I think a woman's right to choose is very important,
Choose what Linus? What are they choosing to do? Be honest now
The second amendment quip is bunk because you clearly have never picked up a history book.
I don’t care how a faggot chooses to dress, I just don’t want it around me, my business, or anywhere near children. Want to buy a business and make it an adult cabaret, then go right for it, the second you try to force me to watch you dressed in dildos in public is when we have a problem.
You’re right Linus you’re a disgrace to the human race because you can’t even define basic biological realities, historical realities, and push fags in dresses on the public because hedonism matters more to you than human progress.
Also what even is a "woman" huh? If males who mutilate themselves can be women, or men who just cosplay as women count, then what are you even virtue signaling over.
It ends up being "I believe anyone who chooses anything" well I'm certain these people would not like if they embrace themselves as males, white, christian, etc.
Shouldn't be surprising. In that infamous letter he wrote a few years ago when he said he was going to stop being "anti-PC" his justification for doing so was that was now a "right-wing dog whistle" he didn't wish to be associated with.
Didn't this guy get chased out of his own field by a cabal of feminists conspiring against him? Like didn't he have to have witnesses with him at all times to guard against a conspiracy to me-too him? How does he not realize... whatever. Horses and water I suppose.
You can't really gatekeep something where both the majority and most of the foundation was built on this exact type of behavior and belief.
This is what atheism is, anything else is the deviation from the norm. And you can't gatekeep from that position any more than you can be a "one of the good one" liberals who think feminism and BLM and all that is good if we just "remove the crazy ones."
I wouldn't say those behaviours are foundational to atheism, atheism's foundations are pretty simple and not really enough alone to form any unified identity around.
Rather those behaviours being associated with atheism are the more the result of successful coopting and gatekeeping many years ago of the atheist-as-an-identity, such that other people who have no sincere religious beliefs and would technically be atheists shy away from the label because they want no part of that group's bullshit.
That's why agnostic became a thing, even though saying "I maybe believe in a god" is like saying you have no idea what's going on in your own head. People just wanted a way to say "I don't believe in God, but I'm not a pretentious cunt about it".
atheism's foundations are pretty simple and not really enough alone to form any unified identity around.
They say the same thing about Antifa and BLM too.
Rather those behaviours being associated with atheism are the more the result of successful coopting and gatekeeping many years ago of the atheist-as-an-identity
That's what every feminist, Liberal, Leftist and every other group we criticize says when called out too.
Atheism doesn't get to be an exception just because people here are personally part of the group.
The thing is, not all but most people need some kind of "identity" or sense of belonging. If you remove one of the strongest sources of cultural identity people have (religion) you're going to need to replace it with something else. Hence atheism becoming an identity (or psuedo-religion) is a natural consequence of the philosophy, especially if atheists socialize together.
That's why agnostic became a thing, even though saying "I maybe believe in a god" is like saying you have no idea what's going on in your own head.
This is ridiculous. Atheism is specifically rejection. Agnostic is the only sane default position if you have no specific belief in a deity. It didn't "become a thing". You don't have to have an opinion on everything. The fact that everyone feels like they have to have an opinion on everything is one of the sicknesses of the day. Someone answering "Do you think there's a god?" with "🤷♂️" doesn't mean they're confused or not sure what they believe. It's simply not in our realm of knowing.
You can't not know if you believe in something, either you do or you don't. Belief isn't just some opinion you have, it's a mental state, and the options are a binary yes/no.
You can be unwilling to talk about it or not believe but have no problem with other people believing because you're not that invested in it. That's what made people suddenly flock to agnostic a few years after atheism became synonymous with also being an asshole to people who do believe. I.E. "I don't believe, but I'm not a pretentious cunt about it"
And yes people need an identity. But atheism in a literal sense has nothing to base an identity on, it's a negative, it's the lack of belief in a supernatural god, you can't base an identity on an empty space. That's why atheism as a primary identity label wasn't about not believing, it was about being an antagonist to those who do believe. The two aren't intrinsically linked but the ones who chose to make their identity about it were all the latter because it gave them an actual unifying purpose, the former just didn't care and made their identity about being a NASCAR fan or their career, something tangible.
