My personal suggestion would be to add initcall_blacklist=algif_aead_init to your kernel arguments. Ebpf is cool, but not a very trivial solution.

I understand the suggestion might apply to a random, unspecified distro but I disapprove of both the exploit authors and the general Internet suggesting fixes that don’t apply to every distro (including copy.fail’s AI slop RHEL distro that doesn’t exist) without caveating it.

The kernel module blacklist won’t work for every situation, if you’re not being specific in telling people where it applies, it’s best to suggest a solution that actually works regardless of distro or explain how to validate when it applies but nobody is doing that.

I continue to protest against this claim. Blacklisting the kernel module does not work for a bunch of distributions including Alma, Rocky, RHEL and others because they have this module built into the kernel. There’s no module to remove. You must use a syscall blacklist or similar mechanism to disable this.

If you’d like evidence of the toxic or extreme side of Lemmy, it’s not hard to find. Are we really disagreeing that this is a problem with Lemmy? Regardless, you’re misrepresenting OP with the “declare the other side is unbiased”.

This conversation started started with pushing back on the idea of using Lemmy as a solution to small site discoverability. The toxicity and social aspects are perfectly relevant.

He’s at -5 at the moment. Depending on what instances you have blocked, you’re going to see different amounts. It doesn’t mean those people aren’t there.

Even here, the guy you’re responding to is getting down voted to oblivion (for Lemmy anyways) for an opinion that I have echoed elsewhere and gotten the opposite response.

Not having the majority opinion of this community seems to mean downvotes too. The only real difference is that reddit has enough staying power for people to put up with it.

If I’m a military supplier of nukes to the government, I can freely use GPL and there’s no legal issue with that. You cannot request the nuclear launch software or the guidance control software even if they use GPL licensed code within it. Why? Because they don’t distribute said code to the public. If you develop something for private use, and it never gets a public release there’s no obligation or requirement to release the source! This is especially true for a government contractor that only makes software for a single customer (the government).

I think we’re agreeing that your claim was nonsense at this point, but I still don’t understand where people get these strange ideas about how GPL stops commercial or military use outside of very specific and frankly niche ways. If this is your reason for preferring GPL, it’s poorly thought out.

In purely private (or internal) use—with no sales and no distribution—the software code may be modified and parts reused without requiring the source code to be released. For sales or distribution, the entire source code needs to be made available to end users, including any code changes and additions—in that case, copyleft is applied to ensure that end users retain the freedoms defined above.

GPL code can also be used for commercial and military use. What are you smoking where you think that is even remotely true? Genuinely asking. It feels like people on your side of the argument have all learned what you have from the same, ill informed source.