184
LTT does another Linux Challenge
(youtu.be)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2026
184 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
63640 readers
512 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
is there a source for this? i remember the sexual harassment allegations got pretty serious, but i think he was supposed to be somewhat sympathetic to unions?
i wouldn't be surprised, but what happened there exactly?
Linus said that he’d consider it a personal failure on his part if his employees feel they need to unionise to get heard
And the Internet Hate Machine interprets this as LINUS STOMPS UNIONS AND WANTS TO FUCK THEM IN THE ASS. DRY.
Of course any owner who stands to make millions in comparison to his employees wouldn't want a union, and prefer them to be content with what's given than to start demanding more pay and less hours.
Can try to pretty it up as if it would mean a personal failure as a boss. But, it really comes down to hoping to play up the good boss angle who cares to avoid the nightmare scenario of having to share more of the money with labor and not wanting to lose leverage that a boss has over labor that isn't unionized.
No union is more power and more money. That's the non PR answer without the flowery language.
phrasing, phrasing matters quite a lot. I remember that line being followed up by him stating that he wants the employees to express their concerns instead of outright unionizing. I cannot recall precisely but I do think before all of that he also stated that he feels there exists no need for a union if the workplace is welcoming. I don't at all remember why the topic was brought up in the first place tho.
As I mentioned in my prev comment I feel that if your employees feel a need to unionize then they're past civil discussions and also it feels to me like sweeping the incident under the rug so they don't land in hot water. but perhaps I am too red pilled by the rest of the bs that's going on.
I can understand why a boss wouldn't want a union, since it means less power and more money having to be shared with labor. I'd be the same where I wouldn't want labor to unionize if I had a business, but not deluded enough to think it's because I care about them that I'd take it as a moral failure if they unionized.
Its because I would prefer to take the position of the benevolent dictator compared to suddenly having the business shift to more of a democracy or republic. So that's the motivation to be just nice enough for labor to not have thoughts or make moves to take away my power and money.
I guess its why I see through the flowery language. But, no boss would freely admit that so don't really fault that him too much. But, do hope people see through the PR answer just so they too are aware of what's actually going on in the minds of people they work for.
sadly I don't think people see though it, they prefer to make fun anyone reading beyond the flowery language
shut up liberal. you're turning the frogs gay
Why? Unions are for civil discussion.
I agree, they literally are. but Linus said that he wishes employees personally discuss the matter w him b4 starting a union. which was what I was highlighting. if your employees feel a need to unionize then they're past civil discussions. does not mean they're adverse to civil discussions as part of a union tho.
I mean this matter has been settled a century ago, I don't really think it's necessary to explain why employees can't discuss matters with their employers on a level ground
correct. but counter point, if it were settled a century ago then it should be common knowledge. Linus still however believes, out of sheer stupidity or malice, that his employees can discuss matters with him amidst a power gap. this is not the case and which is y I highlighted it.
disagree. many people still don't know that they shouldn't talk to cops w/o a lawyer present. diff nations have diff labor laws and sm outright don't. so to sm people this might not be as obv.
I’ve never really watched the guy, so I have no dog in this fight. That’s definitely a dumb-as-nails take. Not anything I wouldn’t expect from someone born to moderate wealth running a company, but not especially malicious.
agreed. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that his intentions were in the right place. he cares for his workers and would feel deeply hurt if they felt a need to unionize as a result of his leadership. I can chuck this up to not being able to express his thoughts at that time in a sanitized manner. recall the time he accidentally said that he used to use the hard R but actually meant the mental hadicap word instead of the N word? he then got corrected by Luke and the producer but damn would that have sunk the boat.
but to not play the devil's advocate. he is a damn good manipulator.
edit:
Being the face of a (multi?)million dollar enterprise AND going live on air once a week without any delay is either really brave or really stupid 😄
I used to be a watcher of the Wan Show and on an episode he stated that if his workers feel a need to unionize then he has failed as a boss. He then stated that they should not unionize and discuss the matter personally with him. The reason I said fuck his viewpoint on worker rights is cuz of the "should not" part. If the employees feel the need to unionize then idt they're at that state to have a civil discussion when there clearly exists an imbalanced power dynamic. Another reason is ofc he's trying to keep shit on the hush hush cuz a company that gets hit with a union is gonna be in sm deep shit.