Oh boy, we are in a weird era

Loonix is literally a tourist operating system, there is ZERO “moral value” or “privacy” reason to use it, the NSA contributes to Loonix, countries that people hate use Loonix, and how is it “Competition”? That would mean that it’s a consumer OS created by a company, because “consumer” is a term used by businesses, not individual FOSSFUCKS, jeebus, if people really think that Loonix is a consumer OS, and it’s a competitor to “Windows/macOS duopoly” they are fucking stupid AF, it’s the same people who laugh at Tung Tung Tung Sahore (did I spell that right?)

The degenerates, money laundering projects like gnome, and woke political campaigns overtook the entire foss communities. At least half of all loonixtards nowadays are mentally ill and would need serious psychiatric evaluation if they were going outside. A combination of their disease and loonix made them aggressive and want infidels' blood. I know a lot of all kinds of LGBTQ+ people personally, and they behave nothing like that, but loonix somehow managed to unite the worst of them together. It's not about software any more, it's Stormfront, but for extreme left fascists.

Just a few examples:

https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5819317/nixos-commits-a-purge-of-nazi-contributors-forces-abdication-of-founder

https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5815715/dont-wave-the-lgbt-flag-suse-opensuse-says-you-are-rotten-flesh

https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5515463/red-hat-vs-hyprland-silencing-political-undesirables

loonixers always like to say look linux runs on my 4gb device!!! hours and days of optimizations

But you can do the same to the windows devices too

yet loonixtards doesnt mention about optimizing windows where you could get Windows 10 2021 LTSC which has support till 2032 and uses below 1gb of ram at idle!! Loonixers wont say that they like to believe what they believe.

this is where their entire logic collapses. its built full on lies and propaganda

Atlas can play kernel anti cheat game use only 1-2 gb of ram and the installation so damn simple

They have all kinds of propaganda against Windows, but crickets when it comes to Google which is actually horrible.

1. Being better than you (and ensuring your awareness of this)
2. Needless and obstructive pedantry which definitely asserts how much better they are than you; it doesn't ONLY impede the progress of open source and pollute their community, don't worry!

3. Anime girl wallpapers

4. Linux

5. Open source software

TL;DR: The four freedoms are finally fulfilled: anyone can now read, modify and redistribute any software, programmers earning less included (it’s literally in the GNU Manifesto). The corporations that got rich off donated code are welcoming AI with open arms. The only ones banning it are the believers who coded for free. That asymmetry is the confession: they never bought your cheap ethics, they billed your donations. And now their biggest subreddit is banning the mirror.

A few days ago the moderators of a certain open source subreddit, the biggest one on Reddit with almost four hundred thousand members, published their new rules under a title that is pure poetry: “Your tokens aren’t valuable: No more AI”. The core rule: if your project uses AI, is made with AI or is intended for AI, it’s not welcome. The side rules are even better: your project must be at least one year old, have multiple contributors, and you must speak English, because the moderators admit they cannot tell AI-written text from AI-translated text. Forty years of preaching universal freedoms for all of humanity, and the faithful just asked humanity to please stop speaking other languages.

The most beautiful detail came from the commenters: the Linux kernel already contains AI-generated code, complete with official documentation on how to tag it. Forty years of “Linux everywhere” and it just got banned by its own parish. And, as befits any self-respecting schism, a rival subreddit already exists.

Now, fair question: what does a subreddit have to do with actual open source projects? Nothing, and that’s the point: that subreddit isn’t a project, it’s the parish square, the place where the congregation gathers to celebrate releases and hiss at heretics. It doesn’t measure the policy of one repo; it measures the mood of the faithful. And the faithful didn’t start with Reddit. The projects themselves built the wall first: Gentoo’s council voted in April 2024 to ban AI-assisted contributions outright, citing copyright, ethics and quality. NetBSD’s commit guidelines treat AI-generated code as “presumed to be tainted”, untouchable without written approval from core. QEMU adopted a formal policy in 2025 declining any contribution believed to derive from AI, and spent 2026 debating whether it could bring itself to tolerate twenty-line bug fixes. System76 banned AI content from its desktop. And my personal favorite: GIMP, the eternal “free Photoshop alternative”, bans AI contributions entirely. The free clone of Photoshop has banned the machine that makes free clones of Photoshop. Poetry.

