People don't have to contribute to OSS. There are plenty of other hobbies. I've realized that years ago when codes of conduct began spreading like cancer in the OSS world.
The productive will just do something else and Linux will wither and die because these useless leftist activists do nothing but "documentation" (i.e. writing codes of conduct and tickets where the complain about variable names) and "community support" (i.e. policing speech).
If they can have tranny linux then we can have our own too.
Not really. It's all dependent on core Linux and the more that gets infected the more unstable the whole ecosystem becomes.
In what I'm sure is completely unrelated news to wokeoids infiltrating open source, there's a brand new OpenSSL exploit in ssh: remote code execution and takes only a few hours of hammering to get lucky enough to cause it to happen.
Honestly. I am not going to windows, Apple is the biggest corpo shill answer and other than that all the smaller ones that exist are not worth going for. Nix I barely ever heard of but I am worried others will join that shit also. When open source started having "community managers" stuff went to shit. Trannies need to be thrown out of tech as a whole.
But is there any OS to abandon it to? Windows has probably always been spyware, but it’s getting increasingly blatant—and also incompetent and DEI—about it. Apple is, of course, a brand entirely built on the hipster/socjus image, so that’s no alternative. Being fed up with one or both of those two big players is usually the impetus to jump to Linux. Where does one jump from Linux?
The big barrier for Linux is already that it’s infamously filled with the need to troubleshoot to make things work with it, and it’s the third-place player. I can’t imagine that an even more obscure OS would be better in that respect.
MS also sponsors Linux projects, controlled competition is how they get around antitrust laws. This DEI shit definitely helps to prevent such projects from ever becoming the golem that turns on its master, since huge conglomerates like MS can literally afford to deal with the consequences of pozz in a way that OSS dev teams can't.
As I understand it each Linux distro is its own operating system, even if they're similar or build off each other. So if one distro gets infested with trannies you can always hop to another. The trick is finding a distro that gate keeps.
They're their own operating system insofar as they are distributed by different organizations with different goals. But they all use some version of the Linux kernel, and are largely collections of lots of other open source software in various combinations based on the distro's goals.
wwwwweeeelllll....we've got a kernel, we've got a shitton of code that's been abandoned, we've got the creators of that code being muscled out... what we need is somebody to push the snowball down the hill and keep it going in the right direction...somebody who will happily laugh in the face of the Cancel Club and show them the door when they bitch...Basically we need a leader with a spine...a common problem with the "Right Wing" of politics these days...
...Shame there isn't a Donald Trump in horn-rimmed glasses to Make the Kernel Great Again, lol.
Next year is totally gonna be the year of the Linux desktop, guys! All that's left to do is ban any contributors who are sexist, racist, bigoted or homophobic and strip out their code, blacklist all distributions that don't use systemd, create a tech support AI that tells users how wrong they are and how easy it is for grandma to write a script to get around driver problems, and promote videos on how gamers don't need Windows because there are more than enough games on Linux!
You can gatekeep just fine while still being open source. Just be restrictive in who you allow to actually work on the project, what you allow to pass through, etc etc. There's generally fuck all invading trannies can do if they're not given any power or influence.
Granted, there might still be a few avenues they could take to cause plenty of headache, but generally that shouldn't be too difficult to safeguard against so long as a project lead doesn't get lax.
So let's game theory that. Admittedly to the worst extent, but let's be real we live in hell.
You have an open source project with publicly available code. You deny entry to a troon.
Said troon copies your publicly available code and goes on media blitz claiming you discriminated against him. Your bank Alex Jones's you and your supporters are largely driven off. Said troon is now the effective owner of the project going forward.
And that's easily doable to you in say, Canada.
I'd you by default don't share code, it's much more difficult to do this to you.
Closed source software companies have a similar problem that leads to their infiltration. Namely any form of ostensible public participation. If something is open to the public you effectively cannot gatekeep because of the thrice cursed CRA.
Until the right re-establishes cultural and legal control, public participation is invariably a negative and a vulnerability.
Alright, I agree, such scenarios are not only plausible, but actively occurring. And you already covered one of the points I was going to bring up, that even with closed source, your company can still be taken over by a board of directors or some such scenario.
I'll also agree that closed source can still be a very effective gatekeeping layer to keep invaders at bay.
And it seems like we're likely actually on the same page, mostly. Where the real cause of the problem is the entire clownworld leftist nightmare that allows trannies to successfully pull this kind of shit off in the first place. Where the media will actively operate as a propaganda mouthpiece for the trannies no matter the situation, and where governments are actively giving them special protections and privileges.
My main contention was with what at first sounded like wide-sweeping condemnation of open source as a concept entirely.
Said troon copies your publicly available code and goes on media blitz claiming you discriminated against him. Your bank Alex Jones's you and your supporters are largely driven off. Said troon is now the effective owner of the project going forward.
So because you can get canceled for wrongthink, then let's blame open source and say that it can't solve anything? I mean in that scenario you could get canceled regardless of what you do. You may as well blame free speech for what happened to Alex Jones.
Ok, I'll agree with you on that, although your original comment seemed to imply a much different argument. If you fear that your property and freedom can be arbitrarily stolen at any moment, then yes, the best thing to do would be to maintain as much privacy and anonymity as possible.
You could technically release your code anonymously too, thus protecting yourself. But if we're assuming that copyrights won't be respected, then your code can still be stolen. On the flip side, consumers are much less likely to trust a program if they can't see how it works, which is pretty important for security. Thus, I would still say it has benefits depending on the situation.
Why would open source be incapable of gatekeeping? The maintainer of a project can simply refuse to accept pull requests or suggestions from contributors they don't like. You can even copyright your code and still have it be considered open source.
Because he fucked up. He either gave some same-level permissions to some retards he couldn't trust, or he created some kind of an outlined community/business setup that actually allows him to be ousted.
At its core, all open source is, is making a project or product's source code available for public use and redistribution. There are of course different open source licenses with different kinds of rules and conditions. And like I already said in another comment, what license is used is totally up to the project lead.
Dude, I'm not saying the bad thing that happened isn't bad. I'm saying you're blaming it on the wrong thing. This type of thing happens to many corporations, as we've already seen. It happens because the founders voluntarily give too much power and trust to the wrong people.
Exactly. Project leads also decide on what licenses they release their code/project under.
Generally, a project's only going to be taken over because the creators/managers of said project allow it to happen. Often through negligence, laziness, passing the project onto others who can't be trusted, and/or out of deliberately capitulation.
it's only because the people who start open source projects to begin with are either spineless or ill-informed about what "community managers" really want (kids to groom). we, here, who know about them, choose to talk about it instead of starting open source projects...
because in the modern digital age they make up a decent chunk of the software world, which gives them cultural reach beyond their budgets, and when the programmers move on to closed source with all they've learned, beyond their scopes. therefore, it is best that we control those, not pedophiles.
it's the same reason that on earth you'd want to publish art, develop games, live in cities, run news stations, be a community manager... on a cold heartless paper all of these things seem like detriments to our fantasy ideals because they're often painful experiences, but they're often painful because we neglected them and they remain painful and harmful to our culture because we keep neglecting them.
one random American, paraphrased: "if our enemy is in the movies, we must be in the movies, if our enemy is in the comic books, we must be in the comic books..."
no, it's about controlling cultural institutions (such as this chunk of the software world) so that people grow up learning our ideals instead of being groomed to want to take it up the ass.
look, don't take this the wrong way, but people like you piss me off: if "take control of things" isn't the right solution, what the fuck is?
Normies don't understand the nature of the enemy. The normie thinks there is an argument to be won or a reasonable compromise that will satisfy everyone then the issue will be put behind them so the work can continue.
The normie doesn't realize that for the Chaos cultists taking control and using the clout/cachet of the project to further their agenda IS their work. The medium is irrelevant, only spreading the virus matters. And along the way the cultists siphon the resources away enriching themselves and their cronies, because cultists won't fight against corruption, and the non-cultists have been purged. Incompetents love the cult because the only thing it demands from them is fealty and no standard of performance.
That makes for an organized coalition of the sadistic, the corrupt, the incompetent, and the deluded against the isolated normal people who just want to be left alone to do something productive.
The goal is conquest of everything. They will never stop because the only sin in their religion is not causing harm to an enemy when one has the power to do so.
It is most important to remember that the fight isn't against ideas. But against the demonically possessed "people" who are acting in the service of Chaos.
Yeah.. not using linux as a desktop OS. No time to spend dozens of hours troubleshooting and looking through distos and repos to find something obscure to fix something lol.
It's always something that you'd expect to just work out of the box too. Linux simply isn't a sufficiently stable environment to be remotely useful as anything other than a lean server.
"We don't like you or anything you've done so we're taking it"
It's right out of their handbook that it's happened so many times, in the exact same way.
Linux is getting Occupy-Wallstreeted. Bit by bit the leftist extremist are taking over and anyone with half a brain abandons the sinking ship.
+NIGGER license
For those who don't know: https://plusnigger.org/
People don't have to contribute to OSS. There are plenty of other hobbies. I've realized that years ago when codes of conduct began spreading like cancer in the OSS world.
The productive will just do something else and Linux will wither and die because these useless leftist activists do nothing but "documentation" (i.e. writing codes of conduct and tickets where the complain about variable names) and "community support" (i.e. policing speech).
Not really. It's all dependent on core Linux and the more that gets infected the more unstable the whole ecosystem becomes.
In what I'm sure is completely unrelated news to wokeoids infiltrating open source, there's a brand new OpenSSL exploit in ssh: remote code execution and takes only a few hours of hammering to get lucky enough to cause it to happen.
Honestly. I am not going to windows, Apple is the biggest corpo shill answer and other than that all the smaller ones that exist are not worth going for. Nix I barely ever heard of but I am worried others will join that shit also. When open source started having "community managers" stuff went to shit. Trannies need to be thrown out of tech as a whole.
Oh I'd go much further than that. The Arabs have the basics figured out.
But is there any OS to abandon it to? Windows has probably always been spyware, but it’s getting increasingly blatant—and also incompetent and DEI—about it. Apple is, of course, a brand entirely built on the hipster/socjus image, so that’s no alternative. Being fed up with one or both of those two big players is usually the impetus to jump to Linux. Where does one jump from Linux?
The big barrier for Linux is already that it’s infamously filled with the need to troubleshoot to make things work with it, and it’s the third-place player. I can’t imagine that an even more obscure OS would be better in that respect.
maybe Terry was onto something with Temple OS
At lease he wasn't a nigger like Linus
Makes you wonder how much Microsoft funding all those DEI events and initiatives played a role.
MS also sponsors Linux projects, controlled competition is how they get around antitrust laws. This DEI shit definitely helps to prevent such projects from ever becoming the golem that turns on its master, since huge conglomerates like MS can literally afford to deal with the consequences of pozz in a way that OSS dev teams can't.
As I understand it each Linux distro is its own operating system, even if they're similar or build off each other. So if one distro gets infested with trannies you can always hop to another. The trick is finding a distro that gate keeps.
They're their own operating system insofar as they are distributed by different organizations with different goals. But they all use some version of the Linux kernel, and are largely collections of lots of other open source software in various combinations based on the distro's goals.
I haven't dived into the legalese, but is there any reason the Kernel itself can't be forked?
Nope. Kernel is open sourced and can be forked just like everything.
The only impediment is institutional inertia.
wwwwweeeelllll....we've got a kernel, we've got a shitton of code that's been abandoned, we've got the creators of that code being muscled out... what we need is somebody to push the snowball down the hill and keep it going in the right direction...somebody who will happily laugh in the face of the Cancel Club and show them the door when they bitch...Basically we need a leader with a spine...a common problem with the "Right Wing" of politics these days...
...Shame there isn't a Donald Trump in horn-rimmed glasses to Make the Kernel Great Again, lol.
