[psychphysic]

This is silly cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And for your users too.

It's very rich to claim I'm too emotionally invested (because I'm rationally assessing the situation??) in the topic then go one about the emotional investment (comfort) of the maintainer to justify their view...

That's classic projection.

[anonymouskimmer]

"All I'm hearing is NATO military good guys, everyone else evil."

This is not rational. It's an emotional interpretation of what was written.

[psychphysic]

Yes just a coincidence everyone in the thread seems okay with NATO national intelligence and military submitting patches to Linux.

But definitely Russian, North Koreans and Iranians shouldn't.

It's like I'm stuck in a Top Gun movie...

[anonymouskimmer]

From what I read in the thread you were the one bringing up NATO intelligence and military patch submissions. And you did it in a context of saying that from what you gather even people from non-aligned countries would be banned from submitting to the Linux kernel, too.

Perhaps other people in this thread also think it's problematic that any military or intelligence agency submits patches. But that wasn't what the post is about. It's about a Russian military-associated company. And that's what most of the comments I read were commenting about.

If you want to channel the conversation to your hobbyhorse you can, and did. But that doesn't mean the people who respond negatively to your comments don't agree in general with you. It seems to me that national militaries should be maintaining their own kernels. And just for precautionary purposes intelligence agencies/companies (whether national or private sector) should be generally banned from kernel submits. Bug reports and exploit reports are another thing, but they are too motivated to insert backdoors and exploits due to the nature of their business.