Systemd BirthDate Merge: Conflicts of Interest

righthand

Why doesn’t someone fork systemd and start reworking/taking out all the icky parts as well as destroying Poettering’s control over it? Debian’s forced accepting of Systemd is finally rearing it’s ugly head. I am glad I switched to Devuan earlier this year.

withinboredom

The mailing list doesn't seem to make it out into such a controversial issue. It's an optional field that doesn't require a real birthday.

iugtmkbdfil834

It was a long time coming, but it now happened. SystemD managed to do something that might give people pause over convenience factor. I am saying might, because while I am now actively planning ( until now I treated it as ideologically impure aspect of linux, but sufficiently useful to offset that discomfort ). DOB merge ( and how it was done ) changes that calculus by a wide margin. It is not even about DOB now. It is the full blown slippery slope with MS doing round 2 of EEE.

Foxboron

This just reads like a LLM trying to come up with a conspiracy theory around systemd. It somehow got hyper-fixated on "three" for no particular reason and seems like it decided to harpen down that fact without explaining anything around it?

jmclnx

From the wayback machine, I could not get into the link: https://web.archive.org/web/20260403141132/https://tboteproj...

sqidyyy

The "DiRUG reform" link leads nowhere and I can't find that particular site neither on bmj.de nor the Wayback Machine. Is that an hallucinated artifact?

VladStanimir

I don't see the problem with the systemd DOB merger, the DOB will have to be stored somewhere and systemd already has a place where user information is securely stored so they added a new field to the user database. The alternative is not that no DOB will be stored is that it will end up stored in 20 different locations on the filesystem.

tzs

The site this is on seems to be a bit questionable [1]. [1] https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1064706/ba8e449d224f5067/