t get any less political than that.
I create software by myself and disagree. First it’s very political where and for whom I choose to develop software. Second, software is always made for a purpose and the purpose can be indeed (and is) very often linked to political or social cause. E.g. a software which only purpose is to harm people, say for controlling mass destruction weapons is in my point of view a very political software
software is always made for a purpose and the purpose can be indeed (and is) very often linked to political or social cause
Its not though, typically software exists to serve a basic function at its core, and it could be used or contributed to by anyone for any number of things.
You are thinking of software as if it exists in a vacuum. Software that is libre is a political statement. Software that is proprietary is also a political statement. Lemmy choosing to be decentralized/federated/interoperable is also a conscious political decision just as Apple chose to create its own proprietary ecosystem instead of caring about interoperability.
You can grow potatoes for political reasons too. Everything a human being does might be politically motivated, but that doesn’t mean potatoes are political.
Anyone can take that same software, that was created as a particular political statement, and use it for the completelly opposite political reasons to make a completelly different political statement. Just the same way as many have used songs in contexts that are completelly politically opposite to what the original author of the song intended.
In the end, the only thing that’s political is the goal/purpose/motivation of an action, not the result of the action. No piece of software/hardware/thing is political when you dettach the artist from the art and just see it for what it is, regardless of what the author might have wanted you to see it as.
historically speaking, when you consider its domestication by indigenous people in South America, its appropriation by Spanish colonizers, its resistance to looting by marauding armies compared to grain crops, and the freaking Irish potato famine, I think it becomes quite clear that the potato is a politically relevant crop and could reasonably be considered political.
The existance of potatoes in western diet might be politically motivated (just like every food, not just potatoes), but that’s not the same as saying that potatoes are political.
Also, even if the potato had never been involved in any of that and had been always peacefully and respectfully used… wouldn’t that history also be political? Why would violent conflict be more of a “political” thing, when non-violence is as much of a political movement?
you are out here acting like something being political is a high bar when it really isn’t.
it’s not more of a political thing, therefore they would both be political. although I’m not convinced that a crop that’s strictly nonviolent would even exist
That’s true. It’s the human element that creates the political attribute.
I disagree. Of course it’s political to some degree. It might not really make a difference whatever a software’s authors stance on gun control is as it’s not directly related to the software. But of course the political beliefs of a person might influence the product itself when it’s more related like for example the licensing. FOSS software enables the user of a software to effectively maintain ownership of their own device which is 100% a political thing.
FOSS software enables the user of a software to effectively maintain ownership of their own device which is 100% a political thing.
That’s an entirely different domain of politics in my mind, my point was there’s no reason to focus on what divides you from the creator when 9 times out of 10 the software itself is unrelated and contributed to by thousands that all have differing opinions on the same topic.
No need to try and find issues where there aren’t any.
One great thing about about software is you don’t have to agree with or care about what the creators thoughts and beliefs are, software is at the end of the day just software.
It really isn’t though - no-one dared touch ReiserFS after the creator became a wife-murderer even though it, supposedly at the time, it was quite the piece of advanced code.
Was referring more to people trying to politicize software and push them into political movements they’re unrelated to. Open software is at is core free and as such anyone with any political leaning could use it or contribute to it and no one would know, and no one should care.
Free software is, at its core, about the users having control over their own use of the software - the software isn’t controlled by some owner and licensed by the users, but instead all users have equal ability to understand and use the software. If you consider communism to be political, then free software is political, because free software is communism in its purest form.
Now, what one considers free is political. You cannot decouple reality from politics, and the free software movement is just one very specific example how political this really is. It’s also these communities that generate politival movements that you may see as unrelated to the pieces of software in question.
It really isn’t though - no-one dared touch ReiserFS after the creator became a wife-murderer even though it, supposedly at the time, it was quite the piece of advanced code.
He was the head honcho of a very complicated and complex project and if someone found a bug they’d have to go learn to debug ReiserFS from scratch. No matter how much better tech is, if there’s nobody to support it, it’s a liability.
Except TempleOS. RIP Terry.
He’s called Hans Reiser 🙂
Fixed
It being quite the piece of advanced code might have been a big factor in why no-one dared touch it once the creator himself essentially shut down maintenance for the whole thing as he was trying to pay for his legal fees.
Linus is based as fuck as always. Level-headed and agreeable as always.
