10 ms·

I believe it's more about money ending up in an overhyped vibecoded Bash mess maintained by a very controversial figure. And that's putting it mildly.

by StrLght 17d ago

mirzap 17d ago
Hyperland being funded for 3 years benefits all distros and users that rely on it. The same goes for Quickshell. And my guess is that this is only the beginning. They will support any project that Omarchy is built on. They even reached out to AUR maintainers to support them financially and build better, more stable infrastructure for any distro that depends on AUR, but they refused.
- kllrnohj 14d ago
  [dead]
- StrLght 17d ago
  One controversial project supporting another controversial project. Wonder how and why that happened. I am inclined to believe everyone sane will distance themselves from it. Just like GNOME did.
hagbard_c 16d ago
[flagged]
- jakelazaroff 16d ago
  > If the former, grow up and accept that the time of slavishly following the narrative is coming to an end, that free speech means people are free to voice their own thoughts and that you not agreeing is interesting only to you. Consider taking your own advice here? Free speech means people are also free to object when other people with whom they disagree politically receive corporate funding. And likewise, you not agreeing with them is only interesting to you.
  - happytoexplain 16d ago
    I disagree with the parent's wording and agree that the whole "people are free to say what they want" thing is generally not a compelling point in internet arguments, but there is a distinction you are omitting. People aren't just disagreeing with DHH's politics, they're implying that his project shouldn't be financed because of his politics. In that light, your counter-point isn't as applicable, since it's not symmetrical to what the parent is criticizing (regardless of whether you believe his politics are worthy of black-listing his work).
    - yencabulator 16d ago
      More like, we're making notes on who gives money to DHH, and applying same reasoning.
    - jakelazaroff 16d ago
      "DHH's politics" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. He has most recently called for citizens of western countries to be expelled on the basis of race. So while it's not exactly symmetrical, the people objecting to companies funding his project are not the only ones using their speech to put pressure on others.

I believe it's more about money ending up in an overhyped vibecoded Bash mess maintained by a very controversial figure. And that's putting it mildly.

by StrLght 17d ago

I believe it's more about money ending up in an overhyped vibecoded Bash mess maintained by a very controversial figure. And that's putting it mildly.

mirzap 17d ago

Hyperland being funded for 3 years benefits all distros and users that rely on it. The same goes for Quickshell. And my guess is that this is only the beginning. They will support any project that Omarchy is built on. They even reached out to AUR maintainers to support them financially and build better, more stable infrastructure for any distro that depends on AUR, but they refused.

kllrnohj 14d ago
[dead]
StrLght 17d ago
One controversial project supporting another controversial project. Wonder how and why that happened. I am inclined to believe everyone sane will distance themselves from it. Just like GNOME did.

hagbard_c 16d ago

[flagged]

jakelazaroff 16d ago
> If the former, grow up and accept that the time of slavishly following the narrative is coming to an end, that free speech means people are free to voice their own thoughts and that you not agreeing is interesting only to you. Consider taking your own advice here? Free speech means people are also free to object when other people with whom they disagree politically receive corporate funding. And likewise, you not agreeing with them is only interesting to you.
- happytoexplain 16d ago
  I disagree with the parent's wording and agree that the whole "people are free to say what they want" thing is generally not a compelling point in internet arguments, but there is a distinction you are omitting. People aren't just disagreeing with DHH's politics, they're implying that his project shouldn't be financed because of his politics. In that light, your counter-point isn't as applicable, since it's not symmetrical to what the parent is criticizing (regardless of whether you believe his politics are worthy of black-listing his work).
  - yencabulator 16d ago
    More like, we're making notes on who gives money to DHH, and applying same reasoning.
  - jakelazaroff 16d ago
    "DHH's politics" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. He has most recently called for citizens of western countries to be expelled on the basis of race. So while it's not exactly symmetrical, the people objecting to companies funding his project are not the only ones using their speech to put pressure on others.