deleted by creator
It would probably be more controversial if Linus had given more professional commentary.
It is not good for the kernel and it’s team to suddenly have to kowtow to Usamerican politics.
The reality is that the Linux Foundation is in the United States, and Linus is a naturalized US citizen who lives in Oregon (at least on Wikipedia). So they both will have to pay attention to avoid transacting business with individuals and companies on the SDN list. That is the law in the United States.
What an extremely dangerous place to domicile such an important project.
Kreg moved to Europe, last I heard. So at least the heir apparent is in a region with better potential international diplomacy and neutrality.
Western Europe has committed to making itself an American dependency. This same thing would eventually repeat there but with different aesthetics.
Would a fork be the solution to avoid having a system that is crucial for people worldwide cease to be a weapon at the hands of merrican politicians?
This kind of thing is the inevitable outcome of US policy to “decouple”, which they are pushing. Take something they nominally control, kick out every designated enemy / enemy collaborator, and then watch as an alternative pops up among the " enemy" and ban its purchase or use.
Would a fork be technically viable if Americans and American businesses can’t participate (because the fork works with SDN entities)? Maybe.
I’m guessing most IoT devices are made in China (or increasingly Southeast Asia), so yes.
Then they should try to free themselves from it.
And governments should wise up and exempt them from any kind of petty stuff.
In the balance between geopolitical conflicts and Linux, the latter is the petty stuff.
This is not something that needs balance.
And they have quite different kinds of petty:
When Linus gets petty, then there’s a proper rant, somebody gets red in the face (but you don’t get to see the pics), and some news interns can write headlines.
When politicians get petty, then people in foreign countries are killed.
Damn there are a surprising number of maintainers that are comrades and not taking this lying down from the western supremacist cohort.
Linus opened up a massive can of worms and turned this into a geopolitical conflict by acting like a baby.
This comment by Hantong Chen is great:
Hi James,
Here’s what Linus has said, and it’s more than just “sanction.”
Moreover, we have to remove any maintainers who come from the following countries or regions, as they are listed in Countries of Particular Concern and are subject to impending sanctions:
- Burma, People’s Republic of China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.
- Algeria, Azerbaijan, the Central African Republic, Comoros, and Vietnam.
For People’s Republic of China, there are about 500 entities that are on the U.S. OFAC SDN / non-SDN lists, especially HUAWEI, which is one of the most active employers from versions 5.16 through 6.1, according to statistics. This is unacceptable, and we must take immediate action to address it, with the same reason.
Meh, if they really leave this will prompt the US government or corps to finally start paying these developers. This flare up is a blessing in disguise.
Wasn’t Huawei trying to put a Backdoor into linux?
If yes, I see why they finally want to restrict maintainers to countries they can trust
Wasn’t Huawei trying to put a Backdoor into linux?
as far as i know, that has not happened.
what makes you think it did?
Articles back in the days.
I found a random one now. Maybe I got just clickbaited with titles back then. I dunno
https://securityboulevard.com/2020/12/was-this-huaweis-failed-attempt-at-a-linux-backdoor/
Funny that blog calls it a “failed attempt at a backdoor” while neglecting to mention that the grsec post (which it does link to and acknowledges is the source of the story) had been updated months prior to explicitly refute that characterization:
5/22/2020 Update: This kind of update should not have been necessary, but due to irresponsible journalists and the nature of social media, it is important to make some things perfectly clear:
Nowhere did we claim this was anything more than a trivially exploitable vulnerability. It is not a backdoor or an attempted backdoor, the term does not appear elsewhere in this blog at all; any suggestion of the sort was fabricated by irresponsible journalists who did not contact us and do not speak for us.
There is no chance this code would have passed review and be merged. No one can push or force code upstream.
This code is not characteristic of the quality of other code contributed upstream by Huawei. Contrary to baseless assertions from some journalists, this is not Huawei’s first attempt at contributing to the kernel, in fact they’ve been a frequent contributor for some time.
