Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #685172 > unrolled thread

Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-06 18:06 -0500
    Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) - 2025-02-07 04:40 +0000
      Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-07 07:46 +0000
        Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) - 2025-02-07 14:46 +0000
          Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-07 11:25 -0500
            Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) - 2025-02-07 18:12 +0000
              Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-07 18:26 +0000
          Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-07 18:00 +0000
      Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-07 09:11 -0500
        Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-07 17:47 +0000
          Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-07 20:14 -0500
            Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-08 07:31 +0000
          Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-02-08 01:54 +0000
            Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-08 07:32 +0000
      Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-02-07 08:17 -0700
    Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-07 07:39 +0000
      Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-07 09:13 -0500
        Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-07 17:50 +0000
    Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-07 07:40 +0000
      Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-07 09:14 -0500
        Re: Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-07 17:56 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#685172 — Lunduke: open-source is anti-free speech

<https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-is-anti-free-speech>

Looks like the man has come to a similar realization as I have. It truly 
is sad.

-- 
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#685202

> CrudeSausage wrote:
> https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-is-anti-free-speech
> 
> Looks like the man has come to a similar realization as I have. It truly
> is sad.
> 
> --
> CrudeSausage
> Gab: @CrudeSausage
> Telegram: @CrudeSausage
> Unapologetic paleoconservative


Care to share why you have your opinion? 


This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685208

On 2025-02-07, MummyChunk <mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>> https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-is-anti-free-speech
>> 
>> Looks like the man has come to a similar realization as I have. It truly
>> is sad.
>> 
>> --
>> CrudeSausage
>> Gab: @CrudeSausage
>> Telegram: @CrudeSausage
>> Unapologetic paleoconservative
>
>
> Care to share why you have your opinion? 
>
>
> This is a response to the post seen at:
> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664

I typed in "Micheal Jackson" about four times in the "checker box" and it 
wouldn't let me in, so I won't be trying to follow this link either. What a 
stupid verification system.

Perhaps you could quote the pertinent parts? 

-- 
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy 
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685237

> RonB wrote:
> On 2025-02-07, MummyChunk <mummycullen> wrote:
>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>> https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-is-anti-free-speech
>> 
>> Looks like the man has come to a similar realization as I have. It truly
>> is sad.
>> 
>> --
>> CrudeSausage
>> Gab: @CrudeSausage
>> Telegram: @CrudeSausage
>> Unapologetic paleoconservative
>> 
>> 
>> Care to share why you have your opinion?
>> 
>> 
>> This is a response to the post seen at:
>> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664
> 
> I typed in "Micheal Jackson" about four times in the "checker
box" and it
> wouldn't let me in, so I won't be trying to follow this link either. What a
> stupid verification system.
> 
> Perhaps you could quote the pertinent parts?
> 
> --
> "Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
> what has been invented or made by the forces of good."  J.R.R. Tolkien


Check your spelling 


This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685246

mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is a response to the post seen at:
>>> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664
>> 
>> I typed in "Micheal Jackson" about four times in the "checker
>box" and it
>> wouldn't let me in, so I won't be trying to follow this link either. What a
>> stupid verification system.
>> 
>> Perhaps you could quote the pertinent parts?
>
>Check your spelling 


I spelled it right and it didn't work for me, either.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685268

> Joel wrote:
> mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>> 
>> This is a response to the post seen at:
>> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664
>> 
>> I typed in "Micheal Jackson" about four times in the
"checker
>> box" and it
>> wouldn't let me in, so I won't be trying to follow this link either. What a
>> stupid verification system.
>> 
>> Perhaps you could quote the pertinent parts?
>> 
>> Check your spelling
> 
> 
> I spelled it right and it didn't work for me, either.
> 
> --
> Joel W. Crump
> 
> Amendment XIV
> Section 1.
> 
> [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
> abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
> United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
> life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
> nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
> protection of the laws.
> 
> Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
> liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.



If you look at what he posted, he didn't spell it correctly. 


