Skip Navigation
Linux @lemmy.ml
maliciousonion @lemmy.ml

Linux is religion

The distro family trees are like different pantheons.

Distros are like individual gods. Community developers are priests and end-users are the commoners who pray for blessings, good fortune, and happy lives. Priests direct the prayers of commoners to their respective gods.

There is the Debian pantheon, ancient gods of peace and stillness.

The Arch pantheon, progressive gods that bring revolution along with a bit of chaos.

The Red Hat pantheon, gods tha- wtf am I writing?

62 comments

  • Well, it might seem that way sometimes. But in the end, what's different to religion is that this is all rooted in facts. Facts which are quite abstract, so not everyone gets them and even those who do get them sometimes wonder whether it's important or not sometimes. The thing is, Linux is at its core a neutral, open and free operating system, and it's basically the only one which is advanced or mature enough to be a real competitor to let's say Windows or MacOS. Of course it's more than a competitor on the server, it's basically the only relevant server operating system (Windows Server has a niche in application servers within a MS intranet domain, or to control Windows clients via policies, that's about it, and MacOS server is already long dead I think). Of course, some of Linux' success is because those same companies also contribute a lot to the development of Linux, because they need it for themselves as well. But that's just one more thing which makes Linux a very unique thing. It's like a neutral baseline for an operating system. Like a very capable OS core that everyone works on, even the competition works on it, because they also rely on it.

    That it's open source and transparent and that anyone can use it or improve it or change it or whatever makes it special, because it's not a commercial black-box product where you just consume it as-is and have zero rights whatsoever to do or change anything about it. That's actually incredibly special in today's commercialized landscape. Its open nature also means it can never die, only grow. And because it's a proven good system which is also so very different compared to established desktop OSses, it can happen that its users or fans can seem somewhat religious towards it. But, again, compared to religion, religion is based on pure belief (otherwise it would be called fact). There's nothing religious about Linux or open source software. It's simply a special operating system, and not in a bad way at all. And closely related to it is, of course, the whole free/open source software movement. Which every user, even those of closed operating systems, can and do benefit from.

    And since today's commercial software continues growing more and more user hostile (ads, spying, bloat, dark patterns, high prices/software rental models), it's getting increasingly important to have at least the option of a true alternative. Even users who absolutely hate Linux and open source software should be glad that alternatives do exist, so that once the food they are being fed by Microsoft and so on doesn't taste good anymore, they at least have an option to switch to something else entirely.

  • The great Umberto Eco once wrote some wonderful musings about the similarities between different then popular personal computer operating systems and different branches of Christianity. I see that's now 30 years ago this year so now might be a good time for a repost, English translations and Italian original can be found here: https://www.simongrant.org/web/eco.html

    • It's too good not to be posted here :

      The fact is that the world is divided between users of the Macintosh computer and users of MS-DOS compatible computers. I am firmly of the opinion that the Macintosh is Catholic and that DOS is Protestant. Indeed, the Macintosh is counterreformist and has been influenced by the “ratio studiorum” of the Jesuits. It is cheerful, friendly, conciliatory, it tells the faithful how they must proceed step by step to reach – if not the Kingdom of Heaven – the moment in which their document is printed. It is catechistic: the essence of revelation is dealt with via simple formulae and sumptuous icons. Everyone has a right to salvation.

      DOS is Protestant, or even Calvinistic. It allows free interpretation of scripture, demands difficult personal decisions, imposes a subtle hermeneutics upon the user, and takes for granted the idea that not all can reach salvation. To make the system work you need to interpret the program yourself: a long way from the baroque community of revelers, the user is closed within the loneliness of his own inner torment.

      You may object that, with the passage to Windows, the DOS universe has come to resemble more closely the counterreformist tolerance of the Macintosh. It's true: Windows represents an Anglican-style schism, big ceremonies in the cathedral, but there is always the possibility of a return to DOS to change things in accordance with bizarre decisions.....

      And machine code, which lies beneath both systems (or environments, if you prefer)? Ah, that is to do with the Old Testament, and is Talmudic and cabalistic.

      Be sure to click the link to a fuller version provided beneath this one. Eco is just excellent.

  • Arch or arch devs never told me to kill anyone because they're not a white, straight and cis male using arch.

    Therefore it's not a real religion, as every religion needs to have murders without reason.

  • I already knew it basically was a religion, haha

    Unconditional belief in OpenSuSE supremacy, Gut für Alle!

62 comments