Frankly the biggest loss of people's foundational identities in the last few generations hasn't even been religion, that had already waned considerably and been replaced with nationalism and patriotism as the dominant identity of the majority, with the United States being one of the few western entities where religion and patriotism became more of an equitable symbiosis rather than replacement. But since WW2 national identities have been on death row, and not even the cold war or a war on terror managed the reverse that verdict. When that happened with only globalist consumption and weird commie brainwashing being offered as alternatives was the real start of the breakdown.
The issue atheists on the right (which until quite recently I would have considered myself) have to contend with is something like 80% of atheists consider themselves "far left" or "progressive" in their politics, with most of the remaining 20% considering themselves "center left". Right-wing atheists, though they do exist (eg. JF. Gariepy), are essentially a rounding error.
Which means that any atheist gatekeeping which might occur would almost certainly work against the right.
Then I'm confused as to what sort of "gatekeeping" you're doing as an extreme minority in a group. The concept isn't "owned" by the left, but all the socio-political power is.
I always like the "those words don't mean anything, you couldn't even define it!" cope. I'm fairly certain anyone who uses them could. They might need a moment to configure their thoughts, but they could within a very short frame.
But like all atheists and "woke commies" they live on Debate Club logic where if you can't instantly answer every possible prompt they have, they win.
Also Torvalds has never been an ally, or even a "good person." His status as a hero has always been propped up by people associating his work as some Libertarian Freedom Dream with him as a person and pushing all their ideals onto him.
I can see that "argument" (aka irrelevant deflection) when it comes to terms like cultural Marxist, but defining "woke" or "communist" in the ways they're used in common parlance is pretty basic. Plus, these people can't even define woman and they demand definitions from us? Lmao.
How would you describe it? To me it's a mixture of fixation on identity politics (especially whatever Current Thing happens to be), virtue signaling and pushing of policy based around feelings, not results.
I'd describe it as the end point of Intersectionality, wherein all aspects of life are now political and must be made to ascribe to the political goals of the Intersectional Ideology.
The important thing when these people ask you to describe it is to avoid vague phrases like "policy based around feelings" because it just begins a rabbit hole of them asking you to either keep describing it more or simply not accepting it because they agree with these vague "feel good" ideas.
Would you describe intersectionality as being distinct from identity politics? If intersectionality is "it's not just a feminist problem, but a black, lesbian, feminist <insert other group identity> problem".
I also guess vicitimhood and inversion of the social hierarchy are also cornerstones of woke.
avoid vague phrases like "policy based around feelings"
Back when I was still a shitlib, The way I looked at it was that intersectionality was a method of scoring/ranking individuals for privilege/oppression based on a number of attributes (eg. race, sex, sexual orientation, etc...).
Then identity politics was the value judgement of, once you have this raking, how to you allocate resources and extract taxes on the basis of this ranking?
I do not know if that was an accepted way of distinguishing between the two or if that was just my own personal way of "polishing the turd" to make sense of nonsensical ideas.
I think Identity Politics is probably the same in actuality, but the phrasing of it that way has a worse connotation. Because Identity Politics is what its opponents describe it as, Intersectionality is their word for it and how they pushed for it to come to be back in the day. While they don't really use it now, it has a history in their own literature and discussions so its far harder to dismiss outright.
I suppose that depends on what is meant by "stealing." You can't stop someone from copying your code. You can stop them from claiming it as their own proprietary invention. You still have your copyright. You've merely granted a wide-ranging license.
I was an "open source software libertarian from 20 years ago" and am still here and not a tranny, though I accept I'm probably in the extreme minority of that cohort.
Open source is more important for our side of things than it ever was. Consider that a lot of us on this side of things are on the older side and more used to/able to work with more constrained resources than are available with modern tech. Perhaps we don't have the unlimited resources our adversary has, but we know better how to work with/make best use of limited resources.
He wasn't really brainwashed. Torvalds has always been a pissy little bitch at heart, of course he's gonna sign up for a political movement that gives him even more leeway to be a pissy little bitch.
Honestly Stallman was the open source guru to look up to, if anyone ever was. He's a crazy nut and also Le Atheist but at least he has reasoned principles and argues them effectively.
Torvalds is a garden variety midwit redditor. In another place and time he would be shaming people who do not support the local High Priest or the King.
Stallman, the autist he is, opposes "they" as an epicene, but endorses "per" and "pers" as gender-neutral pronouns. He's also got proto-woke ideas on branding, in the sense that artificial or pointless divisions must be presented and accommodated. His argumentation is indeed very robust and honest, but often with a few very flawed premises.