Damn, I have been thinking bad about them for too long for shitty journalism
Wow:
Oleksiy Protas
P.S. “Don’t feed the trolls”
Don’t you worry. Our friend here tried to reply to this message, he did so twice in fact with slightly different wording, but it was full of political rage and tu quoque so I assume he fell victim to the spam filter thanks to you special counter-baiting operation so to speak.
That aside, I did a very superficial search and it seems that the original author had already had a pull being rejected on the grounds it was coming straight from his Baikal credentials. It’s a real pity that an apparently very able engineer is just playing pretend despite knowing full well why is it so that LF migh not want to be associated with Baikal in any way.
Serge Semin
Hello Linux-kernel community,
I am sure you have already heard the news caused by the recent Greg’ commit 6e90b675cf942e (“MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements.”). As you may have noticed the change concerned some of the Ru-related developers removal from the list of the official kernel maintainers, including me.
The community members rightly noted that the quite short commit log contained very vague terms with no explicit change justification. No matter how hard I tried to get more details about the reason, alas the senior maintainer I was discussing the matter with haven’t given an explanation to what compliance requirements that was. I won’t cite the exact emails text since it was a private messaging, but the key words are “sanctions”, “sorry”, “nothing I can do”, “talk to your (company) lawyer”… I can’t say for all the guys affected by the change, but my work for the community has been purely volunteer for more than a year now (and less than half of it had been payable before that). For that reason I have no any (company) lawyer to talk to, and honestly after the way the patch has been merged in I don’t really want to now. Silently, behind everyone’s back, bypassing the standard patch-review process, with no affected developers/subsystem notified - it’s indeed the worse way to do what has been done. No gratitude, no credits to the developers for all these years of the devoted work for the community. No matter the reason of the situation but haven’t we deserved more than that? Adding to the GREDITS file at least, no?..
I can’t believe the kernel senior maintainers didn’t consider that the patch wouldn’t go unnoticed, and the situation might get out of control with unpredictable results for the community, if not straight away then in the middle or long term perspective. I am sure there have been plenty ways to solve the problem less harmfully, but they decided to take the easiest path. Alas what’s done is done. A bifurcation point slightly initiated a year ago has just been fully implemented. The reason of the situation is obviously in the political ground which in this case surely shatters a basement the community has been built on in the first place. If so then God knows what might be next (who else might be sanctioned…), but the implemented move clearly sends a bad signal to the Linux community new comers, to the already working volunteers and hobbyists like me.
Thus even if it was still possible for me to send patches or perform some reviews, after what has been done my motivation to do that as a volunteer has simply vanished. (I might be doing a commercial upstreaming in future though). But before saying goodbye I’d like to express my gratitude to all the community members I have been lucky to work with during all these years. Specifically:
NTB-folks, Jon, Dave, Allen. NTB was my starting point in the kernel upstream work. Thanks for the initial advices and despite of very-very-very tough reviews with several complete patchset refactorings, I learned a lot back then. That experience helped me afterwards. Thanks a lot for that. BTW since then I’ve got several thank-you letters for the IDT NTB and IDT EEPROM drivers. If not for you it wouldn’t have been possible.
Andy, it’s hard to remember who else would have given me more on my Linux kernel journey as you have. We first met in the I2C subsystem review of my DW I2C driver patches. Afterwards we’ve got to be frequently meeting here and there - GPIO, SPI, TTY, DMA, NET, etc, clean/fixes/features patch(set)s. Quite heat discussions in your first reviews drove me crazy really. But all the time we managed to come up with some consensus somehow. And you never quit the discussions calmly explaining your point over and over. You never refused to provide more detailed justification to your requests/comments even though you didn’t have to. Thanks to that I learned how to be patient to reviewers and reviewees. And of course thank you for the Linux-kernel knowledges and all the tips and tricks you shared.
- Andy, please note due to the situation I am not going to work on my DW DMAC fixes patchset anymore. So if you ever wish to have DW UART stably working with the DW DMA-engine driver, then feel free to pick the series up: Link: https://lore.kernel.org/dmaengine/20240911184710.4207-1-fancer.lancer@gmail.com/
Linus (Walleij), after you merged one of my pretty much heavy patchset in you suggested to me to continue the DW APB GPIO driver maintaining. It was a first time I was asked to maintain a not-my driver. Thank you for the trust. I’ll never forget that.
Mark, thank you very much for entrusting the DW APB SSI driver maintenance to me. I’ve put a lot of efforts into making it more generic and less errors-prune, especially when it comes working under a DMA-engine control or working in the mem-ops mode. I am sure the results have been beneficial to a lot of DW SPI-controller users since then.
Damien, our first and last meeting was at my generic AHCI-platform and DW AHCI SATA driver patches review. You didn’t make it a quick and easy path. But still all the reviews comments were purely on the technical basis, and the patches were eventually merged in. Thank you for your time and experience I’ve got from the reviews.
Paul, Thomas, Arnd, Jiaxun, we met several times in the mailing list during my MIPS P5600 patches and just generic MIPS patches review. It was always a pleasure to discuss the matters with such brilliant experts in the field. Alas I’ve spent too much time working on the patches for another subsystems and failed to submit all the MIPS-related bits. Sorry I didn’t keep my promise, but as you can see the circumstances have suddenly drawn its own deadline.
Bjorn, Mani, we were working quite a lot with you in the framework of the DW PCIe RC drivers. You reviewed my patches. I helped you to review another patches for some time. Despite of some arguing it was always a pleasure to work with you. Mani, special thanks for the cooperative DW eDMA driver maintenance. I think we were doing a great work together.
Paolo, Jakub, David, Andrew, Vladimir, Russell. The network subsystem and particularly the STMMAC driver (no doubt the driver sucks) have turned to be a kind of obstacle on which my current Linux-kernel activity has stopped. I really hope that at least in some way my help with the incoming STMMAC and DW XPCS patches reviews lightened up your maintainance duty. I know Russell might disagree, but I honestly think that all our discussions were useful after all, at least for me. I also think we did a great work working together with Russell on the DW GMAC/QoS ETH PCS patches. Hopefully you’ll find a time to finish it up after all.
Rob, Krzysztof, from your reviews I’ve learned a lot about the most hardwary part of the kernel - DT sources and DT-bindings. All your comments have been laconic and straight to the point. That made reviews quick and easy. Thank you very much for that.
Guenter, special thanks for reviewing and accepting my patches to the hwmon and watchdog subsystems. It was pleasure to be working with you.
Borislav, we disagreed and argued a lot. So my DW uMCTL2 DDRC EDAC patches even got stuck in limbo for quite a long time. Anyway thank you for the time you spent reviewing my patches and trying to explain your point.
- Borislav, it looks like I won’t be able to work on my Synopsys EDAC patchsets anymore. If you or somebody else could pick them up and finish up the work it would be great (you can find it in the lore archive). The patches convert the mainly Zynq(MP)-specific Synopsys EDAC driver to supporting the generic DW uMCTL2 DDRC. It would be very beneficial for each platform based on that controller.
Greg, we met several times in the mailing lists. You reviewed my patches sent for the USB and TTY subsystems, and all the time the process was straight, highly professional, and simpler than in the most of my other case. Thank you very much for that.
Yoshihiro, Keguang, Yanteng, Kory, Cai and everybody I was lucky to meet in the kernel mailing lists, but forgot to mention here. Thank you for the time spent for our cooperative work on making the Linux kernel better. It was a pleasure to meet you here.
I also wish to say huge thanks to the community members trying to defend the kicked off maintainers and for support you expressed in these days. It means a lot.
A little bit statics of my kernel-work at the end:
Signed-off patches: 518 Reviewed and Acked patches: 253 Tested patches: 80
…
Best Regards, -Serge(y)
Someone has forked Linux https://github.com/Cqinux/cinux
Linus Torvalds has been sold out to big tech companies like Google and Microsoft. He himself is a billionaire and no longer writes any code.
I can’t take that seriously
Yeah a dozen or so commits updating readme files isn’t exactly compelling stuff. Any of us could do this in five minutes on GitHub.
That’s because it’s pure bullshit. And this repo will be deleted or abandoned in a month.
