I didn’t know any of this man’s views, I shouldve started using linux sooner
Here in the Netherlands they accuse people of being a ‘deugmens’ which literally translates as being a ‘virtuehuman’, a human with virtues. Except for possible pretentiousness, having virtues is hardly a bad thing, quite the opposite. Being politically correct has negative connotations, but most of the time it’s very easy to explain why something is politically incorrect, because the incorrect route has often proven in the past to be disastrous. People used to talk about ‘political correctness gone mad’ but now very often any political correctness is deemed bad. Woke is considered by some to be one of the worst insults you can get, but waking up and seeing that there is terrible inequity in this world, seeing that we are very whatever-centric in our thoughts/actions and questioning all that, is hardly a bad thing. Now the question is, do we need to reappropriate these words, reclaim and reframe them, or should we ignore them and move beyond them because people have been so deeply conditioned with ‘woke=bad’ no questions asked.
It’s called “being a decent human”. It doesn’t take much but the right just can’t comprehend that
Hear me out, people who belong to this stupid label “the right” can also hold those values. Shocking, isn’t it? I’ll even out myself as one of those morally apprehensive people of this homogeneous group, which is the exact opposite to the homogeneous group “the left” (because you’re either or, of course), "“the* right”. But I still hold the same values as Linus mentions.
When you boil it down, being right wing means you value property rights over human rights, and left wing is vice versa. Right wing is maintaining wealth and power, and don’t let anyone else get in the way of it.
Of course there’s a spectrum. In the US, the spectrum only applies to the populace, though, as the politicians themselves are behaving so polarized that there only exists “the right” (far-right culture warriors) and “the left” (center-right with lip service to the left).
Then you are either uninformed or somewhere the right is significantly less corrupt
If you think you’re on “the right” and are not advocating actively and persistently for Trump’s removal from office, you’re a fucking useless moron.
Linus is my favourite centrist <3
Linus. The hero we need. But not the hero we deserve.
He’s an asshole, but god damn it, he’s our asshole.
Everyone needs an asshole otherwise you’re just full of shit.
I hate both religon and atheism but agree with everything else Linus has to say
Edit:
I would have edited my comment to explain why but the existing downvotes would cast a negative view of any explanation I do give since people online tend to disregard comments with downvotes
Also the downvotes killed any mental will and motivation to type up and clearly think of an explanation in addition to the reasoning above
Maybe I’ll come back later and edit my comment again if I actually get that mental will and motivation back but it’s not likely
Atheism includes both those that passionately disagree that gods exist and those that simply do not believe in deities. So you hate both people that believe in deities (religion), and all atheists. I guess you left out non-religious non-theist’s… People who don’t believe in theism but have some kind of pagan belief system.
That’s a very small ellipsis of the Venn diagram you’re carving out of people you don’t hate.
Crystal girls that list ‘spiritual but not religious’ on their Tinder?
I can relate to what the person is saying and for me it’s more about people knowing something that they can’t prove.
Wait, do you mean theism and atheism, or explicitly organized religion and atheism?
Because the first just means you hate /~gestures vaguely~ and the second makes me question how you can hate a lack of belief in something.
atheism isn’t a lack of belief. Atheists belive that there is no god. Someone who doesn’t believe in either or is an agnostic.
An agnostic doesn’t believe it’s possible to know if god exists. A gnostic thinks it’s possible.
Agnosticism is about knowing, atheism about beleiving. So if you don’t know if god exists but firmly believe the idea is a load of crap you’re an agnostic and an atheist.
To be pedantic, gnosticism is a christian sect from the first centuries BC. γνῶσῐς means “knowledge”, which is where the word agnostic comes from, but the term “gnostic” was already spoken for so to speak.
For anybody having trouble following…
Nobody knows if God exists. It is not a proven fact.
Some people believe that they know. Some of them really, really believe it.
If you believe something that did not arrive at through hard fact, that is faith. Strong faith is religion.
So what is being said here is that many atheists are in fact quite religious—they just do not believe in God.
A good test is to explain the difference between agnostic and atheist. Anybody that insists on calling themself an atheist after that has is acting on faith ( not fact ) and has religion.
Prove that the Jersey devil doesn’t exist. Do that, and you will have made me into a religious atheist and we’ll all point and laugh at me.
Or, is it only reasonable to give these special privileges to some hypotheses, and not others?
A better test of whether someone’s religious is this: do they try to convince you that atheism is a religion?
The science, so far, says a god doesn’t exist when measured against the moving goal posts of religion.
