<https://lunduke.substack.com/p/number-of-orphaned-linux-kernel-modules-de6>
This is the result of submitting to the woke mob.
On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 08:16:10 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
<https://lunduke.substack.com/p/number-of-orphaned-linux-kernel-modules-de6> >>
This is the result of submitting to the woke mob.
But of course the hordes of skilled non-woke software developers will
offer no shortage of volunteers to step forward and take over
maintenance of a new, super-duper, better supported, non-woke kernel,
won’t they?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(crickets)
The non-woke have already been banned from developing for a lot of Linux distributions ...
I wouldn't blame conservatives for abandoning Linux altogether and
developing for Windows or MacOS instead where they can actually make
some money.
On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 12:48:18 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
The non-woke have already been banned from developing for a lot of Linux
distributions ...
Why is it, you think that Linux and Open Source projects in general always inherently become “woke” and “liberal”? Is there something about the philosophy itself that attracts the Left and repels the Right?
I wouldn't blame conservatives for abandoning Linux altogether and
developing for Windows or MacOS instead where they can actually make
some money.
Why did they even look at Open Source in the first place? Is it because
there wasn’t actually much money to be made developing for those proprietary platforms?
On 2025-08-11 5:58 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 12:48:18 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
The non-woke have already been banned from developing for a lot of
Linux distributions ...
Why is it, you think that Linux and Open Source projects in general
always inherently become “woke” and “liberal”? Is there something
about the philosophy itself that attracts the Left and repels the
Right?
It's not that I _think_ they're gotten woke; they announce it
proudly on their web pages and proceed to ban people with
conservative values from their forums and from developing for their distribution.
I wouldn't blame conservatives for abandoning Linux altogether and
developing for Windows or MacOS instead where they can actually
make some money.
Why did they even look at Open Source in the first place? Is it
because there wasn’t actually much money to be made developing for
those proprietary platforms?
They are attracted to the fact that their privacy is protected and
the liberty provided by Linux. They are willing to make less money
if it means that they can defend the values they consider to be
rights as written in the Constitution of the United States.
However, they do have their limits and will abandon the operating
system if it gets infected (as it has) with Antifa activists,
Communists and other general imbeciles.
On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 18:30:38 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-11 5:58 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 12:48:18 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
The non-woke have already been banned from developing for a lot of
Linux distributions ...
Why is it, you think that Linux and Open Source projects in general
always inherently become “woke” and “liberal”? Is there something >>> about the philosophy itself that attracts the Left and repels the
Right?
It's not that I _think_ they're gotten woke; they announce it
proudly on their web pages and proceed to ban people with
conservative values from their forums and from developing for their
distribution.
Which is not answering the question I asked: why?
I wouldn't blame conservatives for abandoning Linux altogether and
developing for Windows or MacOS instead where they can actually
make some money.
Why did they even look at Open Source in the first place? Is it
because there wasn’t actually much money to be made developing for
those proprietary platforms?
They are attracted to the fact that their privacy is protected and
the liberty provided by Linux. They are willing to make less money
if it means that they can defend the values they consider to be
rights as written in the Constitution of the United States.
You don’t consider privacy to be a “woke” value?
It’s not guaranteed
in the US Constitution, anyway.
However, they do have their limits and will abandon the operating
system if it gets infected (as it has) with Antifa activists,
Communists and other general imbeciles.
You don’t understand that you have the freedom to take the software
and use and develop it how you like?
Or is the choice *not* to follow the leader and have to obey their
religion, which you have with Free software, also considered another “woke” value?
On 2025-08-11 7:25 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 18:30:38 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-11 5:58 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 12:48:18 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
The non-woke have already been banned from developing for a lot of
Linux distributions ...
Why is it, you think that Linux and Open Source projects in general
always inherently become “woke” and “liberal”? Is there something >>>> about the philosophy itself that attracts the Left and repels the
Right?
It's not that I _think_ they're gotten woke; they announce it
proudly on their web pages and proceed to ban people with
conservative values from their forums and from developing for their
distribution.
