this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2025
39 points (75.3% liked)
Linux
14685 readers
261 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This issue represents all you need to know about omarchy.
There is also this:
DHH proudly advertises that the main branch of their repository is called master instead of main, to own the libs or something.
This is a madeup controversy over something nonsensical. Call your main branch whatever you want. It does not matter.
This is dumb. The switch to main was stupid to begin with and served no actual purpose.
There are much more legitimate reasons to call him out as a fascist.
Remind me, what problem does calling it "Main" solve?
What does switching from the default name 'main' back to master achieve; and why are they advertising this on xitter? On an unrelated note, do you know what a dog whistle is?
It doesn't really matter what they call it, does it? Just like changing the name to "main" didn't achieve anything.
Words have multiple definitions. The definition that git's usage is based on is:
This shouldn't have been "problematic" either way. It's just all virtue signals. We aren't rushing to rename Master Degrees are we?
I think
mainactually makes more sense. Talking about archetype, prototypes, "original"... Makes no sense in branch development.Just call it
main. This will make sense for any kind of development.The switch was pointless and broke a lot of scripts. It was just dumb, through and through.
is that really the biggest problem of the world right now?
Cunts like DHH are trying to turn Linux into yet another nazibar and you are questioning me on calling it out?
I just rather want to have open-source software separate from politics if you don't mind.
EDIT: And before people saying I'm a nazi or something.. I'm not.
I do in fact mind as non-political is usually just code for "lets be horrible to women and minorities, and if you say anything you are being political"; besides I don't think you could describe both the free software software and the later open source software movement as anything other than political.
You think allowing weird slavery shit in the community will bring more people in?
Having open source literally is political as it stands opposed to close and proprietary code. You can't have it without being political.
Free and non-free code is more about a economic system and maybe a legal system.
But I don't think it has anything to do with the political system.
It is. Let's look at activitypub, a protocol that allows decentralised services to talk with each other. The protocol is auditable, viewable and modifiable by everyone aka open source.
Everyone can participate in it's development.
Closed source on the other hand is not auditable, viewable or modifiable unless you are part of the organisation. Only those part of the organisation can participate in it's development.
Furthermore the open source nature allows to fork by anyone for whatever reasons. Closed source doesn't allow that.
Changes in a source can affect everyone involved. In close source you can only assume what changed, see YouTube as a recent example or algorithm changes on Twitter or not being able to use your favourite software.
So yes open source is political.
@DmMacniel @melroy It is only political because politicians are conflicted: they make money joining boards of walled-garden firms, and owning stocks in such entities. Take that away and open source would be a no-brainer.
#opensource #4opens
Well we are sadly far from the communist utopia though.
I know. I will get down voted for this soo much.
It's just the world needs more love. Less anger.
Ow lol even a message with more love into world get down votes.
Lol even this message get down voted. People, come on. Let's have some more love in the world!