this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2025

38 points (75.7% liked)

Linux

9670 readers

460 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

Fireship’s latest vid spreading the Linux desktop to 500k+ viewers (youtu.be)

submitted 1 week ago by otto@programming.dev to c/linux@programming.dev

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Awesome to see Omarchy getting more visibility! Fireship’s vid spreading the Linux desktop to 500k+ viewers is huge!

I don't use this distro myself, but I still cheer for anything that helps motivate Windows users to make the switch.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de 28 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

This issue represents all you need to know about omarchy.
There is also this:

DHH proudly advertises that the main branch of their repository is called master instead of main, to own the libs or something.

[–] herseycokguzelolacak@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This is a madeup controversy over something nonsensical. Call your main branch whatever you want. It does not matter.

[–] expr@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

This is dumb. The switch to main was stupid to begin with and served no actual purpose.

There are much more legitimate reasons to call him out as a fascist.

[–] maus@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Remind me, what problem does calling it "Main" solve?

[–] e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What does switching from the default name 'main' back to master achieve; and why are they advertising this on xitter? On an unrelated note, do you know what a dog whistle is?

[–] maus@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It doesn't really matter what they call it, does it? Just like changing the name to "main" didn't achieve anything.

Words have multiple definitions. The definition that git's usage is based on is:

an original movie, recording, or document from which copies can be made. "the master tape" synonyms: original, archetype, prototype

This shouldn't have been "problematic" either way. It's just all virtue signals. We aren't rushing to rename Master Degrees are we?

[–] unknowing8343@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think main actually makes more sense. Talking about archetype, prototypes, "original"... Makes no sense in branch development.

Just call it main. This will make sense for any kind of development.

[–] expr@programming.dev -2 points 1 week ago

The switch was pointless and broke a lot of scripts. It was just dumb, through and through.

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

is that really the biggest problem of the world right now?

[–] e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Cunts like DHH are trying to turn Linux into yet another nazibar and you are questioning me on calling it out?

[+] melroy@kbin.melroy.org -12 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I just rather want to have open-source software separate from politics if you don't mind.

EDIT: And before people saying I'm a nazi or something.. I'm not.

[–] e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 1 week ago

I do in fact mind as non-political is usually just code for "lets be horrible to women and minorities, and if you say anything you are being political"; besides I don't think you could describe both the free software software and the later open source software movement as anything other than political.

[–] HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 week ago

You think allowing weird slavery shit in the community will bring more people in?

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Having open source literally is political as it stands opposed to close and proprietary code. You can't have it without being political.

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Free and non-free code is more about a economic system and maybe a legal system.

But I don't think it has anything to do with the political system.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 0 points 1 week ago

It is. Let's look at activitypub, a protocol that allows decentralised services to talk with each other. The protocol is auditable, viewable and modifiable by everyone aka open source.

Everyone can participate in it's development.

Closed source on the other hand is not auditable, viewable or modifiable unless you are part of the organisation. Only those part of the organisation can participate in it's development.

Furthermore the open source nature allows to fork by anyone for whatever reasons. Closed source doesn't allow that.

Changes in a source can affect everyone involved. In close source you can only assume what changed, see YouTube as a recent example or algorithm changes on Twitter or not being able to use your favourite software.

So yes open source is political.

[–] khleedril@cyberplace.social -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

@DmMacniel @melroy It is only political because politicians are conflicted: they make money joining boards of walled-garden firms, and owning stocks in such entities. Take that away and open source would be a no-brainer.

#opensource #4opens

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago

Well we are sadly far from the communist utopia though.