Hi Daan,

Thanks for the answer. Let me ask you something close with a more blunt angle:

Considering most of the tech is already present and shipping in the current systemd, what prevents our systems to become a immutable monolith like macOS or current Android with the flick of a switch?

Or a more grave scenario: What prevents Microsoft from mandating removal of enrollment permissions for user keychains and Secure Boot toggle, hence every Linux distribution has to go through Microsoft's blessing to be bootable?

Thanks Daan for your contributions to systemd.

If you were not a systemd maintainer and have started this project/company independently targeting systemd, you would have to go through the same process as everyone and I would have expected the systemd maintainers to, look at it objectively and review with healthy skepticism before accepting it. But we cannot rely on that basic checks and balances anymore and that's the most worrying part.

> that might be disruptive optional in systemd

> we don't always succeed and there will always be differences in opinion.

You (including other maintainers) are still the final arbitrator of what's disruptive. The differences of opinion in the past have mostly been settled as "deal with it" and that's the basis of current skepticism.

>We are building cryptographically verifiable integrity into Linux systems. Every system starts in a verified state and stays trusted over time.

What problem does this solve for Linux or people who use Linux? Why is this different from me simply enabling encryption on the drive?