Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Omarchy development practices lead to predictable security issues

blog.happyfellow.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 485 posts

Re: Omarchy development practices lead to predictable security issues

#431

Post by rbanffy »

stymaar wrote: post #412
speak_plainly wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That OSS has become too entangled with political activism and ideological gatekeeping, when it should be about making great software, giving people control over their computers, and rediscovering the joy of computing. I don't think Omarchy is anti-political so much as an attempt to revive the enthusiast/hacker ethos of the OSS community.

> That OSS has become too entangled with political activism Wait is that really the spin that DHH is pushing? That'd be insane given he's among the most politically active open sources developers put there by a wiiide margin.

Oh, but you see, when it’s their own points of view, it’s never politics.

Re: Omarchy development practices lead to predictable security issues

#432

Post by rbanffy »

TiredOfLife wrote: post #253
poulpy123 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very far from it but I saw many exchanges in my twitter timeline (because now when you click on a tweet to read it or interact, the algorithm thinks it's your only interest in life). Do basically, they got 8 millions dollars of funding, they bragged and criticized others in linux and said some political stuff, they were also criticized by others including political stuff from the other side (not sure of the order…

And which distro is like that?

What collective human endeavour is devoid of politics?

Politics is how groups decide things, from what a code of conduct should be to where we should stop for coffee after lunch. It’s easy to not notice it, but we do politics dozens of times every day.

Re: Omarchy development practices lead to predictable security issues

#433

Post by rbanffy »

embedding-shape wrote: post #408
lambda wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to explain because not everyone is necessarily a native English speaker or gets the reference. This is a reference to a dog whistle. Above 25kHz are sounds that dogs can hear but humans generally can't. The term dog whistle is used to refer to phrases that racists use to indicate their racism, while sounding plausibly deniable. The idea is that it's a phrase that will make other racists realize that you are one…

> DHH himself has gone beyond dog whistles. He's directly compared what he considers undesirable ehtnic populations to wolves who need to be shot. He's just openly calling for ethnic cleansing by now. Let me prefix this with that DHH's opinions suck, not sure what he's going through but clearly something, and that blog post you're referencing is terrible in lots of ways. But he's not openly calling for ethnic cleansi…

> but deporting isn't the same as "ethnic cleansing".

I’m sorry, but forcibly deporting people because of their ethnic background is the very definition of ethnic cleansing.

In general, if people use violence on the population as a way to either kill or forcibly expel them, there would be a strong case to call it a genocide.

Re: Omarchy development practices lead to predictable security issues

#434

Post by e12e »

throwawaypath wrote: post #425
e12e wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> He did not call for forcibly altering the demographic. > When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. And while I'm quoting: MerriamWebster: Xenophobe > one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin DHH: > You can rest assured that I'd be in the streets waving a Danish flag if these were my conditions in my native country.…

No where did you quote where he's calling for forcibly altering the demographic. Enforcing immigration laws is not ethnic cleansing. >And while I'm quoting: >MerriamWebster: Xenophobe >> one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin He doesn't fear foreign people or things so this definition doesn't apply. >I would say saying that is pretty much the definition of xenophobic. Except…

> Supporting indigenous people and their rights to their native homelands is not xenophobic.

Xenophobia leads to the belief that white Danes need support for their rights to their native homeland.

It's not like this is some great battle to rise restitution for Native Americans, Maori or Aborigines.

It's about not having to see so many non-white faces in Copenhagen or London.

> Enforcing immigration laws is not ethnic cleansing.

That certainly depends on the law, and the enforcement.

More to the point: trampling nomadic sub- cultures, forcefully denying them access where they have lived for centuries, denying them their way of life - can certainly result in genocide ("the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group").

Re: Omarchy development practices lead to predictable security issues

#435

Post by stavros »

fnoef wrote: post #68

There is this meme of a bell curve where the left side is some newbie trying to do something obvious, the right side is a "pro" trying to do the same obvious thing, and the middle is a someone trying to do cool/new/trendy stuff. The left side us Ubuntu/Fedora. The right side is Arch. The middle is all these tech-fluencer-wanna-bes custom-made-ai-enhanced distros.

That's the midwit meme.

