> If you like strange and unusual descriptions of common things, explained in extreme depth, the Tedium newsletter is a great place to look for those, because it’s what we specialize in. Rather than focusing on viral things, we instead write about things that would never go viral on their own, that need context and storytelling around them to highlight their importance. Sometimes, the best stories haven’t been properly contexualized. There’s room for someone to do that, and that’s where we come in.
I don't think their mission statement covers ongoing internet dramas & cancel campaigns. Rather, this article feels like mission creep, lacking novel insight. For me, the only new info I caught is the author's intimation that the founder of Framework laptops should be canceled.
I’m curious if anyone has heard an explanation for why Omarchy is pronounced “omar chee” instead of “omar key”. To me the word looks like monarchy, hierarchy, anarchy, etc. I’m not sure if words ending in -archy are always pronounced with a hard c but it seems like it.
> But Omarchy is a reminder that we live in a world where software isn’t just software, but the people who make it.
I get people are totally within their rights to ban movies/software/sports, etc. for creators whose beliefs they disagree with. However, software is the people who make it? I rarely, if ever, know the authors who create software or what they believe in.
> Well, dhh considers torrents outdated (I’m not kidding, check the tweet), so it’s only officially being offered as a single download from a Cloudflare server. Which sounds cool until you’re on a weak-ass connection in constant danger of dropping halfway through the download.
That has nothing to do with bittorrent vs http; use a download manager instead of a browser.
DHH wrote a blog post complaining about how there are fewer "native Brits" in London, and then linked to Wikipedia's article about the number of white people in London. He also brought up a march by Tommy Robinson, but framed it as just a couple of exceeding normal guys out for a walk, and not a bunch of nationalists.
It came off as xenophobic and racist, so sponsors pulled funding while others (some quite high profile) refuse to work with DHH. There's a non-zero amount of reading between the lines, so here's the blog post so everyone can decide for themselves:
I love when people label politics they disagree with as “ethical” problems. It really helps mask the underlying lack of thought with an air of moral superiority.
> I love when people label politics they disagree with as “ethical” problems.
This is a disingenious portrayal of what people you disagree with are saying. It is not like someone is calling pro-capitalist or socialist views unethical.
"Politics they disagree with" means racism, homophobia and ableism. There certainly is an argument that each of those is ethically problematic, because each denies some human beings' basic rights to be considered human.
You may well argue that dhh doesn't hold those views, or argue that the community should accept that some members have toxic views and move one. It is best to avoid claiming that racism is just another respectable political opinion.
So as someone that doesn't want to support DHH after what I've learned in this thread, but was interested in checking out omarchy based on some neat videos I've seen... What should I check out instead?
Omarchy is basically an opinionated set of libraries, largely centered around Hyprland tiling window manager, with minor celebrity marketing. I don't see why it's a distro, it may as well be a set of dotfiles.
Try out Hyprland yourself, it's fun and simpler to customize than its i3 ancestor.
Even putting the "ethics" of it aside, I think Omarchy is destined to go the way of LARBS. Many Linux distros are r/unixporn on the outside and a complete trainwreck on the inside. Regolith, Archlabs, Manjaro, dozens of distros have tried the "i3 but it's not like having teeth pulled" gimmick and it never works.
Much like LARBS, if I ever see you using Omarchy I just have to assume you don't know what you're doing. You can install Arch and rice i3wm in literally 10 minutes if your SSD and WiFi is fast enough.
For me, it's not about ricing. I find Omarchy to be an incredibly productive setup, from the launchers for webapps to the focus on TUIs.
I'm conflicted about the drama and still learning more about it, so not ready to draw a conclusion yet. But Omarchy is definitely a very, very fun experience for me.
Granted, I've heavily customized it and am using hy3 for i3-like capabilities, so whatever path out of this for me is likely to i3wm or sway.
And, fwiw, I've been running linux since the late 90s, and most of that as my primary OS (with a decade-ish period of macOS I'd rather forget). I know what I'm doing.
Same here, I have multiple decades of experience running Linux on desktops and servers alike, and Omarchy just saves me time and manages to be productive and fun at the same time.