I've got nothing personal against him, but instead cliquish SV grifters who upheld him as principled, but turned on him or went silent when he wound up in the Feminazis' cross-hairs.
Of the top of my head, Greenspun, Palmer Luckey, Brendan Eich, and Carmack are examples of successful conservative/right-libertarian engineer-entrepreneurs.
Even before the cancel-cult broke him, he was infatuated with Barrack because of his emphatic rhetoric. Never trust a European who isn't explicitly anti-left.
Yes being self righteous about having the "correct" good boy opinions (which just happen to exactly agree with every powerful institution) while having no understanding about what dissenters actually believe is what I would define as "woke."
This entire shitshow of a social situation is because people who had power or social capital a decade or more ago were too cowardly or stupid to oppose the social justice cult and instead appeased it, and the tyrants backing it, into power.
Literally none of the living old guard deserve any respect because they failed abysmally at their responsibility to care for the society they inherited. So I am 0% shocked he continued to be a cuck when it counts.
Or we could just not trust apple or Microsoft, and actually feel it necessary to have some degree of control over our computers.
The problem, as it often is, is people lacking a personality, and collecting "quirks" in an attempt to make themselves unique and special.
If you use Linux so you can feel special and tout your superiority over others for doing so, you're a faggot.
If you use Linux because you don't feel it's necessary for Microsoft or Apple to dictate how you use a computer, or collect all sorts of data on you, that's perfectly justified.
I use Linux and CalyxOS to resist brazen abuse by Amzn/Goog/MSFT, but indeed it's only some degree of user control. In practice, computers aren't as hackable[1] as they used to be. Any dork who hasn't gone through LFS start-to-finish shouldn't even entertain the thought of computing superiority. Back to my main point, Linux/Unix has a lot of cruft and corporate dependence, the www and mainstream culture have been turned inside-out, and so on.
If it wasn't for the Herculean task of hardware a, maybe a worthy competitor to current desktop triumvirate would have a better shot combating social inertia. Aside from monetary barriers, it's gonna take more than technological ingenuity to overcome our collective spiritual shortcoming.
The essay focuses on a very niche subsection of our population, but the point holds when it comes to making good things (I'm in partial agreement with these guys) others want to use.
We should have forked Linux entirely while blocking this bastard from stealing our code YEARS ago, guess he is going to the big list of undesirables to exterminate.
In old, related news, git (the original command line tool) following in github's footsteps in depreciating "master" in favor of "main".; this change wasn't even popular amongst the HN crowd (except for that self-aggrandizing first comment branch). If this was 1990-2007, Linus and co. would have loudly protested this as corporate and political interference.
Only to a point. Any position of ethics that a person can "reason" themselves into is one they will "reason" themselves out of when they get angry/hungry/desperate/arrogant enough. And nobody ever martyred themselves for it.
It's the classic "genius in one specific area, moron everywhere else" syndrome.
Much like how Byuu created an incredibly accurate emulator but was a psycho tranny in real life, Linus' works and personal life need to be taken separately.
Choose what Linus? What are they choosing to do? Be honest now
The second amendment quip is bunk because you clearly have never picked up a history book.
I don’t care how a faggot chooses to dress, I just don’t want it around me, my business, or anywhere near children. Want to buy a business and make it an adult cabaret, then go right for it, the second you try to force me to watch you dressed in dildos in public is when we have a problem.
You’re right Linus you’re a disgrace to the human race because you can’t even define basic biological realities, historical realities, and push fags in dresses on the public because hedonism matters more to you than human progress.
Definitely not choosing to close their legs.
He's just another screen raised weirdo.
Also what even is a "woman" huh? If males who mutilate themselves can be women, or men who just cosplay as women count, then what are you even virtue signaling over.
It ends up being "I believe anyone who chooses anything" well I'm certain these people would not like if they embrace themselves as males, white, christian, etc.
Shouldn't be surprising. In that infamous letter he wrote a few years ago when he said he was going to stop being "anti-PC" his justification for doing so was that was now a "right-wing dog whistle" he didn't wish to be associated with.
Tribe over principles.
Didn't this guy get chased out of his own field by a cabal of feminists conspiring against him? Like didn't he have to have witnesses with him at all times to guard against a conspiracy to me-too him? How does he not realize... whatever. Horses and water I suppose.
He deserves getting eaten by his allies
He had his reeducation struggle session a while back. He lost.
You can't really gatekeep something where both the majority and most of the foundation was built on this exact type of behavior and belief.
This is what atheism is, anything else is the deviation from the norm. And you can't gatekeep from that position any more than you can be a "one of the good one" liberals who think feminism and BLM and all that is good if we just "remove the crazy ones."
I wouldn't say those behaviours are foundational to atheism, atheism's foundations are pretty simple and not really enough alone to form any unified identity around.
Rather those behaviours being associated with atheism are the more the result of successful coopting and gatekeeping many years ago of the atheist-as-an-identity, such that other people who have no sincere religious beliefs and would technically be atheists shy away from the label because they want no part of that group's bullshit.
That's why agnostic became a thing, even though saying "I maybe believe in a god" is like saying you have no idea what's going on in your own head. People just wanted a way to say "I don't believe in God, but I'm not a pretentious cunt about it".
They say the same thing about Antifa and BLM too.
That's what every feminist, Liberal, Leftist and every other group we criticize says when called out too.
Atheism doesn't get to be an exception just because people here are personally part of the group.
The thing is, not all but most people need some kind of "identity" or sense of belonging. If you remove one of the strongest sources of cultural identity people have (religion) you're going to need to replace it with something else. Hence atheism becoming an identity (or psuedo-religion) is a natural consequence of the philosophy, especially if atheists socialize together.
This is ridiculous. Atheism is specifically rejection. Agnostic is the only sane default position if you have no specific belief in a deity. It didn't "become a thing". You don't have to have an opinion on everything. The fact that everyone feels like they have to have an opinion on everything is one of the sicknesses of the day. Someone answering "Do you think there's a god?" with "🤷♂️" doesn't mean they're confused or not sure what they believe. It's simply not in our realm of knowing.
You can't not know if you believe in something, either you do or you don't. Belief isn't just some opinion you have, it's a mental state, and the options are a binary yes/no.
You can be unwilling to talk about it or not believe but have no problem with other people believing because you're not that invested in it. That's what made people suddenly flock to agnostic a few years after atheism became synonymous with also being an asshole to people who do believe. I.E. "I don't believe, but I'm not a pretentious cunt about it"
And yes people need an identity. But atheism in a literal sense has nothing to base an identity on, it's a negative, it's the lack of belief in a supernatural god, you can't base an identity on an empty space. That's why atheism as a primary identity label wasn't about not believing, it was about being an antagonist to those who do believe. The two aren't intrinsically linked but the ones who chose to make their identity about it were all the latter because it gave them an actual unifying purpose, the former just didn't care and made their identity about being a NASCAR fan or their career, something tangible.
Frankly the biggest loss of people's foundational identities in the last few generations hasn't even been religion, that had already waned considerably and been replaced with nationalism and patriotism as the dominant identity of the majority, with the United States being one of the few western entities where religion and patriotism became more of an equitable symbiosis rather than replacement. But since WW2 national identities have been on death row, and not even the cold war or a war on terror managed the reverse that verdict. When that happened with only globalist consumption and weird commie brainwashing being offered as alternatives was the real start of the breakdown.
The issue atheists on the right (which until quite recently I would have considered myself) have to contend with is something like 80% of atheists consider themselves "far left" or "progressive" in their politics, with most of the remaining 20% considering themselves "center left". Right-wing atheists, though they do exist (eg. JF. Gariepy), are essentially a rounding error.
Which means that any atheist gatekeeping which might occur would almost certainly work against the right.
Then I'm confused as to what sort of "gatekeeping" you're doing as an extreme minority in a group. The concept isn't "owned" by the left, but all the socio-political power is.
Never trust anyone who censors their own language.
I always like the "those words don't mean anything, you couldn't even define it!" cope. I'm fairly certain anyone who uses them could. They might need a moment to configure their thoughts, but they could within a very short frame.
But like all atheists and "woke commies" they live on Debate Club logic where if you can't instantly answer every possible prompt they have, they win.
Also Torvalds has never been an ally, or even a "good person." His status as a hero has always been propped up by people associating his work as some Libertarian Freedom Dream with him as a person and pushing all their ideals onto him.
I can see that "argument" (aka irrelevant deflection) when it comes to terms like cultural Marxist, but defining "woke" or "communist" in the ways they're used in common parlance is pretty basic. Plus, these people can't even define woman and they demand definitions from us? Lmao.
Cultural Marxism is a far narrower concept than wokeism.