One of the BSDs. Though they don't have quite the support as Linux.
People need to make ReactOS a thing.
When Linus abdicated merit for his woke daughter, the writing was on the wall.
There is no peaceful coexistence with communists.
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Next year is totally gonna be the year of the Linux desktop, guys! All that's left to do is ban any contributors who are sexist, racist, bigoted or homophobic and strip out their code, blacklist all distributions that don't use systemd, create a tech support AI that tells users how wrong they are and how easy it is for grandma to write a script to get around driver problems, and promote videos on how gamers don't need Windows because there are more than enough games on Linux!
"open source" is not a solution to a damn thing. It is, by design, a refusal to gatekeep.
I would. Know why? Because the Linux guys are getting kicked out of their own projects by "community managers".
I absolutely would conflate open source with open borders because that's the result in front of us.
You can gatekeep just fine while still being open source. Just be restrictive in who you allow to actually work on the project, what you allow to pass through, etc etc. There's generally fuck all invading trannies can do if they're not given any power or influence.
Granted, there might still be a few avenues they could take to cause plenty of headache, but generally that shouldn't be too difficult to safeguard against so long as a project lead doesn't get lax.
So let's game theory that. Admittedly to the worst extent, but let's be real we live in hell.
You have an open source project with publicly available code. You deny entry to a troon.
Said troon copies your publicly available code and goes on media blitz claiming you discriminated against him. Your bank Alex Jones's you and your supporters are largely driven off. Said troon is now the effective owner of the project going forward.
And that's easily doable to you in say, Canada.
I'd you by default don't share code, it's much more difficult to do this to you.
Closed source software companies have a similar problem that leads to their infiltration. Namely any form of ostensible public participation. If something is open to the public you effectively cannot gatekeep because of the thrice cursed CRA.
Until the right re-establishes cultural and legal control, public participation is invariably a negative and a vulnerability.
Alright, I agree, such scenarios are not only plausible, but actively occurring. And you already covered one of the points I was going to bring up, that even with closed source, your company can still be taken over by a board of directors or some such scenario.
I'll also agree that closed source can still be a very effective gatekeeping layer to keep invaders at bay.
And it seems like we're likely actually on the same page, mostly. Where the real cause of the problem is the entire clownworld leftist nightmare that allows trannies to successfully pull this kind of shit off in the first place. Where the media will actively operate as a propaganda mouthpiece for the trannies no matter the situation, and where governments are actively giving them special protections and privileges.
My main contention was with what at first sounded like wide-sweeping condemnation of open source as a concept entirely.
Yeah that's the crux of my argument here. We're in a situation where we should act like dissidents, because we are.
So because you can get canceled for wrongthink, then let's blame open source and say that it can't solve anything? I mean in that scenario you could get canceled regardless of what you do. You may as well blame free speech for what happened to Alex Jones.
Hardly. Saying that something would work if it wasn't for the leftist infiltrators, is the same as saying it doesn't work.
Because we won't be rid of them until after a continent wide bloodbath.
No. Because you can get cancelled for wrong think, the assumption of theft is close to an inevitability.
Ok, I'll agree with you on that, although your original comment seemed to imply a much different argument. If you fear that your property and freedom can be arbitrarily stolen at any moment, then yes, the best thing to do would be to maintain as much privacy and anonymity as possible.
You could technically release your code anonymously too, thus protecting yourself. But if we're assuming that copyrights won't be respected, then your code can still be stolen. On the flip side, consumers are much less likely to trust a program if they can't see how it works, which is pretty important for security. Thus, I would still say it has benefits depending on the situation.
Does the same thing not happen with closed source projects?
Yes. Hence my reference to gatekeeping. Organizations that don't do it, fail.
However, some forms of organization are inherently incapable of gatekeeping. I'm arguing that open source has this flaw.
Why would open source be incapable of gatekeeping? The maintainer of a project can simply refuse to accept pull requests or suggestions from contributors they don't like. You can even copyright your code and still have it be considered open source.
The founder of project gets kicked off the thing he created, and you're here right now arguing that there isn't anything wrong with this paradigm?
Because he fucked up. He either gave some same-level permissions to some retards he couldn't trust, or he created some kind of an outlined community/business setup that actually allows him to be ousted.
At its core, all open source is, is making a project or product's source code available for public use and redistribution. There are of course different open source licenses with different kinds of rules and conditions. And like I already said in another comment, what license is used is totally up to the project lead.
Dude, I'm not saying the bad thing that happened isn't bad. I'm saying you're blaming it on the wrong thing. This type of thing happens to many corporations, as we've already seen. It happens because the founders voluntarily give too much power and trust to the wrong people.
Exactly. Project leads also decide on what licenses they release their code/project under.
Generally, a project's only going to be taken over because the creators/managers of said project allow it to happen. Often through negligence, laziness, passing the project onto others who can't be trusted, and/or out of deliberately capitulation.
it's only because the people who start open source projects to begin with are either spineless or ill-informed about what "community managers" really want (kids to groom). we, here, who know about them, choose to talk about it instead of starting open source projects...
Why on earth would I start an open source project? Or anyone here for that matter? We have lives and we value our time.
because in the modern digital age they make up a decent chunk of the software world, which gives them cultural reach beyond their budgets, and when the programmers move on to closed source with all they've learned, beyond their scopes. therefore, it is best that we control those, not pedophiles.
it's the same reason that on earth you'd want to publish art, develop games, live in cities, run news stations, be a community manager... on a cold heartless paper all of these things seem like detriments to our fantasy ideals because they're often painful experiences, but they're often painful because we neglected them and they remain painful and harmful to our culture because we keep neglecting them.
one random American, paraphrased: "if our enemy is in the movies, we must be in the movies, if our enemy is in the comic books, we must be in the comic books..."
Oh I see the problem here. You still think this is about persuading anyone.
no, it's about controlling cultural institutions (such as this chunk of the software world) so that people grow up learning our ideals instead of being groomed to want to take it up the ass.
look, don't take this the wrong way, but people like you piss me off: if "take control of things" isn't the right solution, what the fuck is?
I don't understand why they bend the knee to the troons? How do they have power over the founder?
Normies don't understand the nature of the enemy. The normie thinks there is an argument to be won or a reasonable compromise that will satisfy everyone then the issue will be put behind them so the work can continue.
The normie doesn't realize that for the Chaos cultists taking control and using the clout/cachet of the project to further their agenda IS their work. The medium is irrelevant, only spreading the virus matters. And along the way the cultists siphon the resources away enriching themselves and their cronies, because cultists won't fight against corruption, and the non-cultists have been purged. Incompetents love the cult because the only thing it demands from them is fealty and no standard of performance.
That makes for an organized coalition of the sadistic, the corrupt, the incompetent, and the deluded against the isolated normal people who just want to be left alone to do something productive.
Open source, like an open wound.
The goal is conquest of everything. They will never stop because the only sin in their religion is not causing harm to an enemy when one has the power to do so.
It is most important to remember that the fight isn't against ideas. But against the demonically possessed "people" who are acting in the service of Chaos.
I literally don't understand how the founder of an open-source project can get ousted. Can't he just fork and continue after getting a new team?
Whoa, I didn't know Bryan Lunduke resisted the Kool Aid.
Anyone else just laugh at the ever ballooning sizes of these vids?
...am I the only one who noticed the mention of Gizmodo?
somebody really needs to inform him who gizmodo used to be a part of the network of <Significant Glance at board name>
How's Arch holding up?
Was planning on getting back into that when I build a new computer around the end of the year.
Compelled speech huh? Jesus...
Yeah.. not using linux as a desktop OS. No time to spend dozens of hours troubleshooting and looking through distos and repos to find something obscure to fix something lol.
It's always something that you'd expect to just work out of the box too. Linux simply isn't a sufficiently stable environment to be remotely useful as anything other than a lean server.
lololololololol
This retard is definitely using a phone to access the internet.
That phone is running Linux, dumbass.