4 ms·

Systemd BirthDate Merge: Conflicts of Interest

23 points by npongratz 6mo ago

withinboredom 6mo ago
The mailing list doesn't seem to make it out into such a controversial issue. It's an optional field that doesn't require a real birthday.
- righthand 6mo ago
  The issue isn’t the field but how the governance system for critical software is non-existant.
  - uecker 6mo ago
    It also has to be considered in light of the fact that Lennart builds a company for "cryptographically verifiable integrity on Linux".
  - withinboredom 6mo ago
    Because someone added a new user field? Does that need governance?
    - righthand 6mo ago
      When your software is the core piece of tech in almost all mainline Linux distros, yes it does require governance. However you may like someone being an authoritarian regardless of the “it’s only a user field no big deal” view and the next thing they change without governance for everyone you will be fine with also, even if you disagree. Again it’s not about the field.
      - withinboredom 6mo ago
        If this is the “straw that broke the camel’s back” as they say… it seems it is more about the field than anything else. It’s a strange hill to die on… there are much larger changes happening on a daily basis… or is this like a bike shedding effect, where it’s such a small trivial and pointless change that it is worth fighting over? Something everyone can understand. I dunno. The only reason I’m even on the mailing list was to report a bug several years ago…
        righthand 6mo ago
        I think it’s about raising visibility of an issue. What type of code change the issue is tied to is irrelevant. However it helps that the code change has some already existing political momentum. What other arguments are we going to try and whittle the governance issue down to “its just the code change who cares!”?
righthand 6mo ago
Why doesn’t someone fork systemd and start reworking/taking out all the icky parts as well as destroying Poettering’s control over it? Debian’s forced accepting of Systemd is finally rearing it’s ugly head. I am glad I switched to Devuan earlier this year.
- iugtmkbdfil834 6mo ago
  I think.. because good inits already exist and systemD is an abomination unto god. Heavens know I was fully expecting agent integration soon...
  - righthand 6mo ago
    I agree but all the proponents of it have said “it’s so convenient who cares”. That obviously states there are some features that bring value. I’m hard pressed to believe you need ALL of systemd architected how it is for those claims to hold.
    - iugtmkbdfil834 6mo ago
      There is value in not having to think about stuff too much. As my buddy sometimes says: 'I work support all the time, I don't want to do it at home as well.' Hard to argue with that. Heavens know I have less time for random exploration and related troubleshooting. But.. at certain point, that convenience is nulled by.. bad ideas. I honestly didn't decide which path ( well, distro really )I am choosing, but I know it will not contain systemd if I can help it.
      - righthand 6mo ago
        I’m not sure your point. Does an init system actually require a huge team and budget behind it? Especially when one guy is already forcing decisions on everyone?
        iugtmkbdfil834 6mo ago
iugtmkbdfil834 6mo ago
It was a long time coming, but it now happened. SystemD managed to do something that might give people pause over convenience factor. I am saying might, because while I am now actively planning ( until now I treated it as ideologically impure aspect of linux, but sufficiently useful to offset that discomfort ). DOB merge ( and how it was done ) changes that calculus by a wide margin. It is not even about DOB now. It is the full blown slippery slope with MS doing round 2 of EEE.
Foxboron 6mo ago
This just reads like a LLM trying to come up with a conspiracy theory around systemd. It somehow got hyper-fixated on "three" for no particular reason and seems like it decided to harpen down that fact without explaining anything around it?
beepbooptheory 6mo ago
[flagged]
jmclnx 6mo ago
From the wayback machine, I could not get into the link: https://web.archive.org/web/20260403141132/https://tboteproject.com/systemdfindings/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260403141132/https://tboteproj...
- npongratz 6mo ago
  Mirror here: https://isoc-sig.freifunk.net/systemd/systemd%20birthDate%20Merge_%20Corporate%20Filings%20&%20Governance%20Failure%20-%20TBOTE%20Project.html https://isoc-sig.freifunk.net/systemd/systemd%20birthDate%20... (confirmed still up at the time of writing this post.)
sqidyyy 6mo ago
The "DiRUG reform" link leads nowhere and I can't find that particular site neither on bmj.de nor the Wayback Machine. Is that an hallucinated artifact?
VladStanimir 6mo ago
I don't see the problem with the systemd DOB merger, the DOB will have to be stored somewhere and systemd already has a place where user information is securely stored so they added a new field to the user database. The alternative is not that no DOB will be stored is that it will end up stored in 20 different locations on the filesystem.
tzs 6mo ago
The site this is on seems to be a bit questionable [1]. [1] https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1064706/ba8e449d224f5067/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1064706/ba8e449d224f5067/

