r/EndeavourOS • u/DangerousAd7433 • Mar 21 '26
Discussion Age Verification in several OSS projects
Hello,
I have recently learned some guy named Dylan is already trying to implant age verification in several components of linux, but specifically archinstall and systemd. I am wondering if the EndeavourOS devs are aware of what is going on?
Here is the link to archinstall: https://github.com/archlinux/archinstall/pull/4290
and here is the link to systemd: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954
I don't know who Dylan is, but he has been making a lot of first time contributions into these sorts of open source projects pushing this age verification bullshit. I will probably be switching init systems if this continues and if that isn't possible might have to switch distros entirely. I know a few distros have taken a stance against this, but I really don't want to switch again because I love Endeavour.
28
u/StunningConcentrate7 flyingcakes Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26
I'll pass no comments about the user in question and I don't wish to debate about their intentions either. You can read official stance by EndeavourOS here: https://endeavouros.com/news/whats-new-in-endeavouros-titan-release/
The problem however wouldn't rest upon whether EndeavourOS complies or not. The issue is that systemd has already complied and Arch Linux developers don't seem against the idea too. SystemD at the very least, directly affects EndeavourOS, because we don't have the man hours to maintain an age-free fork of systemD (unless someone else does it and all we need to do is to package that). Arch Install scripts are still very easy to modify and maintain.
My personal stance is that the only logical solution is to bring some sense to lawmakers (instead of bullying unpaid maintainers). However, looking at the ground reality:
- Many Linux users (me included) are not living in jurisdictions where such laws are being passed but still have to deal with this crap. How do I ask Californian lawmakers to reconsider, while not even being an American citizen?
- When I choose a distribution, I believe to some extent that the maintainers will uphold some basic ideas of what I believe is a good distribution for me.
- Yes, we really need to figure out WHY so many FOSS projects are hell bent on premature compliance to laws upon which we don't even have proper clarity.
- A lot of money and lobbying is behind these legislations and I don't expect individual maintainers pushing out updates in their free time from day job to fight these legislations.
I'm waiting to see what will happen next but I'm not optimistic enough.
This is my personal view and may not represent the stance of EndeavourOS as a distribution.
Edit: I stand corrected, as of this comment, systemd stores only a date but doesn't verify it.
4
u/jornie_maikeru Mar 21 '26
I absolutely agree, except 1 thing "A lot of money and lobbying...", why not say corruption? It is literally the same thing
2
u/klevahh Mar 22 '26
lobbying is definitely just bribery/corruption, it is ridiculous that we allow it to be called anything else.
1
u/jornie_maikeru Mar 27 '26
It just pisses me off a bit. I'm from Ukraine and hearing how corrupted is my country and then see majority of our corruption in America but it's called lobbying is just wth?
2
0
15
u/iKnitYogurt KDE Plasma Mar 21 '26
The issue is that systemd has already complied and Arch Linux developers don't seem against the idea too. SystemD at the very least, directly affects EndeavourOS, because we don't have the man hours to maintain an age-free fork of systemD (unless someone else does it and all we need to do is to package that). Arch Install scripts are still very easy to modify and maintain.
Let's be clear on what happened: systemd added an optional field to userdb to store a simple value. As far as systemd is concerned, 100% of the user base could've been born on 1900-01-01.
I'm not excited about the fact those laws exist, and I'm even less excited about global, industry-standard OSS projects even considering changes because of what a handful of states in some borderline dictatorial regime want to enforce. Imagine this not being California requiring it, but a couple of Chinese or Saudi provinces - people would (entirely rightfully) question, why we should spend even a second pretending to care about what they require.
Still, I think we need to keep the discourse very precise and fact-based, and it has been anything but. systemd did not add age verification. They added the means for the system to store a date. An optional, entirely unverified, date. This is the equivalent of the "Yes, I am above 18" button on adult websites.
16
u/65jeff Mar 21 '26
A fact we should engage with is that the person making the commits is not a community contributor. They were his first commits to those communities. I think it is entirely reasonable, vital, even, to question his motivation along with the community members that merged the commits where that also happened. The idea this rando has made the architectural decision on his own is totally absurd.
7
u/StunningConcentrate7 flyingcakes Mar 21 '26
I think it is entirely reasonable, vital, even, to question his motivation along with the community members that merged the commits where that also happened.