Re: Omarchy development practices lead to predictable security issues

#436

Post by s__s »

Retr0id wrote: post #26
Hugsbox wrote: post #10

I'm somewhat out of the loop, and it's not really mentioned in the article, but what's with Omarchy getting this crazy amount of financial support from this list of fairly prominent individuals? Until a few weeks ago I'd never heard of it, then what I did hear is that it's being made by a very... uhh, eccentric(?) individual, and now it's suddenly got a crazy amount of funding. What am I missing?

It's a political statement disguised as a FOSS project (which itself is fine, all software is political). The funders are not funding the development of a Linux distro, they are co-signing the political statement.

It wasn’t that long ago that omarchy got started. As far as I could tell it was a direct response to DHH giving up on Apple. He was in a dispute with them in regards to App Store publishing and sales. He seems to have since made it his personal mission to move off of the Apple ecosystem.

Re: Omarchy development practices lead to predictable security issues

#437

Post by em-bee »

busterarm wrote: post #403
em-bee wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i doubt you have tried every distribution. at least you haven't tried the one i was part of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foresight_Linux a small, but independent distribution (not a spin-off of anything). i can assure you, it was drama and asshole free. (maybe it didn't live long enough to develop drama, that would be a fair counterpoint, but other than that, i reject your statement)

Yeah but it was also made to showcase GNOME, which was kind of its own huge drama at that time. I mean I can't even believe you're seriously posting this. It was created intended to be a marketing tool and for something folks had long already made their decision either way about. So yeah, I never used your extremely niche distribution and that's some sort of gotcha on my argument. Weirdly, I've used a ton of niche Li…

yeah, but with that you are making the whole argument meaningless, because you are arguing that since you can't have life without drama, asking to minimize drama is useless. that's like saying that reducing pollution is useless because you can't eliminate pollution. yes, we can reduce pollution, and we can minimize drama. we can't entirely avoid it, but that was not being asked for.

Re: Omarchy development practices lead to predictable security issues

#438

Post by thunderfork »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #393
thunderfork wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it's not ethnic cleansing because this time the Jews really ARE evil, okay"

> it's not ethnic cleansing because this time the Jews really ARE evil, okay You are right, let's just all push the rhetoric to the max and completely forget how to have nuanced discussions about complex topics. It clearly is a lot easier to scream "nazis" from one side and "woke" from the other. I am sure we will get somewhere fast.

I'm not interested in having "nuanced discussions" about whether the Roma people have some kind of Nuisance Gene that makes discussion of extermination valid

If you'd like to make an argument that isn't just "ethnic cleansing is okay sometimes if the ethnicity is REALLY annoying" go ahead

Re: Omarchy development practices lead to predictable security issues

#439

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

e12e wrote: post #423
throwawaypath wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>> He did not call for forcibly altering the demographic. > When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. And while I'm quoting: MerriamWebster: Xenophobe > one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin DHH: > You can rest assured that I'd be in the streets waving a Danish flag if these were my conditions in my native country.…

> Worse, in the context of DHHs rants, it comes off as racist - I don't get the sense he wants to throw out Norwegians from Denmark, for example.

I think "primarily" is doing some lifting in "Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes", along with his vagueness about what it means to be of "the Japanese" (Yamato/Zainichi/Ainu/Ryukyuan/Bonin) or "the Brits" (English/Scots/Welsh/Cornish/Irish/Manx/Jamaican/...).

Re: Omarchy development practices lead to predictable security issues

#440

Post by valbaca »

mattstir wrote: post #313
Retr0id wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a political statement disguised as a FOSS project (which itself is fine, all software is political). The funders are not funding the development of a Linux distro, they are co-signing the political statement.

> which itself is fine, all software is political I don't mean to get distracted from the topic at hand, but is that really true? If I create my own software stack for the TRMNL display I received as a gift because I think it's fun and interesting, is that a political statement? What politics does that involve? If someone makes a small Rust library that implements some days structure and a few hundred people find it…

It's easy to think things are "apolitical" when resting on the laurels of the results of political struggles and revolutions that brought us to where we are.

The idea that you should be able to create and own your intellectual efforts, and to do so without coercion.

> political statement?

> If I create my own software stack for the TRMNL display I received as a gift

Should you own what you create? Should you BE able to create? freely?

Should you be able to give and gift freely?

> some days structure

How do you think days are defined? Think "July" is a name that came absent of politics? What about October?

Saturday and Sunday are weekends? Since when did weekends exist as we understand and enjoy them without the action of political actors (union workers striking and other people fighting for labor rights).

What holidays are holidays? Which are national holidays? Those are all political.

Post reply on HN