Personally, I don't feel any moral obligation to investigate the personal views of people who write the software I use. Using software, especially free software, doesn't constitute an endorsement of the authors' views. Before this thread, I was blissfully unaware of this entire silly controversy, since Omarchy doesn't mention any politics anywhere as far as I can tell. If that ever changes, I'll delete it in a heartbeat (regardless of the kind of politics it happens to be), but so far the only people politicizing the issue seem to be its detractors.
It's performative to it's core. In the next release they will probably add a matrix screensaver, burning windows and hack a gibson in the release video.
It’s almost the same with neovim and shell/terminal setup. A lot of people wants blings and are touting the most complicated setup. They balk at reading docs, and when their brittle config fails, blame the software (gnome subreddit).
Saying people who use Omarchy don't know what they're doing feels elitist. If you agree with DHH's opinions it's just fine, some people don't want to fuck with shit, they just want to get to work.
There are zero ethical issues with this Linux distribution. The ethical problem is a group of the most privileged people on the planet have decided that what everybody else thinks is something that they get to approve of. They've also decided that they must make those people submit by any means necessary. If you have a political issue with him, argue him out if it. But you can't argue, because you don't have any real politics, you have the manager's phone number.
Even worse, these people are ethical black holes and superconsumers. They're super-wealthy, and patronize (and work for) the worst businesses on the planet. They constantly talk about minorities, but don't know any who aren't immigrants who are wealthier than they are. They're all gentrifiers, and somehow make that into a civil rights issue: we shall overcome your zoning. Always with their finger in the air telling someone what to think, and that finger stays up when they're saying "this is a private business, we can do what we want!" "Who are you to tell us what we can do with our property!" Woke landlords.
I wish these people would stop pretending like their trendy beliefs and their trendy desires are politics. People are dying. Real politics is still happening, and it has nothing to do with their YIMBY world-citizen aesthetic nonsense. Please get back into soul searching and leave us alone. I wish Bernie never ran.
I'm one of the millions of people wracking my brains trying to psychoanalyze them, desperate for some hint to keep them from wrecking the world while never suffering any consequences within it. I've started to think that a lot of them had very conservative, sheltered upbringings that they couldn't wait to get to college and escape, got internet addicted as a way to study culture outside of their bubbles and pretend to be the master of it from their emergent first moments ("hipsters"), and finally, that they are heavily closeted and trying to use trendy lefty rhetoric (with absolute centrist/libertarian behavior and opinions) as a weird cover to get them into spaces that might give them a chance to act this out.
You don't speak for anybody except each other, and your wealth and the attention people are forced to pay to you because you're rich white men who desperately need to lead crowds out any organized resistance to anything.
Aside from all that, I do not like this distribution and I do not like DHH's taste or aesthetics. I also very much support it because more differently opinionated distributions, as long as they interop and cooperate, just bring more and different people into the FOSS OS fold. I do worry that the kind of herd beasts who celebrity-worshipped DHH for clout (the people who fawn over "highly-opinionated benevolent dictators") are probably part of the same crowd who are lining up to see who can bash him the loudest for more clout.
How many beardo dipshits do we need to write blogs about DHH writing blogs?
It's deeply ironic that you write this whole rant about "they" are trying to speak for everyone. People are allowed to voice their discontent/concern about a dev having notably weird politics. If you're tired of people writing about it don't click links about it.
There is no ethics complication. That is an imaginary problem imagined by those who wish to force their politics on others. Open source should have no politics left or right.
> do you not think open source/free software is about the ethics?
It's not about trying to interfere with projects because you don't like the author's beliefs.
> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
This includes persons and fields that the author considers harmful or distasteful. And forking and redistributing are core rights granted by the license.
Same thing with XLibre.
There are, apparently, people out there who think that their decision to use something that was provided et gratis et libre should depend on the beliefs of the thing's creator, as if doing so should somehow endorse those beliefs or cause them to rub off on the user. I can't understand this line of thought, however. Quite frankly I don't think that even applies to paid proprietary software. My moral intuition doesn't allow for that kind of transfer of guilt, which seems to be what people mean nowadays when they talk about "complicity".
Shouldn't the "no discrimination" part also apply to the community?
How would you feel about a project with an official policy that pull requests from people with a certain skin color will not be accepted - is that still in the spirit of F/LOSS? If a specific maintainer in an otherwise friendly community refuses to merge pull requests from developers with a certain skin color, how should the community handle that?
