Forks · systemd/systemd
github.com
The systemd System and Service Manager . Contribute to systemd/systemd development by creating an account on GitHub.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/62192988

The latest changes implemented in the Systemd repo, related to or prompted by age-verification laws, have made many people unhappy (I suppose links about this aren’t necessary). This has led to a surge in Systemd forks during the last days (“surge” because there have always been plenty of forks). Here are some forks that explicitly mention those changes as their reason for forking (rough time ordering taken from the fork page):

Hopefully the energy of this reaction won’t be scattered among too many alternatives, although some amount of scattering is always good.

  • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
    117·
    11 days ago

    I wouldn’t personally. But either way all these forks are silly considering the non issue they’re addressing. Though it’s their developers, God-given time to waste. Should they choose to.

    It was a merge request from an external unassociated developer. To add an optional text field to a bunch of other already optional and generally unfilled text fields. With no method to check or enforce anything. To the nameD subsystem of systemD. If the text field offends you don’t fill it. Save your powder for those implementing checking and enforcement.

    • frongt@lemmy.zip
      172·
      11 days ago

      The pr was merged. It’s not just a request from an external developer any more, it’s part of systemd.

          • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
            111·
            10 days ago

            You’re confusing blind reactionary panic with controversy. But hey, it’s your chance to prove me wrong. Tell me what the controversial change was. And why a completely optional text field with no check or enforcement or any system behind it is controversial. Do you even know anything about the subsystem being discussed? Because if you did all the outrage is absurd.

            • floofloof@lemmy.ca
              5·
              10 days ago

              I would say that if it causes a controversy then it is controversial, even if some people think it shouldn’t be.

              • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
                1·
                10 days ago

                Oh, I got you now. You’re one of those people that thinks vaccines are controversial. Because a bunch of uninformed or misinformed people have bad opinions on the subject. And if you’re not. That’s worse because you can’t be bothered to have any consistency lol.

                There’s a difference between a controversy or conspiracy, existing around something. And that thing being controversial itself. And I’m going to get a lot of downvotes for pointing that out. But I’m not even mad. It’s absolutely true and hilarious to watch all the uninformed reactionary downvoting.

                BTW dawg. Got bad news. All Unix’s have been similarly doxing us likely longer than you’ve been alive!!! With completely optional, unenforced, and voluntary fields for such sensitive information as real-name address and even date of birth. Dun dun dun!!! Not even that recent unearthed tape of bell labs sysIV was clean! Unix is a voluntary CIA psyop confirmed! Welp better go harass volunteer projects and devs who are also victims of these failing states. That will fix it if anything will. Because if there’s one thing we all know for a fact. Ignorant reactionary mobs are never wrong.

                • floofloof@lemmy.ca
                  1·
                  10 days ago

                  So I guess you’re saying you use “controversial” in a normative sense while I’m using it in a descriptive sense. We’re talking at slightly cross purposes. Maybe in itself this shouldn’t be controversial, but the political context in which it appears makes people worry.

    • Sophocles@infosec.pub
      3·
      10 days ago

      I can definitely see both sides. On one hand I do agree the actual change itself is pretty meaningless. Just don’t fill the systemdb entries with any info. However what the change represents is much more alarming. It signals a foot in the door to open source devs conplying to the authoritarian whims of a governmental power. They should definitely not comply with dumb legeslature like this, especially considering their userbase.

      TLDR: the change itself is dumb and small, but what it means for the foss community is much more alarming and dangerous.

      • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
        1·
        10 days ago

        I still don’t. Unfortunately these groups are still required to follow laws regardless of how stupid they are. And many more than this are indeed, very stupid.

        If you want to have riteous anger at someone who deserves it that might have positive impact. Rail against the governments. Not to downplay what happened in Nazi Germany. But would you think it reasonable to harras and harangue German Jews who wore the star of David to identify themselves as required by the government? I don’t think a reasonable person would. When I bump into groups that have to comply with stupid state laws here where I live, I don’t blame those groups. I blame the state like any sensible person would. Not attacking and blaming other victims of the state.

        Do you think they should resist the state? That’s all well and good. Will you be there to defend them when the state comes? To fund these random devs defense? No? You won’t and they’re largely on their own? Then what do they owe to us? What entitles us to give them so much grief?