Well systemd is open source so it could just be forked at any point. I don't forsee this happening.

This is a bizarre comment for an open source init system

The history of TiVoization[0] tells us otherwise.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

Is the issue that they support secure boot type features?

No, the issue is too much of the Secure Boot chain is currently being controlled by Microsoft.

Kernel being GPL has no point currently. Require hardware attestation with Microsoft private keys + systemd-boot + systemd + uutils can create a nice walled garden, allowing "vendors" to build locked-down hardware-OS pairs.

More importantly, uutils is MIT, which can attest at every level, without sharing a line of source code.

This will affect everything from small appliances to big iron and it can be very ugly.

You don't have to use MS' keys, you can setup secure boot using your own keys reasonably easily.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Unified_Extensible_Firmware...

I know. The question is not about what’s possible today.

What prevents Microsoft from updating Windows PC standards and eliminate the possibility of turning off secure boot and allowance of enrolling your own keychain in the secure boot process?

These are long games. Being comfortable today doesn’t guarantee same comfort and allowances tomorrow.

Ironically, we’re discussing this under Android’s increasing restrictions.

The same Android which was championed as the bastion of mobile freedom when it first came out.

It goes back to the old arguments about free software vs open source. Maybe by restricting devs in certain ways the users are actually more free. But then maybe the system to lock the users in gets built with wholly proprietary software and there's less adoption overall of the FOSS software. I don't really have a good answer. I recently switched to grapheneOS but it feels like fighting a losing battle, and lots of apps don't like that I'm using a non official android build.

I worked at a big company where GPLv2 software could be used in our systems but not GPLv3. Is it better that that GPLv3 software didn't have more users? The company didn't contribute much back so maybe it's not a big loss.

Uutils is literally one guy's self-tutorial to learn Rust. The fact that it's breaking Ubuntu has more to do with that than some shadowy conspiracy.

Looking at the uutils/coreutils repository:

    - 22K stars
    - 1600+ forks
    - 33 releases
    - 622 contributors
    - 678 users (at minimum)
    - Code of conduct (with a debian.org mailing address nonetheless)
    - 1 distribution shipping it as default (so far)

The project has the stated goal as follows [0]:

> The uutils project reimplements ubiquitous command line utilities in Rust. Our goal is to modernize the utils, while retaining full compatibility with the existing utilities. We are planning to replace all essential Linux tools.

This is hell of a self-tutorial.

If this was GPL licensed, I'd love to try these. But at this point, it's looking for pushing GNU out of the Linux ecosystem, completely.

[0]: https://uutils.github.io/

People are trying to lock down Linux yes, but the specific software used for enforcement, systemd or otherwise, is mostly irrelevant.

it's in the name, but it's open source and it's replacing a hodgepodge of other stuff (the point isn't why it's replacing it, or how well it's going; the point is there are replacements).

if the computer won't allow to install or use other software until you install a vendor-signed version of systemd on a vendor-signed kernel we'll be there. it's about hardware attestation, not signed software, though.

What it bothers me is the possibility of TiVoization via Kernel and systemd, actually.

Combined with uutils, which is MIT, you can build a nice (!) walled garden.

Let me say I have seen enough shenanigans over the years.