Which is not answering the question I asked: why?
You don’t consider privacy to be a “woke” value?
It's not. It's a Constitutional value and common decency.
It’s not guaranteed in the US Constitution, anyway.
Proponents of the Fourth Amendment would disagree.
On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 20:22:00 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-11 7:25 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 18:30:38 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-11 5:58 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 12:48:18 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
The non-woke have already been banned from developing for a lot of >>>>>> Linux distributions ...
Why is it, you think that Linux and Open Source projects in general
always inherently become “woke” and “liberal”? Is there something >>>>> about the philosophy itself that attracts the Left and repels the
Right?
It's not that I _think_ they're gotten woke; they announce it
proudly on their web pages and proceed to ban people with
conservative values from their forums and from developing for their
distribution.
Which is not answering the question I asked: why?
Could it be that the development of Free software requires a special
mindset, an openness to new ideas and a refusal to be hidebound by old
ones?
Could that be why those of a Conservative mindset are inherently at
a disadvantage in trying to undertake such activities, because
Conservatism by definition involves a continual looking backward to the
past?
You don’t consider privacy to be a “woke” value?
It's not. It's a Constitutional value and common decency.
It’s not guaranteed in the US Constitution, anyway.
Proponents of the Fourth Amendment would disagree.
The 🇺🇸 Fourth Amendment only restricts what the Government can do in certain situations, it does not constrain how private companies (and the Government, too) can collect any amount of information about you, by
whatever means, and use it how they like, for their own benefit and not yours.
In most countries, privacy is considered a human right. But human rights
are considered a “woke” concept in the USA, aren’t they? You insist on going by the legalities of your Constitution: if it’s not there, you don’t
have it.
Could it be that the development of Free software requires a special
mindset, an openness to new ideas and a refusal to be hidebound by old
ones? Could that be why those of a Conservative mindset are inherently
at a disadvantage in trying to undertake such activities, because Conservatism by definition involves a continual looking backward to the
past?
It does not require an openness to new ideas. If it did, the lot of
software available for it _wouldn't_ just be open versions of something
that already exists in the Windows world and the kernel wouldn't have
started as a rewrite of an existing one. If they had been open to new
ideas, they would also have created something wildly different.
On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 08:48:28 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
It does not require an openness to new ideas. If it did, the lot of
software available for it _wouldn't_ just be open versions of something
that already exists in the Windows world and the kernel wouldn't have
started as a rewrite of an existing one. If they had been open to new
ideas, they would also have created something wildly different.
It's interesting that many distros like the much discussed Mint/Cinnamon rather resemble Windows XP and started when people jumped ship with the release of GNOME 3. Then there was the Unity fiasco.
On 2025-08-11 9:16 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Could it be that the development of Free software requires a special
mindset, an openness to new ideas and a refusal to be hidebound by old
ones?
It does not require an openness to new ideas.
Could that be why those of a Conservative mindset are inherently at a
disadvantage in trying to undertake such activities, because
Conservatism by definition involves a continual looking backward to the
past?
Conservatism holds onto what's good and resists change for change's
sake. For example, conservatism resists the idea that having anal sex
with another man is inherently better than marrying a woman and starting
a family.
The 🇺🇸 Fourth Amendment only restricts what the Government can do in >> certain situations, it does not constrain how private companies (and
the Government, too) can collect any amount of information about you,
by whatever means, and use it how they like, for their own benefit and
not yours.
In most countries, privacy is considered a human right. But human
rights are considered a “woke” concept in the USA, aren’t they? You
insist on going by the legalities of your Constitution: if it’s not
there, you don’t have it.
It's not my Constitution, I simply believe that the principles behind it
are what makes the United States a superior country to some shithole
like England.
If the liberal open-source developers are so open, why are they so
attached to an interface from 1995 or one from an even earlier point
(like i3).