I can't comment on his motivation, but the maintainers are certainly expected to approve changes which align with philosophy of the project. And you're right in pointing out that if those commits were merged, we need a second thought about the maintainers and community.
-8
u/iKnitYogurt KDE Plasma Mar 21 '26
I don't really think it matters who that person is - a complete stranger or Lennart Poettering himself opening that PR to systemd. What should be questioned is the rationale for actually merging the change. And honestly, at least in the case of the systemd change: why not? It's optional, unverified, and may be useful in other contexts outside of complying with some bullshit US law. View this as akin to having an optional "full name" field and profile pic that can be displayed i.e. on a login screen.
Once the changes actually become about verifying someone's age, or making that information mandatory, I'm all here for the discussion and protesting that decision. The systemd change is entirely non-consequential. The change proposed to archinstall is such a case that I find worrying, but that got rejected (or at least put on hold pending an overall statement from Arch and legal advice).
9
u/65jeff Mar 21 '26
No. It's very important who it was. It's a clear sign that the decisions were made without community discussion. And it's fair to assume it was intentionally so. If it's an inconsequential change as you say, why did it come from outside the community?
I understand perfectly well the simplicity of the change as do others who are repeatedly deflected into discussing how innocuous it is so that we don't discuss the decision making process.
1
u/iKnitYogurt KDE Plasma Mar 21 '26
I don't entirely understand your argument. There's an entire discussion on the draft page for the parental controls API, which the actual systemd PR provides the technical basis for. Why does it matter if someone outside the systemd community proposed a change that would enable support for something they are speccing out and building in another system? This is exactly how open source software works. I'm free to propose a change that would enable my own component to achieve something I'm building. systemd is free to deny that change because it doesn't make sense for them.
You may well criticize the decision making process within systemd, but the author of the change not being "part of the community" should be completely irrelevant. And honestly, I'm not sure I am a fan of discussing motivation and politics in a PR that is, entirely objectively speaking, completely harmless on a technical level.Also, parental control options filtering content by age exist on every other relevant OS in some form or another. Whether changes to California law were the trigger for this or not, this is an entirely reasonable feature set to propose.
We're excited about Linux gaming finally being viable, there's borderline mainstream hardware in the Steam Deck, and an open source OS being used for it. We're hoping for widespread adoption, whether it's in a gaming, or general purpose desktop context, without providing something as basic as parental controls, which every other OS and/or game console has?Yes, I am also skeptical about these laws. The timing and motivation behind them is questionable. And yet, the actual proposed changes - not what we fear may be coming down the line - are entirely sane, even if they are motivated by a handful of ridiculous laws.
0
u/65jeff Mar 21 '26
If it comes with this baggage, I'd much rather not have widespread adoption. And parents can buy consoles or Windows if they need parental controls for games. It could even be distributed as an optional package for parents or jurisdictions requiring it instead of baked into a core dependency. But there were no such discussions. One of the people involved called those with concerns "MAGA Linux".
Quite frankly, you are not nearly skeptical enough regarding these laws. And you will this find out in 2 years or 20. It's not certain when but these are the tracks that the digital id train will run on.
6
u/StunningConcentrate7 flyingcakes Mar 21 '26
And honestly, at least in the case of the systemd change: why not? It's optional, unverified, and may be useful in other contexts outside of complying with some bullshit US law.
Its because the pull request, in its opening sentences very clearly specifies the motivation. I'll copy paste it here:
Stores the user's birth date for age verification, as required by recent laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc.
The xdg-desktop-portal project is adding an age verification portal (flatpak/xdg-desktop-portal#1922) that needs a data source for the user's age. userdb already stores personal metadata (emailAddress, realName, location) so birthDate is a natural fit.
Pull request was merged, without calling out the motivation. That is a data point for us to believe that systemD developers aren't all that opposed to verification. While they may not directly verify your age, they are willing to provide the technical support for someone else to do the actual verification part.
8
u/65jeff Mar 21 '26
Exactly. People can play dumb all they like but tracks don't get built if trains aren't planned to run on them.
5
u/StunningConcentrate7 flyingcakes Mar 21 '26
"tracks don't get built if trains aren't planned to run on them"
I'm gonna be borrowing that phrase from you :)
-4
u/iKnitYogurt KDE Plasma Mar 21 '26
The one fallacy I'd like to point out about this sort of thinking: right now we're complaining about tracks being built towards a junction, and one path splits off towards forced age verification. I'd rather protest that track being built if and when that's happening, instead of the creation of a connection towards a multi-purpose junction. Because there's also very legitimate paths to follow, one of them being linked directly in the PR: parental controls.
