5 ms·

Someone should create the first Linux distro that doesn’t push any political agenda and strictly prioritizes code quality over agenda enforcement.

vortegne 4y ago
If you're vocally against an anti-fascist agenda, then that agenda is doing what it's supposed to: luring fascists out of hiding. Nothing is apolitical.
- Asdrubalini 4y ago
  I only want to forget about politics at least when I’m using an operating system.
  - Fnoord 4y ago
    Political apathy is the one way street to an authoritarian society. Just have a look at Russia what political apathy has brought the Russians.
    - Asdrubalini 4y ago
      I’m just talking about when I’m using my distro of choice, not in general. Politics by definition is divisive and always thinking about it is destructive, I want to relax and stop thinking about stuff at least when I’m minding my own business using Linux and sharing stuff without caring about what other people’s opinions are.
      - Fnoord 4y ago
        You want a distribution more akin to status quo. Great, these are widely available. But to think that Arch Linux and Debian GNU/Linux and Fedora are all apolitical is nonsense; rather, their politics are not bothering you. The only thing I got against all of this is the paradox of choice. Why so many different Linux distributions? Same in a large US grocery store. 20 brands of mayonaise, why? How can I tell the differences?
        Asdrubalini 4y ago
        According to Arch Linux's wiki: [1] "Arch is a pragmatic distribution rather than an ideological one. The principles here are only useful guidelines. Ultimately, design decisions are made on a case-by-case basis through developer consensus. Evidence-based technical analysis and debate are what matter, not politics or popular opinion." I don't know about Fedora or Debian since I don't use them but for sure they don't have "anti $IDEOLOGY" on their homepage right after the distro's name. And for reference, I'm not bothered by anti fascism since I'm not fascist, I just don't even want to think about fascism, socialism, communism, capitalism or politics in general when I'm minding my own business in Linux. I don't care at all about the the person I am collaborating with or the person who has written the software I am using's belief about politics. I couldn't care less that dwm, st or suckless in general is composed by neo-nazists (if that's true). I simply don't want to be reminded of politics existence when I'm using Linux. [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_Linux https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_Linux section 1.3
        Fnoord 4y ago
        They're political, just not explicit. You're confusing political with ideological. And, even then, ideological is just following some -ism. Which are everywhere, apparent or not. Personally, I'm not interested in a Linux distribution which is expressive about being 'anti-fascism', but I am very glad they declare they are. Its a sure notion (red flag) that I don't want to get involved. And a distribution, by its very nature, is making choices. Which default for X or Y, which package manager, which kernel, which licenses, etc etc. As software developed by neonazis: personally, if I'd know that to be true, I'd be wary of such software. YMMV.
        Asdrubalini 4y ago
        Honestly I have never experienced anything political officially from the Arch Linux team and I have been using it for five years. They have always been pretty pragmatic as they say, and technical choices are not political in the sense we are talking about (or could be in some cases like licenses, but Arch Linux lets you do pretty much whatever you want).
    - lakomen 4y ago
      Oh shaddap. Too many Reddit people here lately. You have no fucking what you're talking about. Stupid troll and I hate that I let myself be triggered by your stupid trolling
      - Fnoord 4y ago
        If you believe someone is trolling you should flag the post instead of reply to them or call them troll or flaming them. That's not done here on HN, see the guidelines.
  - oytis 4y ago
    I'm using Arch and Ubuntu, and I can't remember when either reminded me of anything political
    - Asdrubalini 4y ago
      This is part of the reason why I use arch and not antix or other political distros.
- exitb 4y ago
  The quote I always think about in such cases is from Bruce Perens in a movie Revolution OS who described the Open Source Definition rule about non-discrimination as: "There is no discrimination against people or groups. The example I usually use is, you can’t stop an abortion clinic or an anti-abortion activist from using the software." This is not an apolitical statement, it just says that ones judgement shouldn't influence who can use free software.
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  What specifically is that agenda? And do you think there are any other plausible reasons for someone to avoid using a political distro? I can think of several, so jumping straight to Godwin's Law and accusing people of being fascists might be a bit premature.
  - forgotmypw17 4y ago
    I think the anti-fascist agenda is consent. Consensual changes to the system, consensual package installation, consensual inclusion of various system pieces, etc.
    - Rebelgecko 4y ago
      What does that mean in practical terms? For example, they didn't get my consent when removing systemd from Debian Bullseye. To be fair I don't use AntiX so I wouldn't expect them to ask my permission- do they poll users or something? Or is it more of a "my way or the highway" style of consent? Or are there technical differences comparwd to other systemd-less diestros, eg different ways of handling consent when installing things via apt?
      - forgotmypw17 4y ago
        You get to choose whether to install systemd on your system or not, something you do not get with others. There are many more consent-related things which appeal to me in FOSS, and influence my choices in what I install: The choice to upgrade or not upgrade my packages. The choice to be reminded to upgrade my packages or not. The choice to not have any UI changes without asking for them. In Mac and Windows land, none of these choices are available without surgery. In FOSS land, it depends on which distribution you choose. Some behave, some don't.
- piaste 4y ago
  Are you against the "pro-life" agenda?
- zmibes 4y ago
  No one is falling for that. Antifa is a fashion statement disguised as a "super radical" political movement (that just happens to align with all the global capitalist elites on every issue). Keep buying your H&M revolutionary t-shirts comrade
forgotmypw17 4y ago
Arch and Manjaro?
- unknownaccount 4y ago
  They both seem to have “Code of Conduct”s which can be used to ban contributors who have the wrong opinion on gender politics. They’ll interpret the belief that transgender men aren’t real women as “violence”. No thanks! I rather not use a distros that would kick out a capable talented developer for their personal beliefs.

vortegne 4y ago

If you're vocally against an anti-fascist agenda, then that agenda is doing what it's supposed to: luring fascists out of hiding. Nothing is apolitical.

