Lennart Poettering, Christian Brauner founded a new company

Post by esseph » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 1:30 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #199

blibble wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only use debian pulseaudio I had to fight every single day, with my "exotic" setup of one set of speakers and a headset with pipewire, I've never had to even touch it systemd: yesterday I had a network service on one machine not start up because the IP it was trying to bind to wasn't available yet the dependencies for the .service file didn't/can't express the networking semantics correctly this isn't some hacked u…

I can totally relate to this, it's gotten to the point that I'm just as scared of rebooting my Linux boxes as I was of rebooting my windows machine a couple of decades ago. And quite probably more scared.

Post by Cu3PO42 » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 1:37 AM UTC

direwolf20 wrote: post #301

Spivak wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with general purpose computing and everything to do with allowing you to authenticate the parts of the Linux boot process that must by necessity be left unencrypted in order to actually boot your computer. This is putting SecureBoot and the TPM to work for your benefit. It's not propaganda in any sense, it's recognizing that Linux is behind the state of the art compa…

Secure boot is initialized by the first person who physically touches the computer and wants to initialize it. Guess who that is? Hint: it's not the final owner. It's only secure from evil maker attacks if it can be wiped and reinitialised at any time.

Post by dang » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 1:40 AM UTC

direwolf20 wrote: post #258

dang wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No personal attacks on HN, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

This is relevant. Every project he's worked on has been a dumpster fire. systemd sucks. PulseAudio sucks. GNOME sucks. Must the GP list out all the ways in which they suck to make it a more objective attack?

Post by phatfish » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 1:51 AM UTC

kfreds wrote: post #118

esseph wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn, you are thirsty! Are these some problems you've personally been dealing with?

I just want more trustworthy systems. This particular concept of combining reproducible builds, remote attestation and transparency logs is something I came up with in 2018. My colleagues and I started working on it, took a detour into hardware (tillitis.se) and kind of got stuck on the transparency part (sigsum.org, transparency.dev, witness-network.org). Then we discovered snapshot.debian.org wasn't feeling well, s…

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 1:53 AM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #184

cyphar wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm Aleksa, one of the founding engineers. We will share more about this in the coming months but this is not the direction nor intention of what we are working on. The models we have in mind for attestation are very much based on users having full control of their keys. This is not just a matter of user freedom, in practice being able to do this is far more preferable for enterprises with strict security controls. I…

This is extremely bad logic. The technology of enforcing trusted software is without inherent value good or ill depending entirely on expected usage. Anything that is substantially open will be used according to the values of its users not according to your values so we ought instead to consider their values not yours. Suppose you wanted to identify potential agitators by scanning all communication for indications in…