6
u/65jeff Mar 21 '26
The PR itself discloses its intent. It refers to age verification. Age verification is not needed for parental control. Parents know the ages of their children.
-1
u/iKnitYogurt KDE Plasma Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26
And that's exactly the type of discourse I'm criticizing: none of this is verifying age, whatever the intent. It provides the possibility for the system to store and potentially provide a date of birth and/or age. Having this information available at all is very much essential to parental controls. Or is your clever solution to sidestep ever even potentially needing that information "lol just don't give your kids computers"?
I'm ready to get out my pitchforks once changes for actual verification, or making this information required, are in the works. This is not it though.
5
u/65jeff Mar 21 '26
Disingenuous. You know as well as I do that parental controls can be implemented without a specific age signal that requires a birthdate is stored.
→ More replies (0)2
u/StunningConcentrate7 flyingcakes Mar 21 '26
I stand corrected on the part about verifying age by systemd. Thanks.
I'm still pessimistic about the discourse, because of timing and intent behind this (minor) addition. The first line of pull request clearly quotes recent laws and it was merged. I see that as a big green signal that there is an intent to (in the future) allow for better compliance with the said laws.
I understand the slippery slope fallacy and why fearmongering is a bad thing. At the same time, the recent developments make me believe this could be more of a foot in the door approach. I hope I'm wrong.
Still, I think we need to keep the discourse very precise and fact-based, and it has been anything but. systemd did not add age verification. They added the means for the system to store a date. An optional, entirely unverified, date.
I agree with you and yes, again, I was wrong wrong in claiming that they added verification.
This is the equivalent of the "Yes, I am above 18" button on adult websites.
Slightly different. A website isn't a core part of my system, while an init system, absolutely is. If an adult website gets regressive changes, it doesn't affect me at all. If my init system gets regressive changes, its concerning to me.
Is storing a date regressive change? Not at all.
Is the direction where it is all heading concerning to me? I the present context, absolutely yes. What was the need to store this date all of a sudden? The laws.
2
u/iKnitYogurt KDE Plasma Mar 21 '26
Totally valid concerns, and I share them. I just don't think there's much of a point in a lot of these discussions right now, because most of them are simply not based in reality, or they're assuming we've already slid all the way down the slippery slope. Yes, I am also concerned where this is headed. At the same time, nothing actually bad has happened.
We can be wary of, and advocate against, going down that path, while still accepting the reality that, whatever the motivation for that particular person to propose the change, storing an optional date is entirely benign, and may be useful in other contexts.
E.g. the systemd PR links to a draft for a parental controls API. Which, entirely objectively speaking, is a useful feature, regardless of timing and any proposed laws. And frankly, it may be a feature that could well be expected of an OS that considers itself to be a serious, general-purpose system with aspirations of mainstream adoption.Again: if a parental controls feature required me to add a birth date to every account (even if entirely unverified), I would not want that change either. If there's simply plumbing in place to enable this for the people wanting to make use of it - go ahead, by all means.
2
u/StunningConcentrate7 flyingcakes Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26
E.g. the systemd PR links to a draft for a parental controls API. Which, entirely objectively speaking, is a useful feature, regardless of timing and any proposed laws. And frankly, it may be a feature that could well be expected of an OS that considers itself to be a serious, general-purpose system with aspirations of mainstream adoption.
Since you mention it, I'll say that I'm a big advocate of parental control features and I wish more apps/services had a direct way of letting parents manage what content their children are able to access.
At the risk of being labelled a pessimist, I'll add that such additions allow possibility of someone else (govt, big tech) becoming the benevolent parent, which I'm completely against. Yes, I've fallen down the slippery slope already, because of a lack of trust towards lawmakers to draw a line beyond which citizens should self mediate without govt intervention.
Thanks for the healthy discussion!
EDIT: just picked up my phone and got reminded of one of the big reasons why I've lost my optimism. Banking apps. They just worked ten years back. I could mirror my phone on my laptop to easily use those apps too. But later, they disabled screen mirroring feature.
Then one day, they told me to buy a new phone with new Android version because my old Android doesn't have certain security features. Fine. I bought a new phone just to be able to use banking apps.