How would you describe it? To me it's a mixture of fixation on identity politics (especially whatever Current Thing happens to be), virtue signaling and pushing of policy based around feelings, not results.
I'd describe it as the end point of Intersectionality, wherein all aspects of life are now political and must be made to ascribe to the political goals of the Intersectional Ideology.
The important thing when these people ask you to describe it is to avoid vague phrases like "policy based around feelings" because it just begins a rabbit hole of them asking you to either keep describing it more or simply not accepting it because they agree with these vague "feel good" ideas.
Would you describe intersectionality as being distinct from identity politics? If intersectionality is "it's not just a feminist problem, but a black, lesbian, feminist <insert other group identity> problem".
I also guess vicitimhood and inversion of the social hierarchy are also cornerstones of woke.
Great point.
Back when I was still a shitlib, The way I looked at it was that intersectionality was a method of scoring/ranking individuals for privilege/oppression based on a number of attributes (eg. race, sex, sexual orientation, etc...).
Then identity politics was the value judgement of, once you have this raking, how to you allocate resources and extract taxes on the basis of this ranking?
I do not know if that was an accepted way of distinguishing between the two or if that was just my own personal way of "polishing the turd" to make sense of nonsensical ideas.
I think Identity Politics is probably the same in actuality, but the phrasing of it that way has a worse connotation. Because Identity Politics is what its opponents describe it as, Intersectionality is their word for it and how they pushed for it to come to be back in the day. While they don't really use it now, it has a history in their own literature and discussions so its far harder to dismiss outright.
Would it be possible to fork the kernel?
Yes it's free and open source, been done many times. He literally has no power.
All we would have to do is block him from stealing our code.
You can't "block someone from stealing your code" under the GPL, nigga.
I suppose that depends on what is meant by "stealing." You can't stop someone from copying your code. You can stop them from claiming it as their own proprietary invention. You still have your copyright. You've merely granted a wide-ranging license.
Sure, but that's not really a problem a linux kernel fork would be likely to face.
It's weird to talk about "stealing" code. This is downloading a car BS. Anyways, I don't know why I replied. I agree with you :)
Wonder how long before they purge him?
Weird how he didn't continue his Support The Thing list.
"I don't care about mentally ill people making kids confused about the truth of their own biology, and molesting them in that conclusion."
"I don't care that disarming the people doesn't actually protect them from anything. "
"I don't care my tax dollars are used to support censorship, sodomy, eternal war and death, or crushing dissent."
No big surprise, 100% of the open source software libertarians from 20 years ago got bullied into either becoming communists or transitioning.
I was an "open source software libertarian from 20 years ago" and am still here and not a tranny, though I accept I'm probably in the extreme minority of that cohort.
Open source is more important for our side of things than it ever was. Consider that a lot of us on this side of things are on the older side and more used to/able to work with more constrained resources than are available with modern tech. Perhaps we don't have the unlimited resources our adversary has, but we know better how to work with/make best use of limited resources.
What is an open source software libertarian?
Poster child for how you don't have to be stupid to fall for the brainwashing.
Quite the opposite, the woke mind virus is most effective among the intelligent.
Who else could be convinced through argument that up is down, and black is white when the opposite is clearly true?
He wasn't really brainwashed. Torvalds has always been a pissy little bitch at heart, of course he's gonna sign up for a political movement that gives him even more leeway to be a pissy little bitch.
Don't forget his father being an establishment-left EU politician.
TIL
Wait, how do you actually go from homogenous paradise Finland to diversity plagued Portland and not get based?
Did you miss the woke daughter?
I guess so.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Don't meet your heroes.
He was never a hero.
Honestly Stallman was the open source guru to look up to, if anyone ever was. He's a crazy nut and also Le Atheist but at least he has reasoned principles and argues them effectively.
Torvalds is a garden variety midwit redditor. In another place and time he would be shaming people who do not support the local High Priest or the King.
Stallman, the autist he is, opposes "they" as an epicene, but endorses "per" and "pers" as gender-neutral pronouns. He's also got proto-woke ideas on branding, in the sense that artificial or pointless divisions must be presented and accommodated. His argumentation is indeed very robust and honest, but often with a few very flawed premises.
I've got nothing personal against him, but instead cliquish SV grifters who upheld him as principled, but turned on him or went silent when he wound up in the Feminazis' cross-hairs.
Of the top of my head, Greenspun, Palmer Luckey, Brendan Eich, and Carmack are examples of successful conservative/right-libertarian engineer-entrepreneurs.