I am an atheist but I believe in science and CERN would be my church.My belief goes with the Higgs boson aka God particle. I don’t talk others out of their beliefs as long as they don’t try to force their beliefs on me.
I’m agnostic about other gods but my religion is not believing in the Abrahamic god as described in the bible.
Atheism is exactly that though. Theism is a belief in a higher power, atheism is the opposite. That’s what the “a” prefix indicates - an opposite.
The reason these people can’t comprehend lack of belief is because they are stuck thinking god is a default state - that it requires belief to assert it isn’t real. When in fact the concept of god is no different than every other deity, Greek god, unicorn, space teapot… you name it. It is nothing more than a regionally popular unfalsifiable claim. They can’t wrap their minds around who the burden of proof falls on.
Atheism and agnosticism are two different things. Atheism is the rejection of a higher power, you believe there cannot be a higher power. Agnosticism is the acceptance of the unknown, you believe you don’t know if there is or isn’t be a higher power.
In a hypothetical scenario where higher power does exist and that higher power does something that becomes evidence of the existence of a higher power. An atheist would reject such evidence because a higher power cannot exist and the evidence would be contradictory. An agnostic would not reject such evidence because an agnostic is not rejecting a higher power and as such the evidence would also not be contradictory.
And in a reverse hypothetical, let’s say we discovered all the secrets of the universe and found evidence of higher powers not being able to exist. A theist would reject such evidence because a higher power must exist and the evidence would be contradictory. An agnostic would not reject the evidence because the evidence would not be contradictory.
And I personally lean on the apathetic side of agnosticism. If there is a god (or gods) then there is a god (or gods), and if there isn’t then there isn’t. There’s no reason to mull over something that has had no bearing on my life and if tomorrow we get irrefutable evidence for either side that’s when I’ll deal with that new reality. In the mean time there are better things to do.
Just how fucking dense do you have to be in order to be surprised that a man who created one of the most popular operating systems on Earth, and then gave it away for free, might be a leftist?
There’s some libertarians in the FOSS community as well, so it’s not a guarantee, but yeah, generally you’ll find that correlation.
Right wingers are extremely stupid and don’t really understand what the left stands for, they fall for all fox news strawman arguments and rage bait.
This is unfortunately true of both sides.
For example, conservatives think pro- choicers are callous baby-killers who only care about abortion because it allows them to “whore around” without consequences. Liberals on the other hand, think pro-lifers are misogynists who want to ban abortion because banning it will hurt women and because they want to make the country more like The Handmaid’s Tale.
…and leftists know that the “abortion debate” is culture warfare injected into the less-educated by billionaires to distract from class warfare.
I was just using that as an example.
Another great one is immigration. Liberals thinks conservatives want to restrict immigration because they hate foreigners. Conservatives want to stop immigration because the job market sucks and has sucked since 2008.
created one of the most popular operating systems on Earth, and then gave it away for free
He didn’t created it alone and “then” gave it away for free. Since it’s begging Linux was free and that created a community who made it the most popular OS.
Yes. It’s called summarizing. Obviously it’s a bit more complicated. I’m not writing an essay on the history of Linux here.
Well it’s due tomorrow by the end of class, Mr. WoodScientist, so you better get cracking.
We would all settle for you not making idiotic comments that mislead anyone who isn’t already informed about this, you might know them as “the vast majority of people”
That comment isn’t misleading, unless you interpret “creator” as “sole contributor”
Kernel. GNU is the operating system.
I’m sorry Richard, I’m not calling it GNU plus Linux no matter how accurate it is.
Yes, yes, and it’s NT/Windows or as I’ve taken to calling it NT+Windows…
This point is pedantic and tired to the point that it has become an infamous copypasta.
It’s also, at least as stated here, not even technically correct. A kernel is an operating system all on it’s own. It just can’t do much.
GNU just provides the software that the user interacts with.
Additionally, there are a number of Linux distros that are entirely free of GNU software.
Just about everyone understands what you mean when you call Linux an OS. The pedantry is unneeded.
GNU is not even a requirement.
Look at Void Linux. Look at Alpine Linux. Look at Chimera Linux.
MUSL instead of Glibc. Clang instead of GCC. Alternative userlands. More and more Linux distros arrive with these traits everyday (many more than I listed).
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!
There it is. 🥲
I use Chimera Linux. None of what you said applies.
It’s a famous copypasta
i cant believe this guy invented popcorn :o
It’s actually a sandwich.
Good thing, too; I thought it was a song .
But is it an indicted ham sandwich?
How so you differentiate with non-Linux GNU systems?
