Post #1401762 · Elektrine

2026-03-22 16:40 UTC

That's a fair argument. Is it fair to say: The field is benign but there is contention about if it should be added or not and users of the software are concerned that their voices were not heard on the issue. That can be handled in the normal project framework, perhaps by suggesting a publicly stated policy about these issues around legal compliance so the community can determine if they want to support the project or not. My argument is that I don't think that the damage that was done justifies the hitpiece in the OP which is, almost literally, painting a target on the developer with the mugshot photograph and loaded language. So, if you're not one of the people then we're having different conversations. In that conversation, I do agree with what you just said. I'd like to see the very large projects, which affect a lot of users, such as systemd, have a more formal way to accept public comment and respond on contentious changes and feature requests.

Replies (3)

@kent_eh@lemmy.ca 2026-03-22 18:08

> Is it fair to say: The field is benign It is benign **if** it is optional, remains 100% local and under the user's control *and* doesn't prevent other software from functioning as expected.

Open ##1401763
@PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-03-23 19:10

It is not a hit piece. No call to action was stated.

Open ##1401764
@Shanmugha@lemmy.world 2026-03-23 08:52

To be fair, I am bit split on this. On one hand, name and shame is an effective strategy and should be used. On the other hand, "put age verification into Linux" is a hilarious stretch. And yes, it feels strange that I have yet to see any kind of response from other systemd maintainers and managers - after all, the man authored a pull-request, not merged into into upstream. I have not been looking for that kind of response myself though, which also serves your point: putting all the blame and anger on this one man (I purposefully omit name) is too much

Open ##1401765