That actually all looks pretty reasonable for what they’re trying to do. There’s very little novel there, they’re mostly leveraging existing security features
That actually all looks pretty reasonable for what they’re trying to do. There’s very little novel there, they’re mostly leveraging existing security features
Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
I’m not sure about that. Mandating a locked-down system with signed modules will be a tough sell for the Linux crowd depending on how strict they make it. Removing the ability to customize your kernel and restricting what modules you can run goes against the entire open-source ethos.
False@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Yeah that sucks for sure. Unfortunately doing all that does solve some real problems outside of videogames
Goodeye8@piefed.social 10 hours ago
Immutable distros are against the open-source ethos? That’s definitely a take.
Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Even with an immutable distro you’re able to take the source and modify and recompile it to fit your needs. If EAC only accepts kernels signed by “trusted partners” that freedom goes away.
Goodeye8@piefed.social 7 hours ago
But you recompiling the kernel into whatever you need means it’s no longer the same immutable distro, it’s a fork of said distro. Whoever is actually using that immutable distro has their kernel restricted. You said restricting the kernel is not compatible with open source. If we talk about the average user an immutable distro means exactly that, it restricts the users access to the kernel. The average user doesn’t know nor should know how to make their own custom kernel.
You’re just fear mongering with what ifs. If you fart you may shit your pants. Does that mean you’d be afraid to fart for the rest of your life or would you think that’s stupid and you’re not going to worry about some baseless hypothetical? What would you tell the person who’s telling you to be afraid of farts?