Now, a lawsuit has been filed against Red Hat, on behalf of Allan Wood, who was a Senior Director at the Linux giant.
That lawsuit alleges significant racial, relgious, and gender discrimination. And, based on what information we currently know about Red Hat's discriminatory policies... his case looks incredibly strong.
We just filed a federal lawsuit against IBM’s subsidiary Red Hat for illegal racial discrimination. IBM has allegedly implemented illegal anti-white and anti-male quotas. We will use every tool to hold IBM accountable:
With our co-counsel, including Barnes Law, we filed a lawsuit on behalf of our client against the International Business Machines Corporation’s (IBM) subsidiary, Red Hat, for violating Civil Rights laws by allegedly engaging in discriminatory employment and termination practices against white males.
Our plaintiff is a white male and was a dutiful Red Hat employee for eight years, rising to the position of Senior Director. He was an exemplary employee who had never received a negative review during his time at Red Hat.
But for the discrimination he faced, he was on the path to becoming one of the top executives at Red Hat…
In 2021, Red Hat began implementing illegal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) requirements. In accordance with its illegal activities, Red Hat hired a Chief Executive Officer of DEI to spearhead these programs — mandating employee training while implementing employment quotas aimed at achieving diversity goals by illegally treating race as a dispositive factor for employment and advancement.
On several occasions, managers and executives at Red Hat commented to our plaintiff and other employees expressing their dismay at the lack of diversity in the workforce and their desire to achieve certain workforce quotas based on race and gender. Red Hat executives indicated that these DEI initiatives would influence certain hiring and employment decisions.
Our plaintiff was vocal about his opposition to these discriminatory policies and continuously advocated for hiring based on merit and skill rather than other immutable characteristics.
Red Hat made express statements, both vocally and in writing at company events, that were derogatory towards white individuals and presented an anti-white agenda. Red Hat also remarked on the low number of women employed and expressed anti-male rhetoric. Red Hat made it clear that it was going to implement heightened DEI policies, with the sole intent of increasing diversity.
Red Hat has made it clear that it is in favor of discriminatory policies that the Supreme Court has found unconstitutional.
In the case of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard, decided together with SFFA v. University of North Carolina, Red Hat, along with 70 other corporations, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of affirmative action:
At a kickoff event in Texas, Red Hat brazenly announced its “Bold DEI Goals,” which included quotas.
Red Hat sought to remake its workforce demographic, seeking to reach 30% women globally and 30% associates of color in the United States by 2028.
Just two weeks after this announcement, our plaintiff was informed by his manager that his role was being eliminated following several months of discriminatory treatment.
Upon information and belief, 21 of the total 22 individuals were white males.
Last year, James O'Keefereleased a recording of IBM Chief Executive Officer and Board Chairman Arvind Krishna promising to fire, demote, or deny bonuses to corporate executives who fail to meet the corporation’s racial, national origin, and sex-based hiring quotas or hire too many Asian individuals.
Following this shocking footage, we filed a federal civil rights complaint with the EEOC against IBM for alleged racial and sex discrimination.
We also wrote to IBM’s Board of Directors, demanding an end to the corporation’s systemic violations of law to prevent the waste of corporate assets and harm to shareholders.
Today, we are proud to file this lawsuit to continue to fight corporate America’s destructive, illegal, and odious use of illegal DEI initiatives that are fundamentally anti-white, anti-male, and anti-equality.
With Git Moving to Rust, How Long Until a Git Fork?
Git 3.0 is scheduled to ship "second half of 2026", with a mandatory requirement of Rust. Which means Git will no longer build on many platforms. Setting the stage for a successful fork.
Connor McLaughlin, the developer of Duckstation, a popular Playstation emulator, calls NixOS and Arch Linux "hostile package environments", and blocks building for those Linux distributions.
Ads are filling the entirety of the Web -- websites, podcasts, YouTube videos, etc. -- at an increasing rate. Prices for those ad placements are plummeting. Consumers are desperate to use ad-blockers to make the web palatable. Google (and others) are desperate to break and block ad-blockers. All of which results in... more ads and lower pay for creators.
It's a fascinatingly annoying cycle. And there's only one viable way out of it.
I has clearly been adopted by the next generation. It can plug in very nicely into various ecosystems and tools. I am planning to adopt it as well for app development (logic part, not the view).
At the end of the day, if modern kids, people etc want to use Rust then it makes sense for the projects to start exploring it and investing in it today.
Not doing so might lead to old timers retiring without anyone left to replace them.
Rust is not a bad language at all. It definitely has a bad reputation for the way it was being pushed a few years back. But honestly, I don't see those "rewrite in Rust" mobs much these days.
U see people doing amazing projects and organic adoption skyrocketing.
That's why I don't think adding Rust into traditionaly C code bases is a bad idea.
It prepares the project for the "changing of the guard".
This was always bound to happen some day if not Rust then Zig or something else but as it turned out, it's Rust.
For you @GeekOnSkates a "Metal meets Medieval Vikings" song.
I didn't march to my own drummer as a kid nerd refusing to bow to school bullies -- only to, as an adult, bow down to any Nerd Herd trying to be gatekeepers.
A huge thank you to everyone who has signed up during this crazy deal. We are this close to filling up the 4th Lifetime Subscriber Wall (there’s a possibility it might fill up in the next few hours).
Far beyond anything I was expecting. All of you are absolutely amazing. The Lunduke Journal would not be possible without you.
If you were on contemplating grabbing that Lifetime Sub, I’d jump on it right now. The price goes back up to normal ($300) in about 12 hours or so.
Discounting Lifetime Subscriptions by over 70% was an absolute blast. So many of you took advantage of the offer that we’re now up to four Lifetime Subscriber walls at the end of every video. Crazy!
But something that awesome can’t last forever. Which means that, in just a few days, Lifetime Subscriptions will return to their regular price of $300.
With no plans to do another wild discount like that any time soon.
There are some options. For both subscribing and donating. They're all on this page.
Bonus: At the bottom of this page you will find the invite link to the super-secret Lunduke Journal Discord Chat Server. This is only available for full subscribers, which makes it a nice place to hang out. No riff-raff.
Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