If the other maintainers fork the project and continue without that one toxic maintainer, are they following the spirit of F/LOSS, or are they suddenly "needlessly introducing politics" and "distracting from development"? If the latter, why would the actions of that one toxic maintainer not fall under the same?
If you notice that your community is rapidly losing core members because they keep getting insulted by that one toxic maintainer, what do you propose one should do? Do you take action, or do you let the project die?
> How would you feel about a project with an official policy that pull requests from people with a certain skin color will not be accepted - is that still in the spirit of F/LOSS?
No, but this is irrelevant to any of the currently discussed situations.
> If the other maintainers fork the project and continue without that one toxic maintainer, are they following the spirit of F/LOSS
To have this argument requires accepting your framing around "toxic maintainers" which is probably not very productive. But of course forking projects to do your own thing is entirely in the spirit.
Regardless, though, that is not what people are objecting to. For example, an XLibre project wiki was defaced with disparaging comments, including by Jordan Petridis (deeply involved with both GNOME and Xorg) (https://github.com/X11Libre/xserver/issues/346#issuecomment-...). This was highly unprofessional and XLibre should not have to deal with it regardless of what you think about the politics of anyone involved.
> No, but this is irrelevant to any of the currently discussed situations.
It's somehow always relevant, because they all pretend to be speaking for black people, or that their situation is exactly as if they were black people. It's unbelievably grating to actual black people. And when black people say it to them, how they feel about actual black people comes out instantly. You see, we're symbols. We represent unfair suffering.
Just like their parents who were trying to be rappers, their grandparents were trying to be "white n-----s" (because having to go to Vietnam made them black, you see), and their great-grandparents were talking in jazz talk (like Biden.) It did nothing for black people.
Every proverb can be justified: in this case "looking a gift horse in the mouth."
The guy's giving away tons of work freely, and people are whining about his views. Instead of complaining about the free download, maybe they should stop paying for his real products? (But that won't happen because they haven't bought anything off him.)
Absolutely not. DHH is someone I will never support, and I like knowing what projects he works on so that I can avoid them. Everything is political, whether we like it or not. Especially OSS.
His views are not just differences in tax policy, I find them grotesque, and I am glad people are aware of who is behind Omarchy and Hyprland so they can make informed decisions about whether to use them or not.
why is Hyprland being thrown in next to Omarchy? They're completely different levels of bad. The lead dev of Hyprland is in trouble for something minor his unpaid discord mod did and he has apologized years ago.
They're automatically a piece of shit too. Their software projects are also banned. Any forges hosting their software: be prepared to be @'d in unkind tweets. Any CPU executing such software is by extension also a bigot.
You might want to pick up a history book because it's kind of just a matter of fact at this point. The only remaining question is whether you think it's a good thing or not.
This is an undeniable fact about American politics. I was never happy with the 14-layer bean dip definitions floating around (they seem to also try to include the definition of "authoritarian") but this one is reasonably concise and accurate to the ideologies of historically fascist movements.
The bar of "populist palingenetic ultranationalism" is fairly objective, and seems to make it clear that this is the ideology behind the "Make America Great Again" movement. By this definition, American politics has been fascist since a President was elected on a fascist-by-definition campaign.
As to whether this DHH person has said any 'vile far-right stuff' I do not know since I don't know the character, am not interested in this distribution - plain Debian + Xmonad does just fine for me - and do not want my operating system to dictate my politics in any way. But... there is always that but, isn't there?
For years, nay decades by now it has been practice to label those who do not toe the Party line and follow whatever diktat handed down from on high on any number of subjects as 'Nazi', 'Fascist', "${identity_group}phobe" (this needs double quotes for expansion to work), to throw bucketfuls of epithets at those who refuse to obey the order to put black squares on their web things, who dare to insist that war X was in fact started by party Y, that a hulking man with a bulge in his pants is in fact just that and not a woman, etcetera.
...and hardly anybody, here or elsewhere in 'polite society' dared to say anything about it for fear of being labelled themselves, here on this site for fear of being greyed out or shadow-banned. So DHH says nasty things? That is quite possible. If it is so he is just like all the others who say nasty things like I described above. He may even aim his remarks at some of the same people, quite possibly so because those who think for themselves are often disliked by those who want to do their thinking for them.
I've been reading the latest few pages of his blog (especially the touchy stuff) and it's opinions largely in line with mainstream conservatism in most of the developed world: not everyone is a Nazi, take pride in your flag and nation, have kids, "woke" / DEI / affirmative action is bad, migration in Europe is a crisis.
These are not taboo or even uncommon topics and many have majority support depending on where you're from (the national flag is less controversial in Canada than the UK; woke is dying faster in the UK than Canada.)
I don't agree with all of it, but I've not seen anything "beyond the pale" - simply someone voicing political opinions in a civilized way. And I'm not sure what else I would expect. My own wife doesn't share all of my political beliefs, yet this is the expectation for people who contribute to FLOSS, and other parts of our lives?
I quite enjoy living in a pluralistic liberal democracy where I can interact with, befriend, and live side by side with people whom see the world differently than I do. And I especially appreciate that this extends even to the strongest topics and religion. People shouldn't avoid code for its creator's beliefs any more than they should boycott a coffee shop because the barista is of a different religion.
For an article so certain about ethics, it ironically undercuts its own ethos: https://tedium.co/what-is-tedium/
> If you like strange and unusual descriptions of common things, explained in extreme depth, the Tedium newsletter is a great place to look for those, because it’s what we specialize in. Rather than focusing on viral things, we instead write about things that would never go viral on their own, that need context and storytelling around them to highlight their importance. Sometimes, the best stories haven’t been properly contexualized. There’s room for someone to do that, and that’s where we come in.
I don't think their mission statement covers ongoing internet dramas & cancel campaigns. Rather, this article feels like mission creep, lacking novel insight. For me, the only new info I caught is the author's intimation that the founder of Framework laptops should be canceled.
I’m curious if anyone has heard an explanation for why Omarchy is pronounced “omar chee” instead of “omar key”. To me the word looks like monarchy, hierarchy, anarchy, etc. I’m not sure if words ending in -archy are always pronounced with a hard c but it seems like it.
My guess is it's based on Arch Linux. Om-arch-y.
How is BitTorrent considered better for a “guy in a cabin with weak internet”?
Bittorrent requires substantially more connections generally.
I think the specific feature he alludes to missing is resumable downloads.
> But Omarchy is a reminder that we live in a world where software isn’t just software, but the people who make it.
I get people are totally within their rights to ban movies/software/sports, etc. for creators whose beliefs they disagree with. However, software is the people who make it? I rarely, if ever, know the authors who create software or what they believe in.
> Well, dhh considers torrents outdated (I’m not kidding, check the tweet), so it’s only officially being offered as a single download from a Cloudflare server. Which sounds cool until you’re on a weak-ass connection in constant danger of dropping halfway through the download.
That has nothing to do with bittorrent vs http; use a download manager instead of a browser.
Huh, I used to use those every day about twenty years ago. But stopped for some reason. Faster connection? Maybe.
In the meantime, wget -C works to resume a download without a fancy program or browser extension.
Could someone please point me to a concise summary of controversy around DHH? I have seen a few references recently, but I am out of the loop.
Why not read the source and decide for yourself? Here's a blog post linked in the article, as a start: https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64
Ah thank you. I had read the article, or so I thought, but stopped too soon.
DHH wrote a blog post complaining about how there are fewer "native Brits" in London, and then linked to Wikipedia's article about the number of white people in London. He also brought up a march by Tommy Robinson, but framed it as just a couple of exceeding normal guys out for a walk, and not a bunch of nationalists.
It came off as xenophobic and racist, so sponsors pulled funding while others (some quite high profile) refuse to work with DHH. There's a non-zero amount of reading between the lines, so here's the blog post so everyone can decide for themselves:
https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64
I love when people label politics they disagree with as “ethical” problems. It really helps mask the underlying lack of thought with an air of moral superiority.
> I love when people label politics they disagree with as “ethical” problems.
This is a disingenious portrayal of what people you disagree with are saying. It is not like someone is calling pro-capitalist or socialist views unethical.
"Politics they disagree with" means racism, homophobia and ableism. There certainly is an argument that each of those is ethically problematic, because each denies some human beings' basic rights to be considered human.
You may well argue that dhh doesn't hold those views, or argue that the community should accept that some members have toxic views and move one. It is best to avoid claiming that racism is just another respectable political opinion.
