• r00ty@kbin.life
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    You know. I don’t like what the Russian leadership and military are doing. I feel like ultimately we’re in the cold war era. But you know, at the height of the cold war, radio operators around the world still worked Russian stations.

    Yes, there was a very clear policy, neither side talked about ANYTHING beyond their signal report and working conditions (information about radio, power output and aerial basically). At the height of the actual cold war, the individuals were not cancelled like this.

    Sanction the leadership, sanction the money, and sanction the military. But the normal people that are subject to the propaganda? I don’t understand the benefit in doing this. I also don’t see how the sanctions effect an open source project…

    Seems a bit weird. Maybe there’s information we’re not privy to, but on the face of it, just based on what we’re seeing. Seems like a very very odd move.

    • YeetPics@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      I don’t understand the benefit in doing this.

      Security. Torvalds did this for security.

      Is it really that hard to parse?

      • r00ty@kbin.life
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        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.

        • YeetPics@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          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!

          • r00ty@kbin.life
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 days 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.

        • walden@sub.wetshaving.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days 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?