23 points by npongratz 6mo ago

The mailing list doesn't seem to make it out into such a controversial issue. It's an optional field that doesn't require a real birthday.

righthand 6mo ago
The issue isn’t the field but how the governance system for critical software is non-existant.
- uecker 6mo ago
  It also has to be considered in light of the fact that Lennart builds a company for "cryptographically verifiable integrity on Linux".
- withinboredom 6mo ago
  Because someone added a new user field? Does that need governance?
  - righthand 6mo ago
    When your software is the core piece of tech in almost all mainline Linux distros, yes it does require governance. However you may like someone being an authoritarian regardless of the “it’s only a user field no big deal” view and the next thing they change without governance for everyone you will be fine with also, even if you disagree. Again it’s not about the field.
    - withinboredom 6mo ago
      If this is the “straw that broke the camel’s back” as they say… it seems it is more about the field than anything else. It’s a strange hill to die on… there are much larger changes happening on a daily basis… or is this like a bike shedding effect, where it’s such a small trivial and pointless change that it is worth fighting over? Something everyone can understand. I dunno. The only reason I’m even on the mailing list was to report a bug several years ago…
      - righthand 6mo ago
        I think it’s about raising visibility of an issue. What type of code change the issue is tied to is irrelevant. However it helps that the code change has some already existing political momentum. What other arguments are we going to try and whittle the governance issue down to “its just the code change who cares!”?

righthand 6mo ago

Why doesn’t someone fork systemd and start reworking/taking out all the icky parts as well as destroying Poettering’s control over it? Debian’s forced accepting of Systemd is finally rearing it’s ugly head. I am glad I switched to Devuan earlier this year.

iugtmkbdfil834 6mo ago
I think.. because good inits already exist and systemD is an abomination unto god. Heavens know I was fully expecting agent integration soon...
- righthand 6mo ago
  I agree but all the proponents of it have said “it’s so convenient who cares”. That obviously states there are some features that bring value. I’m hard pressed to believe you need ALL of systemd architected how it is for those claims to hold.
  - iugtmkbdfil834 6mo ago
    There is value in not having to think about stuff too much. As my buddy sometimes says: 'I work support all the time, I don't want to do it at home as well.' Hard to argue with that. Heavens know I have less time for random exploration and related troubleshooting. But.. at certain point, that convenience is nulled by.. bad ideas. I honestly didn't decide which path ( well, distro really )I am choosing, but I know it will not contain systemd if I can help it.
    - righthand 6mo ago
      I’m not sure your point. Does an init system actually require a huge team and budget behind it? Especially when one guy is already forcing decisions on everyone?
      - iugtmkbdfil834 6mo ago

iugtmkbdfil834 6mo ago

It was a long time coming, but it now happened. SystemD managed to do something that might give people pause over convenience factor. I am saying might, because while I am now actively planning ( until now I treated it as ideologically impure aspect of linux, but sufficiently useful to offset that discomfort ). DOB merge ( and how it was done ) changes that calculus by a wide margin. It is not even about DOB now. It is the full blown slippery slope with MS doing round 2 of EEE.

Foxboron 6mo ago

This just reads like a LLM trying to come up with a conspiracy theory around systemd. It somehow got hyper-fixated on "three" for no particular reason and seems like it decided to harpen down that fact without explaining anything around it?

beepbooptheory 6mo ago

[flagged]

jmclnx 6mo ago

From the wayback machine, I could not get into the link: https://web.archive.org/web/20260403141132/https://tboteproject.com/systemdfindings/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260403141132/https://tboteproj...

npongratz 6mo ago
Mirror here: https://isoc-sig.freifunk.net/systemd/systemd%20birthDate%20Merge_%20Corporate%20Filings%20&%20Governance%20Failure%20-%20TBOTE%20Project.html https://isoc-sig.freifunk.net/systemd/systemd%20birthDate%20... (confirmed still up at the time of writing this post.)

sqidyyy 6mo ago

The "DiRUG reform" link leads nowhere and I can't find that particular site neither on bmj.de nor the Wayback Machine. Is that an hallucinated artifact?

VladStanimir 6mo ago

I don't see the problem with the systemd DOB merger, the DOB will have to be stored somewhere and systemd already has a place where user information is securely stored so they added a new field to the user database. The alternative is not that no DOB will be stored is that it will end up stored in 20 different locations on the filesystem.

tzs 6mo ago

The site this is on seems to be a bit questionable [1]. [1] https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1064706/ba8e449d224f5067/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1064706/ba8e449d224f5067/