seriously, what's with people's love of this guy? besides politics, I have not seen anything that suggests engineering prowess from this guy, only "rust bad".
Skilled enough but the main use is as a news resource like this. The guy ion the blog would not have found out about this unless Lunduke posted about it.
People like his technical opinion because they like his politics. That’s the whole grift-influencer economy. If someone is good at one thing (and validates some of my views), then obviously he’s right about everything.
When people feel underrepresented to the point of being bullied they turn to any voice which seems to reflect even a tiny fraction of their frustrations.
There's a real mean spirit in open source lately and a lot of it seems to revolve around political views. There's become this idea that if you and I disagree on politics then it would be impossible for us to write quality software together. It's damaged a lot of good will and cohesion that used to exist within the open source software community.
This used to be about making free software to people so that they weren't abused by corporations. Now it's about pushing agendas and creating exclusion criteria. There's only one group in this scenario that benefits from this outcome.
If you don't like Lunduke then you should recognize the factors that give rise to people like him. Unless your solution is to completely eliminate anyone who disagrees with you then your apparent mindset only furthers the problem.
I wish we could put all this aside and just enjoy open source again.
My existence is not political. If someone doesn't think I should have rights and/or exist and/or thinks I am inferior because of who I am, then no, we cannot write quality software together.
If someone disagrees with me on tax, foreign relations, government services, defense, etc policy, sure, we can disagree and still work together.
What gives rise to people like Lunduke is not a simple thing, and something I don't think society fully understands.
In a way, "someone doesn't think I should have rights and/or exist and/or thinks I am inferior because of who I am" is pretty much the definition of (some kind of) politics. All sides play this game, e.g. many extremists these days argue that the "intolerant" shouldn't have rights or even exist by definition, but then the political football becomes who gets labeled as "intolerant" to begin with.
(And maybe it's true that those on opposite sides cannot work together on good software, but that's easily addressed since all FLOSS licenses include the right to fork and merge changes.)
Not agreeing with a particular description or categorization of you is not the same as thinking that you don't exist and not agreeing that you should have certain non-universal rights based on that categorization or that you should be able to force others in agreeing with your views isn't the same as thinking that you shouldn't have rights period.
When people believe "they are product", bully Open Source developers for not following their demands and got expected response than entities appear that validate their wrongs for views (money).
Lunduke spreads misinformation. That's anti Open Source, anti community.
You can use Xephyr or Xnest to sandbox an untrusted or insecure application within its own X11 instance. This gives you the exact same kind of security property that Wayland happens to enforce out of the box for its clients, except that it need not apply to basic desktop components such as the window manager or the desktop panel. You don't even need Xlibre or anything, this stuff has been around for ages. It's not rocket surgery!
Xephyr or Xnest sandbox break screensharing, global shortkeys.
You've just confirmed obvious. No way to improve security without breaking changes. And you demand mostly nontechnical users to blacklist applications. That's a recipe for disaster.
> Once you enable XLibre namespaces filtering it breaks screensharing, global hotkeys. Obviously. It is breaking change.
Ah, the classic moving of goalposts.
I'll bite: It is far from impossible, and already solved elsewhere: Most applications do not need such functionality.
For those that do, provide mechanisms to request and facilitate access to such functionality when needed. Like portals do for other functionality. And a wrapper to request automatically for e.g. old binaries without source.
API is contract. API grants access to screen content, key presses. Users blame Wayland for breaking this contract. Both Wayland and XLibre namespaces brake it. Lunduke mob unable to reason, claims "moving goalposts". Lunduke mob claims improving security is not needed. Lunduke mod wants Linux desktop to be malware can. They claim security improvements for everyone (like defaults on Android) is corporations taking away their freedom. Lunduke mob unable to comprehend Wayland started by XOrg developers who knew X11 flaws. They unable to be thankful for people bringing security to modern expectations.
Dont present our hypothesis as a hard fact. I actually think it is completely false. Not only I was never interested in his political opinions, and followed him because of his humoristic takes "Linux sucks", and not about Rust or whatever; I actually never encountered a single video before joining his "lunduke journal" where his right-wing views would be visible.
He has made funny videos, it was fun to watch. Its kinda hard to enjoy them now after learning he s dumb as a rock and justifies killings if you are of tje wrong nationality
> (I read a tweet some years ago that Gen. Sherman should have mowed the South like a lawn, with multiple passes.)