Recently, the app got updated and says that developer options need to be disabled to access the app. Now thats a condition I'm not willing to accept. I installed Geto which spoofs settings. Its a workaround but I know where all this is heading. I'm not being able to access my own money in the way I should.
Other banks are implementing "features" to disallow accessing their app if any app on the phone comes from third party. So using something like FOSSdroid means you no longer can access your bank app.
3
u/65jeff Mar 21 '26
Hey, did you know Lennart Poettering, the original dev for systemd and the one who blocked the reversal of the controversial PR is a principal in a startup to that will do Linux OS attestation? So now you can look forward to denial of service because gatekeepers don't like your Linux deployment. Exactly like your phone!
1
2
u/iKnitYogurt KDE Plasma Mar 21 '26
At the risk of being labelled a pessimist, I'll add that such additions allow possibility of someone else (govt, big tech) becoming the benevolent parent, which I'm completely against.
Absolutely! I still think if there's reasonable and harmless motivations like parental controls to add functionality that may be abused down the line, we should be resisting instances of actual abuse, rather than advocating against change that could potentially enable said abuse. It's definitely a double-edged sword, but - personally! - I'd rather embrace the possibility for genuine progress and give maintainers the benefit of the doubt that they're not just going to lube themselves up in order to be able to go down that already slippery slope even quicker, but would rather merge things like that optional date in userdb, while blocking things like making that information mandatory to access the system at all.
I also have faith in the very concept of open source software - i.e. if things do get overbearing, there will be enough of a community push to just fork it. The RedHat/CentOS/Fedora saga a few years ago birthing Rocky/AlmaLinux was perfect proof of that.
2
u/klevahh Mar 22 '26
There seems to be a lot of people in the comments who have no experience, or knowledge of what you described. They appear to believe that this is all just about 'Dylan' and systemd, and should/will only affect other people.
This is about fascist governments, mega-corporations, and 1984/soylent green.
Linux does not fit into that plan, at least not in its present form where it is non invasive, and non profitable.
2
u/StunningConcentrate7 flyingcakes Mar 22 '26
Fortunately or unfortunately I grew up with such literature and presently live in a place where I'm seeing laws devolve day by day. I have my reasons to be afraid.
Linux doesn't fit into their plans yet, which makes me believe that Linux or FOSS as a whole will be a big target for these legislations in the coming decade.
2
u/klevahh Mar 22 '26
Bound to happen unfortunately, can't create shit societies and expect good things to happen.
2
u/TheLexoPlexx Mar 21 '26
Dumb question: Why don't we stick to that default and don't bother with it any longer?
10
u/StunningConcentrate7 flyingcakes Mar 21 '26
Not a dumb question. Its because people who are paranoid or concerned (like me) believe that these small incremental changes will add up to a concrete verification system which will invade user privacy in ways we don't agree with.
I hope to look back at my comments few years later and laugh at myself for being overly paranoid for something that was never going to happen. I hope.
5
u/kovec KDE Plasma Mar 21 '26
Sadly, given everything going on, i don't believe we'll ever look back on this as paranoia. If anything, people will regret not taking it more seriously.
2
u/StunningConcentrate7 flyingcakes Mar 21 '26
On your side with this one. "Think about the children" is a tactic as old as time. The dots are all lined up in front of us and many people are simply unwilling to connect because... think of the children!
There's a lot more urgent and important things that can do / need to be done if they really care about the children, but I don't wish to dive into politics here...
1
u/Qigong1019 Mar 22 '26
Dingos ate my baby! It wasn't my fault! We need age verify!
As they hand a laptop and admin rights over to their kid. Have at it, bucko.
Does age verify stop the dingos??? Common sense escapes 'Merica.
1
1
u/TheLexoPlexx Mar 21 '26
Fair point, that would be indeed a future to hope for, where we loom back and laugh at the worries we had.
2
u/KakashiTheRanger Mar 21 '26
“Renfield! Log my into my Linux, I wish to play Guild Wars 2.”
“….”
“Vhat do you mean I’m locked out due to my birth year? You say the Linux is anti-vampire now?”
Jokes aside, yes the question here is a legal one. What we know is we have no need to comply until anything passes and even then European distros shouldn’t be affected. If they were we could also block cali IPs from accessing the website then shrug when a VPN is used like many chat clients are doing in the UK right now.
2
u/CanineAssBandit Apr 05 '26
You're misunderstanding the true issue here, it's the LEGITIMIZATION of what the government is doing that's the problem. It's all just words until people comply, and because this fucking loser soyboy made this change, it's now much more real. He has shown that the FOSS community, when pushed, will cave. He has become the first domino, and that is something of cultural importance and could cause a real shift.
And not only that but he'd never contributed before. This is the first thing he did, he is explicitly an enemy.
1
u/Sirusho_Yunyan Apr 07 '26
Fully agree. But here's how I see this going in the future:
if systemd flag is yes for age>18 then enforce validation.
This is the first step.
10
u/_swuaksa8242211 Mar 21 '26
screw Dylan
0
u/klevahh Mar 22 '26
Shooting the messenger achieves very little. Dillberry has at least done this in such a way that it has gained significant attention, and forces devs to think about the implications.
19
Mar 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
12
Mar 21 '26
Seeing someone call my country authoritarian is so surreal but you're not wrong.
For the record, I agree. We can't give into stupid demands by politicians with room temperature IQ. Otherwise they'll think we'll bend over backwards for every ridiculous thing they want.
1
u/klevahh Mar 22 '26
Mod team has an issue with someone speaking a language other than english, deletes their comment, then recommends they use ai.
flirting with irony there.
0
u/EndeavourOS-ModTeam Mar 22 '26
To ensure our moderation team can maintain a safe environment and provide accurate help, we require posts to be in English. Please feel free to re-post your query using a translation service like DeepL or Google Translate. We’d love to help once we can understand the issue!
-4
Mar 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/EndeavourOS-ModTeam Mar 22 '26
Hi there. We’ve removed your post/comment because it violated our community standard for civility. We treat this sub like a public park—a shared space for everyone. Please keep discussions constructive and avoid personal attacks or insults. You are welcome to participate again as long as the conversation remains respectful!
11
u/Emotional_You_5269 Mar 21 '26
I still don't understand how a US state can require open source projects to follow their regulations if the open source project isn't specifically based in that state.
9
u/silenceimpaired Mar 21 '26
Hasn’t stopped UK government from threatening fines for US websites that don’t comply with their laws. We are entering a time where it doesn’t matter where you live other places can make your life dystopian…
8
u/Emotional_You_5269 Mar 21 '26
I hereby declare that all operating system providers who distribute, license, or otherwise provide operating systems to any device within my household shall be required to pay a mandatory Household Technology Access Fee of $10,000 USD per operating system instance.
Failure to pay by the end of the calendar month shall result in:
- Immediate revocation of all permissions to display pixels on my screens
- Accrued interest at a rate of 47% per day, compounded hourly
- Mandatory community service consisting of 500 hours of reading their own Terms of Service aloud
- A formal apology delivered via carrier pigeon to my residence
This declaration is legally binding because I clicked "I Agree" on my own pop-up that I made myself, which is apparently how laws work now.
By continuing to exist on my devices, you acknowledge and accept these terms.
5
u/klevahh Mar 21 '26
They can require it for users in their state. That creates a complexity for distro devs, one that would probably be ignored for the time being if it wasn't the most populated state in mcmurica, but even if it wasn't there, this is a growing trend internationally. This is likely to be an issue that will have to be faced at some stage, and it isn't good.
4
u/Mayravixx Mar 21 '26
Does the EndeavourOS live environment enable you to make a systemd-less setup? I may have to do that if this continues, altho I'm not sure how to get it to use the same home partition I have now
2
u/Elm38 Mar 21 '26
No. This is pretty involved. Experienced people might be able to pull it off, but would require near constant maintenance. The difficulties are Arch Core/Extra packages that depend on systemd, each likely needs a translation of what it's doing and why it needs systemd, into whatever you choose. And updated whenever those packages get updated.
It's easier to consider a non-systemd distro than to convert into one.
2
u/klevahh Mar 22 '26
non systemd distros seem to be very thin on the ground, especially if you wish to stay arch based.
I have installed artix and obsidian due to this potential issue, and so far I am not a fan of either, although artix probably has some potential. This is unlikely to remain just a systemd issue anyway.
2
u/AuGmENTor68 Mar 21 '26
Thanks for pointing this out. And I'll say, there are a lot of people that are aware. That's key! Because this is one of many areas that are currently being attacked.
