2 ms·

I was going from memory, and didn't reread Lennart's responses in the thread. But looking at it again now, I still think it's an accurate summary. Lennart's li

by nkurz 11y ago

I was going from memory, and didn't reread Lennart's responses in the thread. But looking at it again now, I still think it's an accurate summary. Lennart's line after you quoted is "But beyond that: root can do anything really." I read this as Lennart saying that when root issues an 'rm' in efivarfs, the variable should be removed even if this renders the motherboard unusable without physical repairs. What's your interpretation? I've edited to fix my terrible punctuation, and to make it clear that 'it' refers to 'systemd', and to add a link to MJG's response on Twitter. I can edit further if you have a way to make it clearer.

kbenson 11y ago
My interpretation, stemming from his statement that it is a problem to brick machines and his statement that some programs need write access, is that something needs to be put in place, but we can't unilaterally restrict root (which would be very un-Unixy to do). I think he was fairly ambigous in details on how to fix it (possibly because he wasn't sure the best path to take), and included with some fairly blanket statements about policy/belief that allowed people to interpret his statements however they were inclined. Unfortunately due to the polarizing effect of systemd (and Lennart's prior projects, and possibly Lennart himself), there are plenty of people inclined to believe he doesn't care.