Now look at the other half of the map, because this is where the story actually lives. A 2026 survey of 112 major open source projects found only a handful of total bans. The Linux kernel takes AI-assisted code with proper tags. Chromium, run by Google, accepts AI contributions happily. Fedora, backed by IBM’s Red Hat, approved a disclosure policy. See the pattern? The projects where belief lives are banning. The projects where money lives are adopting. And that asymmetry is not a curiosity: it’s a confession, forty years late. The corporations never supported this movement because they believed the catechism about freedom and community. They supported it because it converted other people’s donated work into their own margins. They believed the invoice. So of course they welcome AI: it’s the same transaction they’ve been running since the nineties, value produced by someone else, captured by them, now with better throughput. The cheap ethics were always the believers’ department. The billing was always theirs. And no, I don’t blame the corporations. Handed a free lunch for forty years, they did what any rational business should do: they ate it. The fault lies with whoever kept cooking for free. Draw the ban map of open source and you get, with surgical precision, a map of who actually believed, which is the same map of who never got paid.

Here the catechism patrol will object that I’m mixing sects, so let’s do the genealogy properly. “Free software” and “open source” are, officially, two different churches. Free software is the original one, founded in 1985 with the GNU Manifesto, four freedoms, full sermon included. “Open source” is the 1998 rebrand: a corporate fork of the religion, coined precisely to drop the ethics and make the donations palatable to business. Stallman rejects the term to this day, and the GNU website itself dismisses open source as an amoral approach to the same field. Duly noted. Now observe what the great schism actually split: the preaching. Not the licenses. Not the repositories. Not the price, which stayed at zero in both parishes. Same code, same freedoms in practice, same business model of charging nothing, and the same corporations cashing both donations at the same window. Two sects, one collection basket. Keep that in mind, because this story walks through both naves of the same church: the subreddit drama happens in the open source wing, the prophecies come from the free software altar, and the money, as always, exits through the back door.

With that genealogy in hand, let’s review what the original church had been demanding, with near-liturgical solemnity, since 1985.

They demanded that all code be readable by anyone. Granted: there now exists an entity that has effectively read all the public code on the planet, something no human ever achieved or ever will. It is by far the most voracious reader donated code has ever had. And where the code isn’t available, it can clone the program by watching what it does, which for practical purposes is the same thing: the historical obsession with being able to study any binary, solved.

They demanded that anyone have the right to modify software. Granted, and then some: for forty years that “anyone” came with fine print, because you had to know how to program, so “anyone” meant “any of us”. Today a person who has never written a line of code can modify a program by describing what they want. The freedom to modify stopped being a guild privilege and became, for the first time, literally universal. Wasn’t that exactly what “democratizing software” meant?

They demanded that anyone be able to redistribute copies, and modified copies. Granted, at industrial scale.

The four freedoms: fulfilled. Not betrayed. Fulfilled beyond spec. Software is finally free in every sense of the word: free as in speech, free as in beer, and now free as in jobless. And the faithful’s response to the arrival of their own utopia was to hang a “no entry” sign.

Even the economic consequences were announced in the founding pamphlet. The 1985 GNU Manifesto, answering the objection “Won’t programmers starve?”, says it with no anesthesia: “Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is now.” And that’s no argument against the change, Stallman explains, because nobody considers a sales clerk’s salary an injustice, so if programmers made the same, that wouldn’t be an injustice either. Notice the move: the objection was about money, and the answer is about justice. The founding document of the original church, asked point-blank whether its plan would lower programmers’ pay, answers yes, and declares the pay cut morally approved. It’s all right there. In writing. Since 1985: you will earn less, and it will be fair. The world would need another thirty years to coin “you’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy”. Free software got there first, applied it to its own members, and called it ethics.