The kernel is the OS
I never know wether to upvote or downvote this comment
I do. It is incorrect.
It’s times like these where you’re reminded that Linus is awesome.
I think he isn’t a leftist, but just reasonable
In the USA the republicans simply are such morons currently that anything reasonable appears to be leftist.
I’m center-right in Austria but US-americans would call me a woke communist (and in many regards I’m more leftist than the democrats).
All it takes to be a leftist these days is to not go out of your way every day to be a raging cunt.
Basic human decency. That’s seriously all it takes.
I’m sorry, is my BEING AN ASSHOLE triggering you???
Snowflake.
(do NOT make fun of my $1,000.00 USD trump branded FREEDOM sneakers or I’ll get upset 😡 they were NOT a scam)
Or at least show some remorse if you do!
I see a lot of overlap from where I’m standing.
Unfortunately, it’s true: Linux is woke. And DEI. And gay.
We need to get Elon Musk and the DOGE team on this, stat!
i think this type of comment works better with a “/s”
No, 'cause the /s cheapens the experience of good sarcasm.
And a ward against the evil eye
Wait you mean the guy who made a free and open source operating system for everyone to share is left wing!?!?!? WHAT THE FFUUUU
There are a great number of nutjobs running (F)OSS projects, so I wouldn’t assume much about any software maintainer. Also, Linus explicitly only cites upsides to FOSS that pertain to developing the software itself, not to any greater social effort.
Soapbox dude
TempleOS comes to mind…
*Kernel
Don’t undermine the fact that Linus also made Git and I’m pretty sure some scuba diving app. Modern day essentials if you ask me!
I don’t think it’s undermining to credit him with exactly what he accomplished. Linus created the kernel, Stallman invented GNU.
Why not just post the copy pasta
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!
it’s just copypasta. thanks for posting. but i think it’s just less popular on lemmy
Watching Linus take a big public dump on someone who deserves it is one of life’s finest guilty pleasures. It’s like a Maya Angelou poem. You can tell he really cared, and meant it, and took some time to get it right.
Reading his words really slams home which side of the political spectrum truly believes in personal freedom and liberty. And it’s not the side that promotes fascism and wants to implement a Christian version of Sharia law under the Ten Commandments.
so if he was a nazi, then we should follow the guidance of our lord and savior and agree with everything he thinks because linux. we should advocate for more sheep mentality idiolizing celebs and computer geeks. \s
Pretty sure people admire him because he shares their values, which is not at all what you’re describing. Which value that he listed above do you have a problem with and why?
“I… I was just asking why my WiFi driver isn’t working.”
You jest but it’s because you chose a manufacturer that made a closed-source driver minefield and the volunteer paramedics haven’t been able to get to you yet.
This NIC is woke.
Since I had it handy, here’s the source meme for the uninitiated:
Ahh…they had
woke_on_lanenabled. That’ll do it.
To be fair what he’s described is at most Progressive. The left rejects the current economic model as a start. Workers owning the means of production instead of an owner class.
There’s a whole lot of river to swim between fair and equal treatment and full fledged socialism. Not everyone on “the left” sleeps with Karl Marx under their pillow.
Oh definitely. it’s a spectrum, but his post doesn’t go that far left. The idea that any of that is “left wing” is spread by conservatives to make those ideas look radical.
Unfortunately, that is left in Americas overton window
Many here will argue if you aren’t pure you aren’t left in any flavor.
Yes, but did you know they’re probably false?
Yes, but they don’t.
We should feed them to Linus
Aaaand we’ve arrived at UnixSurrealism
They’re obviously false, doesn’t change the landscape though
I don’t really know much about his personal politics, but his work seems to speak pretty loudly about rejecting the idea of software as private property to be bought and sold by capital, which, you know, that’s more than just progressive, even if it’s just in one area.
I’m just commenting on what’s there.
An ally is an ally
Yup, my point is not that he isn’t an ally, it’s that being an ally isn’t inherently leftist.
I have a hard time finding a right wing or centrist ideology that gives a shit about minorities. So, while correlation doesn’t always imply causation, it usually does.
I think the whole left vs right thing is stupid.
Individual views are much more complex than a single left/right axis, so you’re always going to find people on both sides who have views that differ greatly from the major political party on their ‘side’.A ‘progressive’ right winger would care more about preventing the government from deciding what you’re allowed to do, rather than explicitly protecting minorities.
So while they wouldn’t push laws that require businesses to serve everybody indiscriminately, they also wouldn’t push laws that explicitly ban things like gender therapy.Obviously the majority of right wingers in america aren’t progressive though.