On 2025-08-12, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-08-12 3:13 p.m., rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 08:48:28 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
It does not require an openness to new ideas. If it did, the lot of
software available for it _wouldn't_ just be open versions of something >>>> that already exists in the Windows world and the kernel wouldn't have
started as a rewrite of an existing one. If they had been open to new
ideas, they would also have created something wildly different.
It's interesting that many distros like the much discussed Mint/Cinnamon >>> rather resemble Windows XP and started when people jumped ship with the
release of GNOME 3. Then there was the Unity fiasco.
That's a fantastic point. If the liberal open-source developers are so
open, why are they so attached to an interface from 1995 or one from an
even earlier point (like i3).
I don't think it's just the developers... I think it's more the users. Gnome tried to force their new "wildly different" UI on users and the users rejected them and that gave us Linux Mint. I've never been big on change for change sake.
On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 08:48:28 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-11 9:16 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Could it be that the development of Free software requires a special
mindset, an openness to new ideas and a refusal to be hidebound by old
ones?
It does not require an openness to new ideas.
But you’ve already admitted, by your complaining, that there is a lack of right-wingers contributing to open-source projects.
If the mindset is not
the reason, then what is? What is keeping right-wingers, not just from contributing, but also starting/forking their own projects?
Could that be why those of a Conservative mindset are inherently at a
disadvantage in trying to undertake such activities, because
Conservatism by definition involves a continual looking backward to the
past?
Conservatism holds onto what's good and resists change for change's
sake. For example, conservatism resists the idea that having anal sex
with another man is inherently better than marrying a woman and starting
a family.
Is Conservatism not about the freedom of consenting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes, then? If you are against one kind of freedom, then that would explain why you find it so hard to get to grips with another kind of freedom.
The 🇺🇸 Fourth Amendment only restricts what the Government can do in >>> certain situations, it does not constrain how private companies (and
the Government, too) can collect any amount of information about you,
by whatever means, and use it how they like, for their own benefit and
not yours.
In most countries, privacy is considered a human right. But human
rights are considered a “woke” concept in the USA, aren’t they? You >>> insist on going by the legalities of your Constitution: if it’s not
there, you don’t have it.
It's not my Constitution, I simply believe that the principles behind it
are what makes the United States a superior country to some shithole
like England.
So you duck the question of how exactly your Constitution provides any
kind of privacy guarantees.
But then, given your position above on what consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own homes, perhaps it’s not surprising that you don’t
really understand the concept of privacy ...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:26:59 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
If the liberal open-source developers are so open, why are they so
attached to an interface from 1995 or one from an even earlier point
(like i3).
Remember that *nix systems had multiple virtual desktops years before Microsoft discovered the usefulness of the idea. And they still do it
better than Microsoft can manage.
Anyway, diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks, as they say. Some Windows and Apple refugees crave familiarity, while other potential users want something different. The basic Linux deployment stack is endlessly modular and configurable, and offers something for all tastes.
On 2025-08-12, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 08:48:28 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
It does not require an openness to new ideas. If it did, the lot of
software available for it _wouldn't_ just be open versions of
something that already exists in the Windows world and the kernel
wouldn't have started as a rewrite of an existing one. If they had
been open to new ideas, they would also have created something wildly
different.
It's interesting that many distros like the much discussed
Mint/Cinnamon rather resemble Windows XP and started when people jumped
ship with the release of GNOME 3. Then there was the Unity fiasco.
I'm trying to figure out why things have to be "wildly different." I
would prefer they weren't.
Is Conservatism not about the freedom of consenting adults to do
whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes, then? If you are against one kind of freedom, then that would explain why you find it so
hard to get to grips with another kind of freedom.
I was one of the few who thought that GNOME 3 was rather neat. Of
course, a lot of that had to do with the fact that I was a fan of
pressing the Windows key and typing the name of the application I wanted
and hot corners. The moment those two were implemented into other
desktop environments, the appeal of GNOME waned.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 08:28:34 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I was one of the few who thought that GNOME 3 was rather neat. Of
course, a lot of that had to do with the fact that I was a fan of
pressing the Windows key and typing the name of the application I wanted
and hot corners. The moment those two were implemented into other
desktop environments, the appeal of GNOME waned.