So as someone that doesn't want to support DHH after what I've learned in this thread, but was interested in checking out omarchy based on some neat videos I've seen... What should I check out instead?
Omarchy is basically an opinionated set of libraries, largely centered around Hyprland tiling window manager, with minor celebrity marketing. I don't see why it's a distro, it may as well be a set of dotfiles.
Try out Hyprland yourself, it's fun and simpler to customize than its i3 ancestor.
Omarchy is really just some packages and defaults, you can assemble yourself. (It was not a beginner friendly distro to begin with)
Even putting the "ethics" of it aside, I think Omarchy is destined to go the way of LARBS. Many Linux distros are r/unixporn on the outside and a complete trainwreck on the inside. Regolith, Archlabs, Manjaro, dozens of distros have tried the "i3 but it's not like having teeth pulled" gimmick and it never works.
Much like LARBS, if I ever see you using Omarchy I just have to assume you don't know what you're doing. You can install Arch and rice i3wm in literally 10 minutes if your SSD and WiFi is fast enough.
For me, it's not about ricing. I find Omarchy to be an incredibly productive setup, from the launchers for webapps to the focus on TUIs.
I'm conflicted about the drama and still learning more about it, so not ready to draw a conclusion yet. But Omarchy is definitely a very, very fun experience for me.
Granted, I've heavily customized it and am using hy3 for i3-like capabilities, so whatever path out of this for me is likely to i3wm or sway.
And, fwiw, I've been running linux since the late 90s, and most of that as my primary OS (with a decade-ish period of macOS I'd rather forget). I know what I'm doing.
Same here, I have multiple decades of experience running Linux on desktops and servers alike, and Omarchy just saves me time and manages to be productive and fun at the same time.
Personally, I don't feel any moral obligation to investigate the personal views of people who write the software I use. Using software, especially free software, doesn't constitute an endorsement of the authors' views. Before this thread, I was blissfully unaware of this entire silly controversy, since Omarchy doesn't mention any politics anywhere as far as I can tell. If that ever changes, I'll delete it in a heartbeat (regardless of the kind of politics it happens to be), but so far the only people politicizing the issue seem to be its detractors.
It's performative to it's core. In the next release they will probably add a matrix screensaver, burning windows and hack a gibson in the release video.
Nerds having fun playing around sounds really terrible. To the guillotine.
you do realize it already comes with a matrix screensaver, right?
It’s almost the same with neovim and shell/terminal setup. A lot of people wants blings and are touting the most complicated setup. They balk at reading docs, and when their brittle config fails, blame the software (gnome subreddit).
Saying people who use Omarchy don't know what they're doing feels elitist. If you agree with DHH's opinions it's just fine, some people don't want to fuck with shit, they just want to get to work.
There are zero ethical issues with this Linux distribution. The ethical problem is a group of the most privileged people on the planet have decided that what everybody else thinks is something that they get to approve of. They've also decided that they must make those people submit by any means necessary. If you have a political issue with him, argue him out if it. But you can't argue, because you don't have any real politics, you have the manager's phone number.
Even worse, these people are ethical black holes and superconsumers. They're super-wealthy, and patronize (and work for) the worst businesses on the planet. They constantly talk about minorities, but don't know any who aren't immigrants who are wealthier than they are. They're all gentrifiers, and somehow make that into a civil rights issue: we shall overcome your zoning. Always with their finger in the air telling someone what to think, and that finger stays up when they're saying "this is a private business, we can do what we want!" "Who are you to tell us what we can do with our property!" Woke landlords.
I wish these people would stop pretending like their trendy beliefs and their trendy desires are politics. People are dying. Real politics is still happening, and it has nothing to do with their YIMBY world-citizen aesthetic nonsense. Please get back into soul searching and leave us alone. I wish Bernie never ran.
I'm one of the millions of people wracking my brains trying to psychoanalyze them, desperate for some hint to keep them from wrecking the world while never suffering any consequences within it. I've started to think that a lot of them had very conservative, sheltered upbringings that they couldn't wait to get to college and escape, got internet addicted as a way to study culture outside of their bubbles and pretend to be the master of it from their emergent first moments ("hipsters"), and finally, that they are heavily closeted and trying to use trendy lefty rhetoric (with absolute centrist/libertarian behavior and opinions) as a weird cover to get them into spaces that might give them a chance to act this out.
You don't speak for anybody except each other, and your wealth and the attention people are forced to pay to you because you're rich white men who desperately need to lead crowds out any organized resistance to anything.
Aside from all that, I do not like this distribution and I do not like DHH's taste or aesthetics. I also very much support it because more differently opinionated distributions, as long as they interop and cooperate, just bring more and different people into the FOSS OS fold. I do worry that the kind of herd beasts who celebrity-worshipped DHH for clout (the people who fawn over "highly-opinionated benevolent dictators") are probably part of the same crowd who are lining up to see who can bash him the loudest for more clout.
How many beardo dipshits do we need to write blogs about DHH writing blogs?
It's deeply ironic that you write this whole rant about "they" are trying to speak for everyone. People are allowed to voice their discontent/concern about a dev having notably weird politics. If you're tired of people writing about it don't click links about it.
There is no ethics complication. That is an imaginary problem imagined by those who wish to force their politics on others. Open source should have no politics left or right.
this makes no sense
and even on a basic level, do you not think open source/free software is about the ethics?
> do you not think open source/free software is about the ethics?
It's not about trying to interfere with projects because you don't like the author's beliefs.
> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
This includes persons and fields that the author considers harmful or distasteful. And forking and redistributing are core rights granted by the license.
Same thing with XLibre.
There are, apparently, people out there who think that their decision to use something that was provided et gratis et libre should depend on the beliefs of the thing's creator, as if doing so should somehow endorse those beliefs or cause them to rub off on the user. I can't understand this line of thought, however. Quite frankly I don't think that even applies to paid proprietary software. My moral intuition doesn't allow for that kind of transfer of guilt, which seems to be what people mean nowadays when they talk about "complicity".
Shouldn't the "no discrimination" part also apply to the community?
How would you feel about a project with an official policy that pull requests from people with a certain skin color will not be accepted - is that still in the spirit of F/LOSS? If a specific maintainer in an otherwise friendly community refuses to merge pull requests from developers with a certain skin color, how should the community handle that?
If the other maintainers fork the project and continue without that one toxic maintainer, are they following the spirit of F/LOSS, or are they suddenly "needlessly introducing politics" and "distracting from development"? If the latter, why would the actions of that one toxic maintainer not fall under the same?
If you notice that your community is rapidly losing core members because they keep getting insulted by that one toxic maintainer, what do you propose one should do? Do you take action, or do you let the project die?
> How would you feel about a project with an official policy that pull requests from people with a certain skin color will not be accepted - is that still in the spirit of F/LOSS?
No, but this is irrelevant to any of the currently discussed situations.
> If the other maintainers fork the project and continue without that one toxic maintainer, are they following the spirit of F/LOSS
To have this argument requires accepting your framing around "toxic maintainers" which is probably not very productive. But of course forking projects to do your own thing is entirely in the spirit.
Regardless, though, that is not what people are objecting to. For example, an XLibre project wiki was defaced with disparaging comments, including by Jordan Petridis (deeply involved with both GNOME and Xorg) (https://github.com/X11Libre/xserver/issues/346#issuecomment-...). This was highly unprofessional and XLibre should not have to deal with it regardless of what you think about the politics of anyone involved.
> No, but this is irrelevant to any of the currently discussed situations.
It's somehow always relevant, because they all pretend to be speaking for black people, or that their situation is exactly as if they were black people. It's unbelievably grating to actual black people. And when black people say it to them, how they feel about actual black people comes out instantly. You see, we're symbols. We represent unfair suffering.
Just like their parents who were trying to be rappers, their grandparents were trying to be "white n-----s" (because having to go to Vietnam made them black, you see), and their great-grandparents were talking in jazz talk (like Biden.) It did nothing for black people.
This is S-tier rage bait, I commend you.
Cognitive dissonance creates pain, pain creates anger.
[flagged]
Please don't use patronising names against fellow community members on HN.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is like people suddenly getting mad at the band Rage Against the Machine for being political after listening to them for years
Every proverb can be justified: in this case "looking a gift horse in the mouth."
The guy's giving away tons of work freely, and people are whining about his views. Instead of complaining about the free download, maybe they should stop paying for his real products? (But that won't happen because they haven't bought anything off him.)
Absolutely not. DHH is someone I will never support, and I like knowing what projects he works on so that I can avoid them. Everything is political, whether we like it or not. Especially OSS.
His views are not just differences in tax policy, I find them grotesque, and I am glad people are aware of who is behind Omarchy and Hyprland so they can make informed decisions about whether to use them or not.
why is Hyprland being thrown in next to Omarchy? They're completely different levels of bad. The lead dev of Hyprland is in trouble for something minor his unpaid discord mod did and he has apologized years ago.
So what happens if someone is "informed" but chooses to use this software anyways?
They're automatically a piece of shit too. Their software projects are also banned. Any forges hosting their software: be prepared to be @'d in unkind tweets. Any CPU executing such software is by extension also a bigot.
A CPU can be a bigot?
If one is mentally ill, a CPU can certainly appear to be a bigot.
Would you mind elaborating, for those of us uninformed.
https://drewdevault.com/2025/09/24/2025-09-24-Cloudflare-and...
> US politics has been pretty fascist lately.
It's gonna be a waste of time for anyone who doesn't already agree with this statement to continue past this first sentence.
You might want to pick up a history book because it's kind of just a matter of fact at this point. The only remaining question is whether you think it's a good thing or not.
> fascist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenetic_ultranationalismThis is an undeniable fact about American politics. I was never happy with the 14-layer bean dip definitions floating around (they seem to also try to include the definition of "authoritarian") but this one is reasonably concise and accurate to the ideologies of historically fascist movements.
The bar of "populist palingenetic ultranationalism" is fairly objective, and seems to make it clear that this is the ideology behind the "Make America Great Again" movement. By this definition, American politics has been fascist since a President was elected on a fascist-by-definition campaign.
It's never a waste of time to consider an alternative viewpoint.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Have you got some examples? Because it seems like people can on cherry pick things that when reading his blog turn out to be not true.
https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64
This is a slightly more lucid version of what most pensioners say. Should everyone over 70 get cancelled?
As to whether this DHH person has said any 'vile far-right stuff' I do not know since I don't know the character, am not interested in this distribution - plain Debian + Xmonad does just fine for me - and do not want my operating system to dictate my politics in any way. But... there is always that but, isn't there?
For years, nay decades by now it has been practice to label those who do not toe the Party line and follow whatever diktat handed down from on high on any number of subjects as 'Nazi', 'Fascist', "${identity_group}phobe" (this needs double quotes for expansion to work), to throw bucketfuls of epithets at those who refuse to obey the order to put black squares on their web things, who dare to insist that war X was in fact started by party Y, that a hulking man with a bulge in his pants is in fact just that and not a woman, etcetera.
...and hardly anybody, here or elsewhere in 'polite society' dared to say anything about it for fear of being labelled themselves, here on this site for fear of being greyed out or shadow-banned. So DHH says nasty things? That is quite possible. If it is so he is just like all the others who say nasty things like I described above. He may even aim his remarks at some of the same people, quite possibly so because those who think for themselves are often disliked by those who want to do their thinking for them.
Think for yourself, don't leave that to others.
I've been reading the latest few pages of his blog (especially the touchy stuff) and it's opinions largely in line with mainstream conservatism in most of the developed world: not everyone is a Nazi, take pride in your flag and nation, have kids, "woke" / DEI / affirmative action is bad, migration in Europe is a crisis.
These are not taboo or even uncommon topics and many have majority support depending on where you're from (the national flag is less controversial in Canada than the UK; woke is dying faster in the UK than Canada.)
I don't agree with all of it, but I've not seen anything "beyond the pale" - simply someone voicing political opinions in a civilized way. And I'm not sure what else I would expect. My own wife doesn't share all of my political beliefs, yet this is the expectation for people who contribute to FLOSS, and other parts of our lives?
I quite enjoy living in a pluralistic liberal democracy where I can interact with, befriend, and live side by side with people whom see the world differently than I do. And I especially appreciate that this extends even to the strongest topics and religion. People shouldn't avoid code for its creator's beliefs any more than they should boycott a coffee shop because the barista is of a different religion.
Read his blog, thought for myself, he's said vile stuff. Not sure where all this "party line" stuff is coming from.
[dead]