This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685272

On 2025-02-07, MummyChunk <mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> Joel wrote:
>> mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) wrote:
>>> RonB wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is a response to the post seen at:
>>> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664
>>> 
>>> I typed in "Micheal Jackson" about four times in the
> "checker
>>> box" and it
>>> wouldn't let me in, so I won't be trying to follow this link either. What a
>>> stupid verification system.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps you could quote the pertinent parts?
>>> 
>>> Check your spelling
>> 
>> 
>> I spelled it right and it didn't work for me, either.
>> 
>> --
>> Joel W. Crump
>> 
>> Amendment XIV
>> Section 1.
>> 
>> [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
>> abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>> United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
>> life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
>> nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
>> protection of the laws.
>> 
>> Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
>> liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
>
>
>
> If you look at what he posted, he didn't spell it correctly. 
>
>
> This is a response to the post seen at:
> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664

Okay, I tried it again. It keeps looping back to...

Input Verification Required!

Maybe it doesn't like uBlock Origin? If that's the case, oh well.

-- 
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy 
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685263

On 2025-02-07, MummyChunk <mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>> On 2025-02-07, MummyChunk <mummycullen> wrote:
>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>> https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-is-anti-free-speech
>>> 
>>> Looks like the man has come to a similar realization as I have. It truly
>>> is sad.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> CrudeSausage
>>> Gab: @CrudeSausage
>>> Telegram: @CrudeSausage
>>> Unapologetic paleoconservative
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Care to share why you have your opinion?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This is a response to the post seen at:
>>> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664
>> 
>> I typed in "Micheal Jackson" about four times in the "checker
> box" and it
>> wouldn't let me in, so I won't be trying to follow this link either. What a
>> stupid verification system.
>> 
>> Perhaps you could quote the pertinent parts?
>> 
>> --
>> "Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
>> what has been invented or made by the forces of good."  J.R.R. Tolkien
>
>
> Check your spelling 
>
>
> This is a response to the post seen at:
> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664

No thanks, I already tried "Michael Jackson" (which is what I actually 
used). The spelling error was in my post. If they want people to read their 
forum they shouldn't put up these kinds of barriers. I don't want to waste 
my time with this kind of thing.

-- 
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy 
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685228

On 2025-02-06 11:40 p.m., MummyChunk wrote:
>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>> https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-is-anti-free-speech
>>
>> Looks like the man has come to a similar realization as I have. It truly
>> is sad.
>>
>> -- 
>> CrudeSausage
>> Gab: @CrudeSausage
>> Telegram: @CrudeSausage
>> Unapologetic paleoconservative
> 
> 
> Care to share why you have your opinion?
> 
> This is a response to the post seen at:
> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664

Well, GNOME and Mozilla are emphasizing on DIE practices rather than 
improving their product to a point that both are now looking like 
they're going to go bankrupt. Redhat and IBM have also both expressed a 
desire to prioritize employment for anyone who isn't white and 
heterosexual. Debian has moved in that direction as well and now the 
people behind Arch are stating that right-wing ideas are unwelcome among 
them. Elementary OS had already been pretty clear about their hatred of 
conservatives for years. It seems that meritocracies are of no interest 
in the development of Linux. Since that is becoming the case, I'll just 
use whatever works best.

-- 
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685258

On 2025-02-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2025-02-06 11:40 p.m., MummyChunk wrote:
>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>> https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-is-anti-free-speech
>>>
>>> Looks like the man has come to a similar realization as I have. It truly
>>> is sad.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> CrudeSausage
>>> Gab: @CrudeSausage
>>> Telegram: @CrudeSausage
>>> Unapologetic paleoconservative
>> 
>> 
>> Care to share why you have your opinion?
>> 
>> This is a response to the post seen at:
>> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664
>
> Well, GNOME and Mozilla are emphasizing on DIE practices rather than 
> improving their product to a point that both are now looking like 
> they're going to go bankrupt. Redhat and IBM have also both expressed a 
> desire to prioritize employment for anyone who isn't white and 
> heterosexual. Debian has moved in that direction as well and now the 
> people behind Arch are stating that right-wing ideas are unwelcome among 
> them. Elementary OS had already been pretty clear about their hatred of 
> conservatives for years. It seems that meritocracies are of no interest 
> in the development of Linux. Since that is becoming the case, I'll just 
> use whatever works best.