Asdrubalini 4y ago
I only want to forget about politics at least when I’m using an operating system.
- Fnoord 4y ago
  Political apathy is the one way street to an authoritarian society. Just have a look at Russia what political apathy has brought the Russians.
  - Asdrubalini 4y ago
    I’m just talking about when I’m using my distro of choice, not in general. Politics by definition is divisive and always thinking about it is destructive, I want to relax and stop thinking about stuff at least when I’m minding my own business using Linux and sharing stuff without caring about what other people’s opinions are.
    - Fnoord 4y ago
      You want a distribution more akin to status quo. Great, these are widely available. But to think that Arch Linux and Debian GNU/Linux and Fedora are all apolitical is nonsense; rather, their politics are not bothering you. The only thing I got against all of this is the paradox of choice. Why so many different Linux distributions? Same in a large US grocery store. 20 brands of mayonaise, why? How can I tell the differences?
      - Asdrubalini 4y ago
        According to Arch Linux's wiki: [1] "Arch is a pragmatic distribution rather than an ideological one. The principles here are only useful guidelines. Ultimately, design decisions are made on a case-by-case basis through developer consensus. Evidence-based technical analysis and debate are what matter, not politics or popular opinion." I don't know about Fedora or Debian since I don't use them but for sure they don't have "anti $IDEOLOGY" on their homepage right after the distro's name. And for reference, I'm not bothered by anti fascism since I'm not fascist, I just don't even want to think about fascism, socialism, communism, capitalism or politics in general when I'm minding my own business in Linux. I don't care at all about the the person I am collaborating with or the person who has written the software I am using's belief about politics. I couldn't care less that dwm, st or suckless in general is composed by neo-nazists (if that's true). I simply don't want to be reminded of politics existence when I'm using Linux. [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_Linux https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_Linux section 1.3
        Fnoord 4y ago
        They're political, just not explicit. You're confusing political with ideological. And, even then, ideological is just following some -ism. Which are everywhere, apparent or not. Personally, I'm not interested in a Linux distribution which is expressive about being 'anti-fascism', but I am very glad they declare they are. Its a sure notion (red flag) that I don't want to get involved. And a distribution, by its very nature, is making choices. Which default for X or Y, which package manager, which kernel, which licenses, etc etc. As software developed by neonazis: personally, if I'd know that to be true, I'd be wary of such software. YMMV.
        Asdrubalini 4y ago
        Honestly I have never experienced anything political officially from the Arch Linux team and I have been using it for five years. They have always been pretty pragmatic as they say, and technical choices are not political in the sense we are talking about (or could be in some cases like licenses, but Arch Linux lets you do pretty much whatever you want).
  - lakomen 4y ago
    Oh shaddap. Too many Reddit people here lately. You have no fucking what you're talking about. Stupid troll and I hate that I let myself be triggered by your stupid trolling
    - Fnoord 4y ago
      If you believe someone is trolling you should flag the post instead of reply to them or call them troll or flaming them. That's not done here on HN, see the guidelines.
- oytis 4y ago
  I'm using Arch and Ubuntu, and I can't remember when either reminded me of anything political
  - Asdrubalini 4y ago
    This is part of the reason why I use arch and not antix or other political distros.
exitb 4y ago
The quote I always think about in such cases is from Bruce Perens in a movie Revolution OS who described the Open Source Definition rule about non-discrimination as: "There is no discrimination against people or groups. The example I usually use is, you can’t stop an abortion clinic or an anti-abortion activist from using the software." This is not an apolitical statement, it just says that ones judgement shouldn't influence who can use free software.
Rebelgecko 4y ago
What specifically is that agenda? And do you think there are any other plausible reasons for someone to avoid using a political distro? I can think of several, so jumping straight to Godwin's Law and accusing people of being fascists might be a bit premature.
- forgotmypw17 4y ago
  I think the anti-fascist agenda is consent. Consensual changes to the system, consensual package installation, consensual inclusion of various system pieces, etc.
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    What does that mean in practical terms? For example, they didn't get my consent when removing systemd from Debian Bullseye. To be fair I don't use AntiX so I wouldn't expect them to ask my permission- do they poll users or something? Or is it more of a "my way or the highway" style of consent? Or are there technical differences comparwd to other systemd-less diestros, eg different ways of handling consent when installing things via apt?
    - forgotmypw17 4y ago
      You get to choose whether to install systemd on your system or not, something you do not get with others. There are many more consent-related things which appeal to me in FOSS, and influence my choices in what I install: The choice to upgrade or not upgrade my packages. The choice to be reminded to upgrade my packages or not. The choice to not have any UI changes without asking for them. In Mac and Windows land, none of these choices are available without surgery. In FOSS land, it depends on which distribution you choose. Some behave, some don't.
piaste 4y ago
Are you against the "pro-life" agenda?
zmibes 4y ago
No one is falling for that. Antifa is a fashion statement disguised as a "super radical" political movement (that just happens to align with all the global capitalist elites on every issue). Keep buying your H&M revolutionary t-shirts comrade

forgotmypw17 4y ago

Arch and Manjaro?

unknownaccount 4y ago
They both seem to have “Code of Conduct”s which can be used to ban contributors who have the wrong opinion on gender politics. They’ll interpret the belief that transgender men aren’t real women as “violence”. No thanks! I rather not use a distros that would kick out a capable talented developer for their personal beliefs.