Nothing validates this view more than looking at the modern republican party. This is especially blasphemous to say after MLK day, who's life was dedicated to attempting the fix the injustices of the south, and who's death is entirely and inarguably a result of the white supremacist views and actions that were perpetuated, emboldened, and exported by the reconstructionist south (not that the north was innocent, far from it, but the majority of the burden inarguably on the south). At minimum the traitors should have been hanged in public view. The desire to be conciliatory has never been less vindicated -- it's not like the south all the sudden decided to adhere to constitution, they had to be forced to anyhow. It's a nice sentiment, but it should have been left at that.
> the white supremacist views and actions that were perpetuated, emboldened, and exported by the reconstructionist south (not that the north was innocent, far from it, but the majority of the burden inarguably on the south)
Well, the south was the only place where there were any appreciable amounts of nonwhite people. "White supremacy" was just "the way things are" in the north, because they pretty much only had white people.
In 1900, decades after the end of the Civil War, the south was about one-third black; every other region (midwest, northeast, west) were less than 2% black.
Popular history idolizes Dr. King, but without the stick of Malcolm X, King would have been cast aside. Only with both did the movement succeed. An ahistorical false dichotomy. Nonviolence wasn't simply some magic bullet that was magically better than force, it was a political tool that seemed nicer compared to the alternative of force.
> [R]iots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. [...] But at the same time, it is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities [...]. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. [...] [A] riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.
- Dr. MLK.
> India in relation to nonviolence
The Indian case is arguably one of the best cases for violence against a colonizing force. Ghandi brought eyes of the common people towards India and created internal pressures, and additionally functioned as a unifying figure, but without indian revolutionaries nothing would have happened.
> without the stick of Malcolm X, King would have been cast aside
This is very much a supposition. A credible one. But not settled history.
> Nonviolence wasn't simply some magic bullet that was magically better than force, it was a political tool that seemed nicer compared to the alternative of force
Fair enough. And perhaps showing a group of people movitated enough to credibly threaten violence demonstrates their potency as a political bloc. But the value is in showing organisation. Not in the violence per se.
Levying violence as a political tool a dangerous game. If that rhetoric turned to action, the civil-rights movement would have been destroyed. By popular command.
> Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.
I'm on board with the general mindset of this, but in recent years and especially since 2020, I've become less and less convinced that it's actually true. We have seen people effectively rioting in opposition to social justice and progress. There are for instance people who sincerely believe that by being required to get a vaccine they are just as oppressed as a Black person in the 1960s, or even as oppressed as a slave.
They are incorrect. But they believe they are correct, and social justice and progress won't alleviate their misunderstanding nor their willingness to advocate on its behalf.
Having an organization that collectively bargains for the employees would be very useful right about now. I know, I know... unions can be corrupted and next thing you know, it's a legalized mob.
Well, if my choice is that or "upskill myself" and "negotiate", while ignoring the inherent and overwhelming power asymmetry that exists between an employee and the employer, I'll go with the mob; at least they have my back.
Yes I'm being glib, but there's also some truth to that. Almost all of the reasons or arguments I've seen from those who oppose unions are based on some myth or combination of myths, such as:
- We don't need unions because we're 'well paid' (relatively speaking)
- Unions only value seniority
- Make it nye impossible to get rid of poor performers
- Dark money comes in and corrupts the nomination process, now the CEO's buddy runs the union and you don't even know this is controlled opposition
Okay I'm being facetious on that last one, but seriously. We are long, long overdue for a power shift that values the workers. Emphasis on values because that word value has been cooped to be synonymous with money, and it is anything but.
> Think about Amazon. Warehouse workers have to piss in bottles and have the highest rate of on the job injuries of any comparable company in the industry, whereas Amazon coders get to show up for work with facial piercings, green Mohawks, and black t-shirts that say things their bosses don't understand. They can piss whenever they want to. That's not because Jeff Bezos loves Tech workers, it's because they're scared you'll quit and they won't be able to replace you. Another William Gibson quote:
> The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed.
> You know who lives in the future? Amazon warehouse workers. They are living in your future. Drivers whose eyeballs are monitored by AI cameras that do phenology on their faces to figure out when went to dock their pay and warehouse workers whose bodies are ruined in a matter of months. As tech bosses beef up this Reserve Army of unemployed skilled Tech workers, those Tech workers --- you folks --- will arrive at the same future as them.
> Look, I know you spent your careers explaining in words so small your boss could understand them that you refuse to enshittify your company's products and I thank you for your service but if you want to go on fighting for the user you need power that's better than scarcity --- you need a union.
The whole idea of outcompeting on volume doesn't add up for music. It's a power law game not a commodities game. Spotify is playing a dangerous game trying to pretend that it is but I have little faith it won't destroy their business long term and turn them into a future Blockbuster or Macy's.
reply