It is plainly obvious that the worry isn't attestation per se, it's the restrictions that attestation may in the future require when they turn the dial on restrictiveness up, that was extremely clear to me from reading the first article. If you can get attestation without those restrictions, "sure, why not", and a Yubikey seems like a way to do that which could avoid those restrictions. Most of this article makes sense, but this particular line makes me wonder how the author got it so far off the mark.

They also did nothing to quell my fears that they will in the future use passkeys to prevent people from using software they can modify themselves by saying "...the guidance for consumer sites has been to not even request attestation for years now." as if everyone always followed the guidance, and as if there aren't tens of thousands of managers that think their case is special and they really do need the extra control because they're a bank or handle copyrighted content or have PII or PCI and feel extra risk-averse today.

I don't know if they failed to do so because they can't (and this is a valid fear of the original author) or if they just are bad at reading the room at what the concern is and vastly overestimate how much people trust companies to always have their best interests at heart.

What I am getting from this, though, is "If you authenticate with a yubikey then that's attested, so they can't use attestation through passkeys to make sure your OS and browser aren't modified", and I'm not sure if that's the correct take away or even a correct statement.

But 20 characters is simply ridiculous.

The suggestion to fork it is in bad faith. A fork goes nowhere unless a critical mass of the development community goes with it, and if you've already driven away the critical mass that could sustain a fork, that can never happen. Don't worry, Gimp is safe, I don't think anyone organized enough to fix its problems thinks it's worth the effort anymore, they're all working on other things instead.

Some other languages will certainly have more developed ecosystems and frameworks available, but the purpose of things like Dioxus is to provide that. Instead of trying to put things into boxes with labels and deduce from there, you'll get more insight from trying it out and seeing where it works and where it actually struggles.

It's not as much "making a stand" as telling a major government that you have substantial seizable assets under their jurisdiction who is a major market you want to be in, that you're not going to do the thing that their laws say you are required to do, but it's hardly simple compliance either, instead of doing what the government wants them to do, they are making sure there is blowback.

Whether to try to fight it in court likely depends on details of case law and the wording of the laws they'd be contesting, I imagine much of the delay in their response to the demand was asking their lawyers how well they think they would fare in court.