• evol@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I’m so confused he adds a JSON field and corporate linux (who fund 95% of Linux development) need some sort of age auth mechanism for enterprise deployments. What do you guys want instead?

    Like its not even enforceable, when the hardware attestation comes sure but before that why does anyone care (thats not going to stop you from changing a json field in systemd lmao)

    • paper_moon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      I think if you reframe the action, it’ll make more sense why people are upset about this.

      The way you see it: Some idiots created a new law, this guy was just compying with an unenforceable law, and its unenforceable, so why are people even bothering to get upset. They’re not even using hardware assetation to force this yet. He was just doing his job to follow the law to get this software deployed.

      If you reframe it to this, I think it’ll make more sense:

      Some idiots created a new unenforceable law. Did anyone from the government specifically reach out to this software team and demand they add this field? Did the software in any way get blocked from being deployed? Its unenforceable, why even bother voluntarily adding features no one wants, for an unenforceable law? They’re not even using hardware assetation yet to force this. Why make the lives easier for people who want to ruin things, by voluntarily adding these features without even being demanded to?

      • evol@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Because its required by law, and many customers of systemd need to support this?