3 ms·

All I'm hearing is NATO military good guys, everyone else evil. Somehow I should be agreeable to US weapons teams mainlining patches say for whatever weapon ki

All I'm hearing is NATO military good guys, everyone else evil. Somehow I should be agreeable to US weapons teams mainlining patches say for whatever weapon killed that random.man and his children during the fall of Kabul. But not a nasty North Koreans?

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
If that's all you're hearing you are so overly emotionally invested that it's blinding you to context. No one is saying that citizens and corporations of non-aligned countries shouldn't submit patches which are accepted by the maintainers. They're saying that citizens and corporations of countries which are engaged in hot, cold, or proxy wars with the countries of citizenship of the maintainers shouldn't have patches accepted by said maintainers.
- psychphysic 4y ago
  This is silly cutting off your nose to spite your face. And for your users too. It's very rich to claim I'm too emotionally invested (because I'm rationally assessing the situation??) in the topic then go one about the emotional investment (comfort) of the maintainer to justify their view... That's classic projection.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    "All I'm hearing is NATO military good guys, everyone else evil." This is not rational. It's an emotional interpretation of what was written.
    - psychphysic 4y ago
      Yes just a coincidence everyone in the thread seems okay with NATO national intelligence and military submitting patches to Linux. But definitely Russian, North Koreans and Iranians shouldn't. It's like I'm stuck in a Top Gun movie...
      - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        From what I read in the thread you were the one bringing up NATO intelligence and military patch submissions. And you did it in a context of saying that from what you gather even people from non-aligned countries would be banned from submitting to the Linux kernel, too. Perhaps other people in this thread also think it's problematic that any military or intelligence agency submits patches. But that wasn't what the post is about. It's about a Russian military-associated company. And that's what most of the comments I read were commenting about. If you want to channel the conversation to your hobbyhorse you can, and did. But that doesn't mean the people who respond negatively to your comments don't agree in general with you. It seems to me that national militaries should be maintaining their own kernels. And just for precautionary purposes intelligence agencies/companies (whether national or private sector) should be generally banned from kernel submits. Bug reports and exploit reports are another thing, but they are too motivated to insert backdoors and exploits due to the nature of their business.
pvaldes 4y ago
Clearly, you are not understanding the problem then
- crypt47 4y ago
  And you think this is a problem with political roots, right?
crypt47 4y ago
[dead]

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

If that's all you're hearing you are so overly emotionally invested that it's blinding you to context. No one is saying that citizens and corporations of non-aligned countries shouldn't submit patches which are accepted by the maintainers. They're saying that citizens and corporations of countries which are engaged in hot, cold, or proxy wars with the countries of citizenship of the maintainers shouldn't have patches accepted by said maintainers.

psychphysic 4y ago
This is silly cutting off your nose to spite your face. And for your users too. It's very rich to claim I'm too emotionally invested (because I'm rationally assessing the situation??) in the topic then go one about the emotional investment (comfort) of the maintainer to justify their view... That's classic projection.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  "All I'm hearing is NATO military good guys, everyone else evil." This is not rational. It's an emotional interpretation of what was written.
  - psychphysic 4y ago
    Yes just a coincidence everyone in the thread seems okay with NATO national intelligence and military submitting patches to Linux. But definitely Russian, North Koreans and Iranians shouldn't. It's like I'm stuck in a Top Gun movie...
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      From what I read in the thread you were the one bringing up NATO intelligence and military patch submissions. And you did it in a context of saying that from what you gather even people from non-aligned countries would be banned from submitting to the Linux kernel, too. Perhaps other people in this thread also think it's problematic that any military or intelligence agency submits patches. But that wasn't what the post is about. It's about a Russian military-associated company. And that's what most of the comments I read were commenting about. If you want to channel the conversation to your hobbyhorse you can, and did. But that doesn't mean the people who respond negatively to your comments don't agree in general with you. It seems to me that national militaries should be maintaining their own kernels. And just for precautionary purposes intelligence agencies/companies (whether national or private sector) should be generally banned from kernel submits. Bug reports and exploit reports are another thing, but they are too motivated to insert backdoors and exploits due to the nature of their business.

pvaldes 4y ago

Clearly, you are not understanding the problem then

crypt47 4y ago
And you think this is a problem with political roots, right?

crypt47 4y ago

[dead]