You keep saying that, but Gnome is an Open Source Project (and so is 
Firefox) so they're not going to go "bankrupt." As for "improving their 
product" the fact that I can still use a real version of uBlock Origin on 
Firefox makes it superior to Chrome and its derivatives now that they've 
moved to Manifest 3 and a more "controlled" environment. 

You've got to quit reading "lunduke" if you're searching for objectivity — 
he obviously has an anti-Linux ax to grind.

-- 
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy 
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685297

On 2025-02-07 12:47 p.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2025-02-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2025-02-06 11:40 p.m., MummyChunk wrote:
>>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>> https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-is-anti-free-speech
>>>>
>>>> Looks like the man has come to a similar realization as I have. It truly
>>>> is sad.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> CrudeSausage
>>>> Gab: @CrudeSausage
>>>> Telegram: @CrudeSausage
>>>> Unapologetic paleoconservative
>>>
>>>
>>> Care to share why you have your opinion?
>>>
>>> This is a response to the post seen at:
>>> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664
>>
>> Well, GNOME and Mozilla are emphasizing on DIE practices rather than
>> improving their product to a point that both are now looking like
>> they're going to go bankrupt. Redhat and IBM have also both expressed a
>> desire to prioritize employment for anyone who isn't white and
>> heterosexual. Debian has moved in that direction as well and now the
>> people behind Arch are stating that right-wing ideas are unwelcome among
>> them. Elementary OS had already been pretty clear about their hatred of
>> conservatives for years. It seems that meritocracies are of no interest
>> in the development of Linux. Since that is becoming the case, I'll just
>> use whatever works best.
> 
> You keep saying that, but Gnome is an Open Source Project (and so is
> Firefox) so they're not going to go "bankrupt." As for "improving their
> product" the fact that I can still use a real version of uBlock Origin on
> Firefox makes it superior to Chrome and its derivatives now that they've
> moved to Manifest 3 and a more "controlled" environment.
> 
> You've got to quit reading "lunduke" if you're searching for objectivity —
> he obviously has an anti-Linux ax to grind.

Actually, he's very much an advocate for Linux. Heck, he was on the 
openSUSE board of directors for a while and even worked on the LibreM 
from Purism. The guys is definitely not open-source, just anti-woke in 
open-source.

-- 
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685321

On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2025-02-07 12:47 p.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2025-02-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-06 11:40 p.m., MummyChunk wrote:
>>>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>> https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-is-anti-free-speech
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like the man has come to a similar realization as I have. It truly
>>>>> is sad.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> CrudeSausage
>>>>> Gab: @CrudeSausage
>>>>> Telegram: @CrudeSausage
>>>>> Unapologetic paleoconservative
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Care to share why you have your opinion?
>>>>
>>>> This is a response to the post seen at:
>>>> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664
>>>
>>> Well, GNOME and Mozilla are emphasizing on DIE practices rather than
>>> improving their product to a point that both are now looking like
>>> they're going to go bankrupt. Redhat and IBM have also both expressed a
>>> desire to prioritize employment for anyone who isn't white and
>>> heterosexual. Debian has moved in that direction as well and now the
>>> people behind Arch are stating that right-wing ideas are unwelcome among
>>> them. Elementary OS had already been pretty clear about their hatred of
>>> conservatives for years. It seems that meritocracies are of no interest
>>> in the development of Linux. Since that is becoming the case, I'll just
>>> use whatever works best.
>> 
>> You keep saying that, but Gnome is an Open Source Project (and so is
>> Firefox) so they're not going to go "bankrupt." As for "improving their
>> product" the fact that I can still use a real version of uBlock Origin on
>> Firefox makes it superior to Chrome and its derivatives now that they've
>> moved to Manifest 3 and a more "controlled" environment.
>> 
>> You've got to quit reading "lunduke" if you're searching for objectivity —
>> he obviously has an anti-Linux ax to grind.
>
> Actually, he's very much an advocate for Linux. Heck, he was on the 
> openSUSE board of directors for a while and even worked on the LibreM 
> from Purism. The guys is definitely not open-source, just anti-woke in 
> open-source.