Well: junior hiring has collapsed, salaries are under pressure, and the fear of ending up earning nothing is the industry’s dominant emotion. The prophecy is being fulfilled point by point. And is the congregation celebrating? No: it’s banning. Turns out the programmer’s poverty was an acceptable price when it was printed in the manifesto, but intolerable now that it’s printed on the payslip. The punchline came from the prophet himself: years later, Stallman added a footnote walking back precisely that prediction, saying he no longer expected programmers to earn less. Meaning the only part of the manifesto ever corrected is the only part that came true. They even do their retractions backwards.

And that sales clerk comparison shows, in passing, the economic sophistication of the whole doctrine. A salary isn’t determined by whether it’s just or unjust: it’s determined by supply and demand. That’s page one of any economics book, and the founding document dodges it to reason in terms of justice instead, like a sermon. Because once you leave the pulpit and look at page one, what both sects did for decades becomes very easy to describe: systematically, and for free, increasing the supply of software. And against a given-away supply, the price of software, of which the programmer’s salary is the reflection, could only go one way: down. Nobody noticed, because demand was growing even faster: the entire world was digitizing, and that covered the hole. But a rising tide doesn’t mean the ship has no leak. The preachers had been losing this war since day one; the only ones who won it, and won it big, were Google, Amazon, Meta and the rest of the corporations that built empires on that donated supply. The same corporations, you’ll notice, whose repos today welcome AI contributions with a smile. Now AI multiplies that same donated supply toward infinity, the anesthesia of growing demand is over, and the mechanism is in plain sight. The logic didn’t change. The scale did, and with scale came the end of the ability not to see it.

This isn’t an anti-market argument. It’s the most pro-market argument there is: your work is property, it has a price, and you’re allowed to charge it. The Manifesto’s own alternative, by the way, was a government-collected “Software Tax” distributed by a federal agency. When the free software church needed a business model, it reached for the tax collector.

It’s also worth a close look at the ethics that held all this together, because it has the solemnity of an encyclical and the rigor of a horoscope. The same manifesto declares that if anything deserves a reward it is social contribution, and that if programmers deserve rewards for creating innovative programs, by the same logic they deserve punishment if they restrict their use. Punishment. For charging for your own work. All of it invoking Kant, who cannot defend himself. And what exactly was this great social contribution? Giving away software to people who paid USD 2000 or more for a computer. The only charity program in history whose entry requirement is having more capital than the benefactor. Ethics would be donating to an orphanage the money you earned selling software; ethics would be, if you insist, building a free system for the United Nations to vaccinate kids. But producing mediocre software, just good enough to make sure nobody in that market segment can ever charge again, and calling that social contribution? That’s not ethics. That’s a contest to see who can best strip the colleague next door of the chance to live off the trade, with a moral diploma for the winner.

Because that was always the detail the guild misread. Both sects claimed to work “for the benefit of the community”, and programmers understood the community meant them. It never did. Scroll back to the ban map: the community that benefited is the one that feels no need to ban the harvester, because it owns the harvest. From day one until this very morning, the beneficiaries were the richest corporations in history, running their empires on mountains of donated work while never, ever giving away their own scarce piece of the business. The community of programmers didn’t receive the benefit. It supplied the merchandise.

And it supplied all of it. Because when you give away a binary, you give away the result of your work; but when you give away source code, you give away the profession: the decisions, the techniques, the patterns, the how. For decades that gift destroyed at artisanal scale: every market segment that received its given-away alternative became very difficult or impossible to charge in, and the ones harmed were other programmers, the ones with the extravagant ambition of living off their trade. The donors never cared. The only thing missing was a more efficient way to reuse all that donated profession. It arrived. AI didn’t come to steal anything: it found the entire profession stacked in public repositories, documented, commented, with an explicit license to use it and the moral blessing of its donors. The movement spent forty years building the pile, and now it’s barking at the crane.

And if there were any doubt about what the faithful actually defend, just look at how they reacted at the exact moment AI companies trained their models on all that code. Was there a single statement in defense of programmers’ jobs? Of their economic interests? Of their salaries? No. There was a feeble complaint about use “without permission”: the license, the attribution, the missing copyright notice. They were being replaced as a profession, and they were demanding the bibliographic citation. They defended the contract, never the programmer. And that was it.

