The latest changes implemented in the Systemd repo, related to or prompted by age-verification laws, have made many people unhappy (I suppose links about this aren't necessary). This has led to a surge in Systemd forks during the last days ("surge" because there have always been plenty of forks). Here are some forks that explicitly mention those changes as their reason for forking (rough time ordering taken from the fork page):
-
paramazo/systemd "The systemd System and Service Manager without age verification"
-
ganitam/systemd "Systemd fork just before the Age Verification addition. Hoping more capable developers and maintainers do same.."
-
GSYT-Productions/systemd-fork "The systemd System and Service Manager, without the stupid Age Verification"
-
speedythesnail/unret arded-systemd "The systemd System and Service Manager, without the ret arded age-verification commits"
-
ta13579/systemd "The systemd System and Service Manager WITHOUT THE FUCKING AGE CHECKS"
-
r4shsec/systemd-no-age-verification "This is systemd but without the age verification made via pull request https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40978"
-
Pingasmaster/fightthesystemd "Systemd without the nonsense: no age verification, no lighthouse built-in."
-
Jeffrey-Sardina/system "Liberated systemd -- no surveillance. Ever."
-
HaplessIdiot/systemd-saneagecheck "The systemd System and Service Manager with age verification bypass and polling rate options for said feature"
-
Queer-Coded-LGBTQ/systemd-fuck-california "The systemd System and Service Manager, but without age bs added in."
-
Codiak540/unshitted-systemd "A fork of systemd aiming to strip the Age verification. Sue me california."
Hopefully the energy of this reaction won't be scattered among too many alternatives, although some amount of scattering is always good.
That’s a lot less likely to be the case; I am aware of just one example of what you describe, and that’s the example you give, whereas I’ve “sped up” my own code many times, by accidentally breaking stuff.
Rather than assume the presence of backdoors, the rational thing is simply to work out why you are seeing a difference in performance, and to determine if you fixed something by accident, or (the more likely scenario) if you broke something by accident
You're saying to not assume the presence of backdoors out of some discipline to avoid fear.
That's absolute nonsense. Fear isn't real even when your imagination is so child-like you can't discern the difference. How the fuck did you learn to "code" without the basis logic of living paradox validation hash? You can't even learn math til you get past that and you talk about treating people with some kind if child like care handling.
Paranoia doesn't have fear because fear isn't real, let alone when conducted for the sack of logic feeding imagination meaningful scope of direction observation eyes to discern "bugs" regardless of it being intention all or accidental.
Intention doesn't exist in a coders read manual over others even when patterns of any volume arise. You don't know what people are anymore when you read code. I would say end of story but there wasn't one to begin with. You were already distracted hashing out against way to many of the same such handled by unchecked hashes with the words you use.
Like money. Intent may be real but unless it's you it doesn't matter and even then, then it's not, now is it?
Did you reply to the wrong comment? I have no idea how you managed to get all that from my comment. All I’m saying is, "when you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras”