Gregory's Server
it sucks to have nuanced views on the internet
“systemd has the right goals but also has poor architecture: i like operating it but i don’t like its underlying design” is so much harder to digest than “systemd good” or “systemd bad”
“sandboxing is good when done in a way that gives users the ability to control how their programs run, and doesn’t have to make your computer locked down like iOS” is harder to digest than “sandboxing good’ or “sandboxing bad”.
“verified boot that lets users control the signing key allows users to verify that the boot sequence is what they want it to be, ensuring that their FDE isn’t compromised; however, most existing implementations give vendors control that should belong to users” is harder to digest than “verified boot good” or “verified boot == DRM”.
it’s hard not to sound like a corporate shill, which is the opposite of what I’m trying to be whenever I start talking about security. Fossbros have given the entire FLOSS community these warped preconceived notions on what sandboxing, verified boot, and even Systemd are and aren’t.
it sucks to have nuanced views on the internet
“systemd has the right goals but also has poor architecture: i like operating it but i don’t like its underlying design” is so much harder to digest than “systemd good” or “systemd bad”
“sandboxing is good when done in a way that gives users the ability to control how their programs run, and doesn’t have to make your computer locked down like iOS” is harder to digest than “sandboxing good’ or “sandboxing bad”.