Even before the cancel-cult broke him, he was infatuated with Barrack because of his emphatic rhetoric. Never trust a European who isn't explicitly anti-left.
Expertise is problem space specific. There may be no better posterboy for that, than Linus.
His arrogance served his expertise, but he's choosing to make it funge to areas he evidently does not understand.
Follow him. Make fun of him. He's out of his element, and just announced that he deserves such treatment.
No, Linus. It doesn't make you "woke".
It makes you an insufferable cunt.
iow nothing new.
Yes being self righteous about having the "correct" good boy opinions (which just happen to exactly agree with every powerful institution) while having no understanding about what dissenters actually believe is what I would define as "woke."
He's a cultist plain and simple. It's amazing how the people in the cult have no self-awareness.
This entire shitshow of a social situation is because people who had power or social capital a decade or more ago were too cowardly or stupid to oppose the social justice cult and instead appeased it, and the tyrants backing it, into power.
Literally none of the living old guard deserve any respect because they failed abysmally at their responsibility to care for the society they inherited. So I am 0% shocked he continued to be a cuck when it counts.
Linus is a leftie retard.
Linus has no connection to anything beyond the material and the now. He is the end result of liberalism, an atomised formless blob of a human.
"If you don't like my politics, don't buy my
bookOpen Source Software."The guy that got chased out of his field by a group of feminists is siding with the feminists. I am surprised and shocked.
I'm actually more impressed he got his wife's boyfriend's permission to make that post.
This is a rant from 2012. Go back to sleep Rip Van Wokel
Yikes. Imagine being like this in 2023.
Anyone that uses linux on PC is gay or tranny.. look up that fat dude from linus tech tips. He is called Emily now lol.
Or we could just not trust apple or Microsoft, and actually feel it necessary to have some degree of control over our computers.
The problem, as it often is, is people lacking a personality, and collecting "quirks" in an attempt to make themselves unique and special.
If you use Linux so you can feel special and tout your superiority over others for doing so, you're a faggot.
If you use Linux because you don't feel it's necessary for Microsoft or Apple to dictate how you use a computer, or collect all sorts of data on you, that's perfectly justified.
I use Linux and CalyxOS to resist brazen abuse by Amzn/Goog/MSFT, but indeed it's only some degree of user control. In practice, computers aren't as hackable[1] as they used to be. Any dork who hasn't gone through LFS start-to-finish shouldn't even entertain the thought of computing superiority. Back to my main point, Linux/Unix has a lot of cruft and corporate dependence, the www and mainstream culture have been turned inside-out, and so on.
If it wasn't for the Herculean task of hardware a, maybe a worthy competitor to current desktop triumvirate would have a better shot combating social inertia. Aside from monetary barriers, it's gonna take more than technological ingenuity to overcome our collective spiritual shortcoming.
One systemd to rule them all
where was this posted?
Looks like MA(P)stodon, maybe?
What a moron
What an enormous faggot.
A lefty isn't allowed to mock or poke fun at being unable to give definitions until they can tell me a non-self-referential definition of "woman".
Sound like you're religious.
Retards like this is why eventhough I'm an atheist, I want all atheists to burn in hell and I will gladly doing burning myself.
A default eurosocialist scandinavian is an obnoxious shitlib? I thought he was BASED
We should have forked Linux entirely while blocking this bastard from stealing our code YEARS ago, guess he is going to the big list of undesirables to exterminate.
Also he banned everyone who mocked them including the guy who got that response in the first place by insulting The New York Times for pushing regressive leftist propaganda.
In old, related news, git (the original command line tool) following in github's footsteps in depreciating "master" in favor of "main".; this change wasn't even popular amongst the HN crowd (except for that self-aggrandizing first comment branch). If this was 1990-2007, Linus and co. would have loudly protested this as corporate and political interference.
https://www.reddit.com/r/git_master/
I'm an atheist and I'm extremely anti-leftist. It's very possible to have ethics without religion.
Only to a point. Any position of ethics that a person can "reason" themselves into is one they will "reason" themselves out of when they get angry/hungry/desperate/arrogant enough. And nobody ever martyred themselves for it.
It's the classic "genius in one specific area, moron everywhere else" syndrome.
Much like how Byuu created an incredibly accurate emulator but was a psycho tranny in real life, Linus' works and personal life need to be taken separately.