Okay, but he seems to be in love with "the Linux sky is falling" whenever 
there's any kind of issue with Linux. Like that CUPS issue that was so 
"dangerous" — which turned out to be a huge yawn. And he played it out for 
weeks. Maybe he's just using this kind of stuff as click bait. It's not 
drawing me in.

-- 
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy 
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685306

On 2025-02-07, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2025-02-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2025-02-06 11:40 p.m., MummyChunk wrote:
>>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>> https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-is-anti-free-speech
>>>>
>>>> Looks like the man has come to a similar realization as I have. It truly
>>>> is sad.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> CrudeSausage
>>>> Gab: @CrudeSausage
>>>> Telegram: @CrudeSausage
>>>> Unapologetic paleoconservative
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Care to share why you have your opinion?
>>> 
>>> This is a response to the post seen at:
>>> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664
>>
>> Well, GNOME and Mozilla are emphasizing on DIE practices rather than 
>> improving their product to a point that both are now looking like 
>> they're going to go bankrupt. Redhat and IBM have also both expressed a 
>> desire to prioritize employment for anyone who isn't white and 
>> heterosexual. Debian has moved in that direction as well and now the 
>> people behind Arch are stating that right-wing ideas are unwelcome among 
>> them. Elementary OS had already been pretty clear about their hatred of 
>> conservatives for years. It seems that meritocracies are of no interest 
>> in the development of Linux. Since that is becoming the case, I'll just 
>> use whatever works best.
>
> You keep saying that, but Gnome is an Open Source Project (and so is 
> Firefox) so they're not going to go "bankrupt." As for "improving their 
> product" the fact that I can still use a real version of uBlock Origin on 
> Firefox makes it superior to Chrome and its derivatives now that they've 
> moved to Manifest 3 and a more "controlled" environment. 
>
> You've got to quit reading "lunduke" if you're searching for objectivity — 
> he obviously has an anti-Linux ax to grind.
>

I've never liked Lunduke. To me he was an opportunists playing both
sides of the debate between Linux and other operating systems.
As I have not watched him in a few years maybe things have changed but in the
past he seemed to focus on minor things that maybe most Linux users would
not encounter or if they did, easy work around would exist.
He is interesting but not my cup of whisky.
I'm a MX Linux user running kde.
-- 
pothead

Why did Joe Biden pardon his family?
Read below to learn the reason.
The Biden Crime Family Timeline here:
https://oversight.house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-timeline/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685322

On 2025-02-08, pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
> On 2025-02-07, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2025-02-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-06 11:40 p.m., MummyChunk wrote:
>>>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>> https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-is-anti-free-speech
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like the man has come to a similar realization as I have. It truly
>>>>> is sad.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> CrudeSausage
>>>>> Gab: @CrudeSausage
>>>>> Telegram: @CrudeSausage
>>>>> Unapologetic paleoconservative
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Care to share why you have your opinion?
>>>> 
>>>> This is a response to the post seen at:
>>>> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664
>>>
>>> Well, GNOME and Mozilla are emphasizing on DIE practices rather than 
>>> improving their product to a point that both are now looking like 
>>> they're going to go bankrupt. Redhat and IBM have also both expressed a 
>>> desire to prioritize employment for anyone who isn't white and 
>>> heterosexual. Debian has moved in that direction as well and now the 
>>> people behind Arch are stating that right-wing ideas are unwelcome among 
>>> them. Elementary OS had already been pretty clear about their hatred of 
>>> conservatives for years. It seems that meritocracies are of no interest 
>>> in the development of Linux. Since that is becoming the case, I'll just 
>>> use whatever works best.
>>
>> You keep saying that, but Gnome is an Open Source Project (and so is 
>> Firefox) so they're not going to go "bankrupt." As for "improving their 
>> product" the fact that I can still use a real version of uBlock Origin on 
>> Firefox makes it superior to Chrome and its derivatives now that they've 
>> moved to Manifest 3 and a more "controlled" environment. 
>>
>> You've got to quit reading "lunduke" if you're searching for objectivity — 
>> he obviously has an anti-Linux ax to grind.
>>
>
> I've never liked Lunduke. To me he was an opportunists playing both
> sides of the debate between Linux and other operating systems.
> As I have not watched him in a few years maybe things have changed but in the
> past he seemed to focus on minor things that maybe most Linux users would
> not encounter or if they did, easy work around would exist.
> He is interesting but not my cup of whisky.
> I'm a MX Linux user running kde.

