<div class="header-image"></div> <table class="table-header"> <thead> <tr> <th colspan="2"></th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>2025-09-21</td> <td style="text-align: right;"><a href="About.md" class="internal-link">About</a></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> # Choose the Software.. AND the Developer  The experimentations I've been doing with Arch and Hyprland via Omarchy have largely been because of DHH's enthusiasm, and, of course, the look of his Arch/Hyprland rice. And yes, it turns out that I really like Hyprland and his specific setup. It's a fantastic way to use a computer. Hyprland is great too, as I can change from this starting point however I like. I've made several customisations already, and have installed it on my main computer now, replacing Linux Mint. And while all of this is true, there is also a side benefit. No corporation runs Arch. No Corporation runs Hyprland, and no Corporation runs Omarchy either. Omarchy is DHH's side project, and while his company, 37 Signals, uses Omarchy in production, the distro itself is really a DHH side project. I've [written](../Blog/2025-08-24%20Omarchy%20and%20the%20Year%20of%20the%20Linux%20Desktop.md) about the benefits of this before, but I've come to realise that perhaps I've been a little too passive in my view of things. I've always been one to ignore all these political social media movements as best as I can (or at least observe and comment from the sidelines). I've always been a proponent of [using whatever software is right for you](../Blog/2024-07-06%20Love%20the%20Art,%20not%20the%20Artist;%20Choose%20the%20Software,%20Not%20the%20Developer.md), and ignoring what developers might be saying about this group or that and however crazy they might seem. My feeling has always been "why should I deprive myself of software that works for me just because the devs are assholes?" And of course that goes for music, art, and any number of things. But there's been some developers and tech journalists lately who have given me reason to reevaluate my position here. I've been listening to Bryan Lunduke now, for more than 15 years. When I first switched from Windows to Linux, the Linux Action Show was instrumental in helping me acclimate to my new computing environment. I often distro-hopped after Bryan and Chris' reviews, and regularly tried out applications after their talking about them. I even bought a PC from System76 based on their recommendation. So while his content has taken a distinctly different direction, I still value his opinion. I've always thought that his concerns of "woke in tech" were mostly valid, even if he sometimes sensationalises a fairly alarmist position. Lately, though, I'm seeing more people that I respect adopt these same positions (read DHH's thread here):  And this is the post by Andreas Kling to which Lunduke was referring:  This has started to make me reconsider things like software that I use. For one thing, many of these corporations, in turning to a fundamentally different ideology than what has been customary in progressive circles for ages, have *abandoned* meritocracy. When this happens, I have very good reason to distrust the software that is produced by these companies. The most glaring example of this that I can see right now is Ubuntu's desire to abandon the GNU coreutils. These are now being rewritten in Rust to be used as a drop-in replacement. The reasons given are mainly to have new "uutils" written in Rust rather than C, as apparently Rust produces more secure applications, with less of an attack vector. What I don't understand is that the entire Web runs on Linux which is written in C. These coreutils have been in use for, what, 30 years? More? To my knowledge they haven't been used as an attack vector before. They don't even utilise the network stack. The reasoning here doesn't make sense to me, particularly since the GNU coreutils have been used and debugged in edgecases for decades now. It's difficult for me to understand how a Rust implementation automatically makes them better. Because of this, I would really prefer to keep using the GNU coreutils, at least for a few years until I know the uutils are safe. But as Ubuntu is theoretically planning to implement them for the 26.4 LTS release, everything downstream could possibly do the same, meaning Linux Mint will, most likely, adopt these new tools as well. This is what happens when you trust giant corporations for the sake of convenience. You are shoehorned into these decisions, even when it's probably not a wise decision to make. >[!Info] Note >Linux Mint, I think, would most likely *not* implement these tools immediately when Canonical decides to for Ubuntu. Clem has been very cautious in the past with regards to possible breaking changes and there's no reason to think he wouldn't apply the same caution here. I only use Mint as an example because that has been my distro of choice for years, before I switched to Omarchy, and Mint uses Ubuntu as a base. But I want to steer back to the Twitter posts. They all specifically were referring to the vitriolic accusations of "Nazi" and "fascist" leading to the death of Charlie Kirk. All three, DHH, Lunduke, and Kling, are obviously pointing out that, like Kirk, they have repeatedly been accused of the same thing. They've had the same labels applied to them too. Should they be worried about sharing a similar fate as Charlie? It's a sobering notion. The other aspect here is that the tools they use every day are being created and maintained, in many cases, by the same people who would level these labels upon them. Sometimes they are *paying* to use these tools. Is it really wise to financially support people who so readily apply these labels to people, without any regard to the accuracy of said labels? It must feel like contributing to your own possible murder attempt! I used to roll my eyes at, for example, Lunduke's [list of "non-woke" software](https://lunduke.locals.com/post/7178876/lundukes-non-woke-software-list-for-august-2025). It was always pretty cringy, and I've grown to dislike the "woke" label. But I'm starting to see the futility in simply ignoring this stuff. I'm not about to do anything drastic here, but I *will* say that Lunduke was right. It makes no sense to keep using products whose creators actively contribute to this sort of division. People who carelessly apply these labels to people are inviting crazy people to do crazy things. It's time to start choosing where to spend my money, what tools to use, and projects to support. Stop giving to people who so recklessly incentivise gruesome, violent attacks. Enough is enough. All this has to stop, and I refuse to contribute to it any longer. I don't wish to have this received as a call to boycott. I'm not about to make a list of software that people should *not* use because 1 or more devs or moderators on a project went rogue. But as Lunduke has recently said on his podcast: "Why would you use software made by people who hate you?" Especially now, when just using it makes you a "baddie."  "Baddie" of course, is referring to an Internet meme began by Mitchell and Webb (and carries with it the accusation of being a Nazi):  My preference here is not to reject projects because of their associations, but to *select* projects that don't get involved in the dirty business of purity exclusions, and tactics of shame and baseless accusations. I don't really care about developers' personal politics. But when they bring politics to a project, *especially* when they engage in attacking and bullying people who might have a different point of view (this goes for developers on the left *or* the right), well that might be the time I should look for different software.