I was never sure what the Windows key was for and as soon as I figure out
how to I kill hot corners. I run many applications from the command line
and the ones I use frequently are icons on the task bar. I never really
liked icons on the desktop.
The only icon I ever allow on my desktop is the Recycle Bin. Otherwise,
I put files there temporarily if I need to share them or delete them
after a short period of time. I never liked the idea of having too much clutter there.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 15:35:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
The only icon I ever allow on my desktop is the Recycle Bin. Otherwise,
I put files there temporarily if I need to share them or delete them
after a short period of time. I never liked the idea of having too much
clutter there.
I never went out of my way to remove Recycle Bin but otoh I can't remember ever dragging a file to it. I think you can do that with other icons too
but my mind doesn't work that way.
On 2025-08-13 5:09 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:26:59 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
If the liberal open-source developers are so open, why are they so
attached to an interface from 1995 or one from an even earlier point
(like i3).
Remember that *nix systems had multiple virtual desktops years before
Microsoft discovered the usefulness of the idea. And they still do it
better than Microsoft can manage.
To this day I don't use virtual desktops and find the concept to be
useless in my own life. I'm sure it has benefits for programmers or
people working on databases, but it has zero worth for the regular user.
Some of us think minimizing a window we're not actively using is quite
fine.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 08:38:27 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-13 5:09 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:26:59 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
If the liberal open-source developers are so open, why are they so
attached to an interface from 1995 or one from an even earlier point
(like i3).
Remember that *nix systems had multiple virtual desktops years before
Microsoft discovered the usefulness of the idea. And they still do it
better than Microsoft can manage.
To this day I don't use virtual desktops and find the concept to be
useless in my own life. I'm sure it has benefits for programmers or
people working on databases, but it has zero worth for the regular user.
Some of us think minimizing a window we're not actively using is quite
fine.
Which may be sufficient, sort of, if you only work with one app at a time. The thing with Open Source is, the apps often work together in concert, rather like a symphony orchestra, than the solo instruments that most proprietary software wants to be. Proprietary apps tend to be divas rather than team players.
I fully appreciate that those accustomed to proprietary ways of doing
things find it difficult to get to grips with this concept. But you did
ask about being “attached to an interface from 1995”, so of course I had to answer: it is the Open Source world that has moved on from that
mentality, while proprietary systems (like those you seem to prefer to
use) remain stuck in that era.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 08:38:27 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-13 5:09 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
To this day I don't use virtual desktops and find the concept to be
On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:26:59 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
useless in my own life. I'm sure it has benefits for programmers or
people working on databases, but it has zero worth for the regular
user.
Some of us think minimizing a window we're not actively using is quite
fine.
Which may be sufficient, sort of, if you only work with one app at a
time.
The thing with Open Source is, the apps often work together in concert, rather like a symphony orchestra, than the solo instruments that most proprietary software wants to be. Proprietary apps tend to be divas
rather than team players.
In Linux Mint I click the "Windows" key (or click on the Menu button)
and type the first couple letters of my application also. I do like that feature. This used to work in Windows, the last time I tried it, Edge
opened up and I got a damn website search? (When did that happen?). As
for "hot corners" I think I tried those in Ubuntu(?) and didn't see much
use for them. I turn off almost all the Windows "auto" crap, like tiling
and snapping (which I hate).
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 08:06:33 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
In Linux Mint I click the "Windows" key (or click on the Menu button)
and type the first couple letters of my application also. I do like
that feature. This used to work in Windows, the last time I tried it,
Edge opened up and I got a damn website search? (When did that
happen?). As for "hot corners" I think I tried those in Ubuntu(?) and
didn't see much use for them. I turn off almost all the Windows "auto"
crap, like tiling and snapping (which I hate).
Interesting. I never used it but in Ubuntu it brings up a search box as
well as an overview of the virtual desktops. In Fedora it brings up the
menu with a search box, and in Raspberry Pi just the menu.
On Ubuntu that's handier than 'Show Apps' and hunting for an app that's
not on the tool bar if I can remember to use it.
I forget the distro but my first go around with hot corners was when the mouse wandered to the upper left and suddenly I was looking at a desktop
with all the apps sort of tiled. "What the hell did I do and how do I
get rid of it?"
On 14 Aug 2025 17:23:02 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote in <mg6kbmFj6vaU4@mid.individual.net>:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 08:06:33 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
In Linux Mint I click the "Windows" key (or click on the Menu button)
and type the first couple letters of my application also. I do like
that feature. This used to work in Windows, the last time I tried it,
Edge opened up and I got a damn website search? (When did that
happen?). As for "hot corners" I think I tried those in Ubuntu(?) and
didn't see much use for them. I turn off almost all the Windows "auto"
crap, like tiling and snapping (which I hate).
Interesting. I never used it but in Ubuntu it brings up a search box as
well as an overview of the virtual desktops. In Fedora it brings up the
menu with a search box, and in Raspberry Pi just the menu.
On Ubuntu that's handier than 'Show Apps' and hunting for an app that's
not on the tool bar if I can remember to use it.
I forget the distro but my first go around with hot corners was when the
mouse wandered to the upper left and suddenly I was looking at a desktop
with all the apps sort of tiled. "What the hell did I do and how do I
get rid of it?"
Regarding the "Windows" button -- in XFCE on Mint, it doesn't do anything.
(Which is cool, I could bind it to something.)
On 2025-08-13 3:39 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
But you’ve already admitted, by your complaining, that there is a
lack of right-wingers contributing to open-source projects.
No, they contribute to open-source projects. Those who remain either
keep quiet about their politics or fork into a new project because
the social justice clowns kicked them out of an existing one.
The smarter ones just give up on open-source and move on over to
Windows, MacOS, Android or iOS where they can actually be
compensated for their work.
If the mindset is not the reason, then what is? What is keeping
right-wingers, not just from contributing, but also
starting/forking their own projects?
They already do.
Is Conservatism not about the freedom of consenting adults to do
whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes, then? If you
are against one kind of freedom, then that would explain why you
find it so hard to get to grips with another kind of freedom.
That's not conservatism, that's libertarianism. Conservatism is a
resistance to change for change's sake.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 08:37:07 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-13 3:39 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
But you’ve already admitted, by your complaining, that there is a
lack of right-wingers contributing to open-source projects.
No, they contribute to open-source projects. Those who remain either
keep quiet about their politics or fork into a new project because
the social justice clowns kicked them out of an existing one.
So why do you keep complain about projects after the right-wingers
have already left them?
The smarter ones just give up on open-source and move on over to
Windows, MacOS, Android or iOS where they can actually be
compensated for their work.
Are Microsoft and Apple resorting to *paying* people to develop for
their platform, now?
On 2025-08-14 3:10 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
I fully appreciate that those accustomed to proprietary ways of doing
things find it difficult to get to grips with this concept. But you did
ask about being “attached to an interface from 1995”, so of course I
had to answer: it is the Open Source world that has moved on from that
mentality, while proprietary systems (like those you seem to prefer to
use) remain stuck in that era.
Your answer is complete garbage because we both know that "moving on
from that mentality" is basically recreating the exact thing the
proprietary world has ...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 08:24:50 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-14 3:10 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
I fully appreciate that those accustomed to proprietary ways of doing
things find it difficult to get to grips with this concept. But you did
ask about being “attached to an interface from 1995”, so of course I >>> had to answer: it is the Open Source world that has moved on from that
mentality, while proprietary systems (like those you seem to prefer to
use) remain stuck in that era.
Your answer is complete garbage because we both know that "moving on
from that mentality" is basically recreating the exact thing the
proprietary world has ...
Only it was the proprietary world copying the *nix world, much too little, too late, as we know. You are the one still “attached to an interface from 1995”, as I pointed out.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 169:52:31 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,555 |