That's my impression. He seems to be self-promoting all the time, usually 
with click bait.

-- 
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy 
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685241

MummyChunk wrote:
>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>> https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-is-anti-free-speech
>>
>> Looks like the man has come to a similar realization as I have. It truly
>> is sad.
>>
>> -- 
>> CrudeSausage
>> Gab: @CrudeSausage
>> Telegram: @CrudeSausage
>> Unapologetic paleoconservative
> 
> 
> Care to share why you have your opinion?
> 
> This is a response to the post seen at:
> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=683345664#683345664

once upon a time , there you go

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685206

On 2025-02-06, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
><https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-is-anti-free-speech>
>
> Looks like the man has come to a similar realization as I have. It truly 
> is sad.

"Open Source" is not an entity. It can't be anti anything. I agree that 
there are too many talking head, Woke drones heading too many open source 
projects, but I'm guessing the majority of open source developers are 
apolitical. There not the ones getting the headlines.

-- 
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy 
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685229

On 2025-02-07 2:39 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2025-02-06, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> <https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-is-anti-free-speech>
>>
>> Looks like the man has come to a similar realization as I have. It truly
>> is sad.
> 
> "Open Source" is not an entity. It can't be anti anything. I agree that
> there are too many talking head, Woke drones heading too many open source
> projects, but I'm guessing the majority of open source developers are
> apolitical. There not the ones getting the headlines.

I'm sure that they're feeling more and more unwelcome with every passing 
day. It would be alright if projects like Haiku were apolitical, but 
even they have made it clear that they don't believe in a meritocracy. 
Whites and heterosexuals have to be suppressed in favour of "the 
minorities" whose populations across the planet are much larger than 
that of the whites.

-- 
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685260

On 2025-02-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2025-02-07 2:39 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2025-02-06, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> <https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-is-anti-free-speech>
>>>
>>> Looks like the man has come to a similar realization as I have. It truly
>>> is sad.
>> 
>> "Open Source" is not an entity. It can't be anti anything. I agree that
>> there are too many talking head, Woke drones heading too many open source
>> projects, but I'm guessing the majority of open source developers are
>> apolitical. There not the ones getting the headlines.
>
> I'm sure that they're feeling more and more unwelcome with every passing 
> day. It would be alright if projects like Haiku were apolitical, but 
> even they have made it clear that they don't believe in a meritocracy. 
> Whites and heterosexuals have to be suppressed in favour of "the 
> minorities" whose populations across the planet are much larger than 
> that of the whites.

Haiku is a tiny project with just a few people involved. Gnu/Linux is huge, 
so trying to shoe-horn everyone into the Woke crap mindset that the more 
outspoken push is a futile exercise.

-- 
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy 
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685207

On 2025-02-06, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
><https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-is-anti-free-speech>
>
> Looks like the man has come to a similar realization as I have. It truly 
> is sad.

As "lunduke" I've had enough of his "the sky is falling" crap. I'm not going 
to bother to follow your links.

-- 
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy 
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685230

On 2025-02-07 2:40 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2025-02-06, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> <https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-is-anti-free-speech>
>>
>> Looks like the man has come to a similar realization as I have. It truly
>> is sad.
> 
> As "lunduke" I've had enough of his "the sky is falling" crap. I'm not going
> to bother to follow your links.

He makes Linux look bad, so he must be ignored or suppressed! Right?

-- 
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web