114
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net to c/technology@hexbear.net

Perhaps one of the more surprising changes in the 6.12-rc4 development kernel was the removal of several entries from the kernel's MAINTAINERS file. The patch performing the removal was sent (by Greg Kroah-Hartman) only to the patches@lists.linux.dev mailing list; the change was included in a char-misc drivers pull request with no particular mention.

The explanation for the removal is simply ""various compliance requirements"". Given that the developers involved all appear to be of Russian origin, it is not too hard to imagine what sort of compliance is involved here. There has, however, been no public posting of the policy that required the removal of these entries.

An early comment likely pins down the prevailing institutional pressures leading to this decision

What's the deal with an international project adhering to what is obviously a decision of the US government?

Hint: The Linux Foundation (which notably employs Greg KH and Torvalds, and provides a lot of the legal and other infrastructure for this "international project") is based in the US, and therefore has to follow US laws.

This is pretty fucked up. Like, we might see the kernel forked in the coming months/years.

See also: Phoronix: Linus Torvalds Comments On The Russian Linux Maintainers Being Delisted

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] hello_hello@hexbear.net 29 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

What's your point here? That volunteers not financially backed by the US regime don't magically have the capacity to reverse engineer the dozens upon dozens of blobs that get added to the kernel every release cycle? Or that they're even trying at all? Both aren't a good look for whatever you're trying to say

they're not adding anything of value.

Now you're just being vindictive towards others and I really don't like that. It doesn't cost anything to not be unkind towards people's contributions. You're free to criticize the approach but I draw the line at the idea that it is worthless because none of this work is.

[-] footfaults@hexbear.net 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Comrade, I'm merely pointing out that binary blobs have been the bane of open source for decades and my ass is old enough to remember when the original debate about accepting them or rejecting them originally happened. Some, like mainline Linux accepted then, while more hardcore folks like Theo de Raat from OpenBSD refused to accept them, and wireless drivers for a decade were absolutely shit until everyone reverse engineered the broadcom drivers.

I'm merely stating that a fork needs to be more substantial than just deleting a bunch of binary drivers and saying boom I now have my own fork of the Linux kernel.

I mean I could delete all the Linux fiber channel drivers and claim that I have a fork of Linux but that's not notable

[-] Chronicon@hexbear.net 22 points 3 weeks ago

it's still a useful thing to have exist even if it doesn't meet your arbitrary standard of a "real" fork

for people that aren't severe linux-heads, recreating what they've done and producing a working kernel without blobs and such would be non-trivial to impossible.

this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
114 points (100.0% liked)

technology

23307 readers
294 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS