You must log in or # to comment.
He is such a good role model for being wealthy.
He is, when it comes down to it, pretty wealthy. But we are talking about the guy who created the kernel that now runs nearly every Internet service, all Android phones, most streaming devices, and a lot of various embedded devices. Anyone else with that much impact would be a billionaire many times over.
But he’s got a comfortable amount and has not exercised unreasonable ambition. A man who did someone very valuable and was well rewarded and sees no point in being any better off than he is.
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.
Well said. The people that have been clamoring “wake up sheeple” are now mad that people are “woke”.
In Germany the derogatory term used is “Gutmensch”, good human.
It’s the narrative the right has created, and you can see it in those terms. The narrative is of course that people on the left pretend to be full of virtue and good but in reality are dreamers full of idoologies that can’t survive in the real world. That and not beeing able to practice what one preaches (like still using airplanes while advocating for a more sustainable lifestyle) are part of what they have constructed “woke people” to mean for them, as far as I understand it at least.
Gutmensch in German usually refers to people who try to appear good and make decisions they feel are good without questioning if the side effects are harmful. Also they expect others to do the same without regard for their ability to do so (e.g. I manage to avoid plastic bags, so you must too. Which is at least somewhat reasonable. But I manage to live without a car so you must too is difficult for some part of the rural population.)
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.
Bro, idk how you are still Right-Wing then. What are these Right-Wing values that you hold?
If you’re seriously honest when asking that then you should really look up some political ideologies. I’d also recommend not hyper focusing on the US and US politics.
You either dont believe in these things or you’re not as right as you think you are.
Maybe I’m not understanding. You’re a right wing person that recommends we dont look at right wingers in the US for reference? I guess I just start at Nazi then?
I’m recommending everyone to not look at the US as a reference for a sane and nuanced political system. In Europe we’re generally not A or B, although you can definitely say you’re left or right you don’t have to be either the left or the right.
I hold values which are generally right leaning, as well as left. But overall I vote blue, not red (which would be the other way around in the US, for whatever reason).
If you look at the strong right party Kristdemokraterna in Sweden you’ll find that they support Swedens current abortion laws, which allows for it. Even though they’re strongly for traditional family values and overall a strong right political ideology.
In contrast, the Swedish Vänsterpartiet (literally the left party) with roots in communism, have voted the same way as the far right party Sverigedemokraterna with its roots in nazism and white supremacy. (Just to clarify, Sweden does not only have these two “extremes”. The Riksdag has a total of 8 parties as of today.)
Things are more nuanced outside of US politics. I know what beliefs I hold and live by. I don’t necessarily think those should be put into law (I support the liberty for women to chose whether to abort or not. If I were put in the situation that my wife got unexpectedly pregnant, I would never support aborting.)
Brazil has a decent political diversity on paper, but the right here is pretty much a copy of the USA right, who mainly defend the interest of the rich (basically they’re all in favor of destroying the environment for profit, privatizing health and other public services, “defending” family values, anti abortion, pro “free speech”, voting en masse to increase their own salaries and being USA’s obedient little bitch). The “center” parties are pure mercenaries and, when not bought by any one side, will ally with the right.
Ah, not a piece of confusion here, the US is a good example of when people with right leaning views actually have control the government, there is no left to compare to.
Also, am I reading that you wouldn’t support your wife’s right to choose an abortion? But do you support her decision to choose, which is what I read the current laws states?
I support women’s liberty to choose. My personal belief is that abortions are immoral and should be avoided.
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.
When you boil it down, being right wing means you value freedom and being left wing means you value making others work for you.
You can boil it down to whatever punchline you wish.
Freedom until it’s taken from you by those who are wealthier and more powerful.
Wait the right doesn’t have people working for them?
Freedom is a big word that without clarification doesn’t tell us much of what you believe in. I think you boiled it for too long.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Trump is a leftist then?
It’s deontological ethics vs keynesian ethics I think. That’s why the left and right accuse each other for being based more in emotion than reason. Because from each’s perspective, the other is doing something objectively wrong, when they have different moral systems in the first place.
Having said that, I prefer to value the well-being of people, over some archaic devotion to a piece of land, or letting humanity go extinct so that we can respect the rules of some weird game I didn’t sign up for called “who grabs land first”.
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).
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.
Thanks! I’m actually European, but it seems that a lot of people here on Lemmy forget that there exists other places than the USA and US politics. Being not-American I don’t actively focus on the US, but actually what happens on my continent, my country, my county and my municipality.
(No, I do not endorse Trump. I hope he’s replaced soon.)
Then you are either uninformed or somewhere the right is significantly less corrupt
Lift your focus away from the US. it’s good for you.
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.
@modeler @NikkiDimes You gotta get the excrement out one way or another… but I do know of people who have had to have a permanent ileostomy due to the inflammatory bowel diseases (usually ulcerative colitis) and because they’ve had to have everything that was part of their digestive-system removed below the end of the small intestine (and then the ileostomy routes that out the front), they also had the hole in the rear sewn shut. The “barbie butt” operation, I’ve heard it called. Not fun.
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.
To consolidate posts:
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.
None of their stated reasons against abortion hold any water. There are clear ways to reduce abortion, such as comprehensive sex education and widespread availability of birth control. Since conservatives obviously are against those things, we can only conclude their reasons are bullshit. Cruelty fits the data perfectly.
Conservatives want to stop immigration because the job market sucks and has sucked since 2008.
Except there is no real link between those two, and even economics framed in conservative terms disproves it. Labor generates profit, which should mean every new worker adds to the economy, not takes away. That is, the resources they use (food, housing, etc.) are offset by the extra resources they produce in their work. There is not some fixed amount of labor the economy can have, and anything beyond that is parasitic overflow.
So again, if the stated reasons are clearly bullshit, then we are left with a question of why they’re doing it, anyway. Cruelty fits the data perfectly.
The reason why the job market sucks is that unions got defanged and international capital movement freed from the 80s onwards.
That’s why life for working people took 3 steps backwards compared to our parents and grandparents who could buy a house, go on holidays and have a boat on a factory wage. While we are going to have trillionaires soon and the only thing that’s cheaper is the fuel of capitalism: telecoms and wages.
The problem has never been another wage earner - the problem is pitting us against each other and us taking the bait.
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
It’s actually a sandwich.
Good thing, too; I thought it was a song .
But is it an indicted ham sandwich?
i cant believe this guy invented popcorn :o
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.
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.
I am an atheist because I do not believe in god, not because I think that a god cannot exist. I am an atheist because the burden of proof is on those who claim that a god does exist. If such proof were to exist (and pass scientific scrutiny, not rely on faith), I would believe in a god.
I understand what you’re saying, but in reality, the definition of ‘atheist’ is a lot broader than you are asserting. Simply not having belief in a god to begin with is enough to be an atheist.
An atheist can, but does not necessarily, reject the notion of a higher power inherently.
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.
Hugely relatable.
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.
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
“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.