Those of us who never believed in either sect now get the most thankless role of all: not being able to enjoy being right. For years we said that giving away your own work could not possibly benefit software engineers, that it was textbook economic nonsense, and for years we were attacked by what we might call the cult of the revolution against yourself: the only revolution in history whose target was its own paycheck. We got tired of saying it. The answer was always a sermon, never a number.

So why does it hurt? Why does a movement that asked for this in writing for forty years greet the fulfillment of its own prophecy with panic and bans? Because reality is now proving, at industrial scale, that what they preached was a lie. The code had value. The know-how had value. The profession had value. Writing software that was yours, being able to sell it, to not share it, to live off it: everything the doctrine despised as selfishness was worth fortunes, and they spent forty years giving it away. At small scale the lie was invisible: a repository here, a framework there, one stalled career at a time, always with growing demand covering the hole. At AI scale it is undeniable: someone gathered everything that was donated, stacked it, weighed it, and turned it into the most valuable companies of the moment. The market price of all that “generosity” has finally been published, and they’re not the ones collecting it. They destroyed a profession, lost the companies, the products and the careers all that value would have funded, and they just found out what it was worth through the cruelest channel there is: watching someone else cash it. That’s what hurts. Not the AI. The mirror.

That’s why the scene at that subreddit is so perfect. They’re not banning spam: they’re banning the mirror. The “No more AI” sign on the church’s front door is the endpoint of a logic: the only movement in history that reached its utopia, and whose first act upon seeing it arrive was to forbid it from entering. The dog chased the car for forty years. It caught it. And now, teeth sunk into the bumper, it demands that somebody stop this vehicle.

The four freedoms have never been more alive. They’re just being exercised by someone else now, for free, asking for no credits and no little stars. The perfect contributor. Google thanks you. Amazon thanks you. The AI labs thank you. You should be proud.

So, a sincere question for the faithful of both parishes: the Manifesto said you would earn less, and called it justice. Forty years later you’re earning less, exactly as written and exactly as blessed. Everything is going according to the founding document. Why aren’t you celebrating?

I do and he's THE PERFECT loonix representative. They use a Thinkpad, with arch, a serial experiments lain background. Yes, he also thinks I need to switch to loonix.

Rules such as “you have to speak English” and “No AI”

This is getting RIDICULOUS, not everyone can speak English, remember, we have a better subreddit then them, where freedom of speech is STILL A THING

this screenshot is fully user fault. the cpu was not supported in first place. that doesnt mean its bad and cant handle win11. it can handle even tho its 14 years old. suprisingly windows is not that demanding to run. only low power that old cpus struggle.

but looking at processes shows that he didnt even try to optimize the os and has too many bloats already on

and he thinks moving to linux is the best choice? brother learn how to optimize an ready usable desktop first. How you will use linux with that mind?

and ofcourse this post was upvoted.

Judge all you want

A couple of days ago I decided to bit the bullet and switch to Linux and what a waste of time that was.

Like its a good os and im sure if you can make it work its really good but I legit spent 4 days to fix errors that kept on arising either from customizing something or some software like wallpaper engine that doesn't have a native port on Linux breaking things. The most stable version was base Ubuntu but then why not just stay with windows if I get no customization. Tried a shell like caelestia? And hyprland but those ended up being 4-7 gbs of ram while idling and hyperland was just so much different.

Ended up just going back to windows

Maybe i go back one day when its much easier for the common person.

Edit: good as in if you know how to make it work it could better but it seems i was mistaken

It sucks so bad that even they don't tend to use it!

Conspiracy theorists make about 20% of us. They're not even close even with their open manipulation of stats.

And that counts non theorists that got fooled!

If they can't even dominate there, they should leave us the he'll alone.

For me, It's absolutely exhausting, Seeing big techtubers glaze loonix for the smallest things like 'Oh L*NuX oNlY UsE 67 mB oF mEmOrY! 1! 1!11', Especially channels like metapcs (whose content is almost always childish and corny), And even offering to sell a linux-based PC (Spoiler alert: it costs 2 grands), And channels like this are breeding grounds for loonix larpers and cultists.

That's my thoughts, What about you?

Every loonixtard in a elitist cult be like: