this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
1057 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

59405 readers
2892 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

And I'll say the same here as I did above. If it was for security, their code is tainted too. It's an arbitrary reaction that is not complete as a solution to anything.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You can't untaint code if the tainters (lol that sounds funny) can still edit the code.

If Torvalds is correct (he is), patching can now take place for vulnerabilities.

Good point!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Well it seems it was more to do with sanctions, if the open letter from one of the chopped developers is to be believed. In which case, I think the right thing is to move the names to contributors (they did still contribute), remove them from maintainers (some maintainers are actually paid by the foundation, I mean not a lot, but some are paid).

I still find it all a little odd. But likely there was a bit of a prod from somewhere higher as to how sanctions should be followed.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 weeks ago

They can check existing code. You have to be able to trust people who are contributing.

They can check new code by these risky people as it comes in, but it why risk it?