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)
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)
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.
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