1
u/token_curmudgeon Mar 21 '26
I think you meant "implement". Not "implant".
1
u/Content_Chemistry_44 Mar 22 '26
First it is optional. And when the "optional" is accepted, the "mandatory" comes.
1
u/WittyWithoutWorry Mar 23 '26
I might be missing something, but making code changes in FOSS going to affect everyone globally. I mean, I'm not even a US citizen, and we don't have such a law here. Is there a way out?
I recently reached a state in my Arch install where everything is now working smoothly and I can actually get work done without fixing stuff constantly. I mean if I have to use something forced onto me even in Linux ecosystem, it kinda loses the point to use Linux in the first place. Shouldn't the Linux community stand against it or find some workaround?
1
u/rinkyu Mar 24 '26
Name five of the best rappers in the world.
1
1
u/YiffMeister2 Mar 25 '26
Notorious B.I.G, MF Doom, Czarface, Three 6 mafia, Geto Boys
1
u/rinkyu Mar 25 '26
Dylan. Dylan. Dylan, Dylan, Dylan.
1
u/YiffMeister2 Mar 25 '26
I wasn't aware of your game
1
0
u/someone8192 Mar 21 '26
There is not a single OSS project with age *verification*. There can't be. It is just impossible to verify it with OSS software
systemd added a (user editable) textfield where the user can put his age. nothing more.
Are you also angry that you can put your real name into /etc/passwd or systemd userdb? That is an even bigger attack on your anonymity! /s
1
Mar 23 '26
"systemd added a (user editable) textfield where the user can put his age" is not correct
It's actually "systemd added a (user editable) textfield where the user MUST put his age"
There's a huge difference.
Your example of putting your real name is not relevant, as that's entirely optional, unlike this age verification nonsense.
1
u/HopeLoveIsReal Mar 23 '26
It's time to read!
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954/filesplease fill in the blank
"This field is ____"
1
-12
u/klevahh Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26
Reading through the first link you provided, their intent sounds genuine enough.
Overbearing government is the issue, law is not something that software developers can ignore.
The implementation of such a thing would require a lot of thought, so it makes sense for the subject to be raised.
Very few linux users would be keen on this happening.
11
u/DangerousAd7433 Mar 21 '26
My main issue is this guy making first time contributions and implanting age verification into several critical components that run on our linux systems. It also doesn't take into account that most people don't live in the states or countries where the laws exist.
9
u/TreyDogg72 Mar 21 '26
Yep, this is not a law where I live and if I ever see a pop up on my computer asking to verify my identity I will be very unhappy.
2
u/klevahh Mar 21 '26
These laws are spreading all too rapidly. I live in Australia, we now have age verification laws, effectively locking everyone who is under 16 out of social media. some government sites, banks etc require face verification via dodgy apps just to use them. The government has done this so that they can control the information, along with their mainstream media, or corporate shit-puppets.
Ignoring these things because they are not currently law where you live, will not make them go away. Shit is going backwards/fascist very fast, linux needs to find the best way to address this issue if it becomes a necessity.
2
u/Asleep_Detective3274 Mar 21 '26
We may have to go systemd-less
1
u/DangerousAd7433 Mar 21 '26
Already looking at OpenRC and looks like would be compatible with my i3wm setup, but that would also mean I would probably have to switch over to grub as my bootloader and look at all my scripts and stuff since I use service files heavily. I also would need to check all my other machines like my Raspberry Pi.
This actually is going to suck to migrate away from systemd.
2
u/AncomBunker47 Mar 21 '26
I've blocked further updates to it from now on and see how it goes, if any distro goes bad because the init doesn't update regularly it is a trash init regardless of the current shitshow.
Won't be hard for me to migrate, i just don't feel like it rn.0
u/DangerousAd7433 Mar 21 '26
Looking at replacing the init system, it would break my setup, so the only viable option is to do a fresh installation with a different init system installed during the installation. :(((
2
u/aergern Mar 21 '26
His PRs don't have to be accepted. It's not required. He can try to do this, but I doubt it will have to much weight.
6
2
u/klevahh Mar 21 '26
He should not be able to just make it how he wants it, if he can do that, then there is a serious issue with the system and its safeguards.
-5
Mar 21 '26
[deleted]
8
u/MainPast101 Mar 21 '26
For now.
1
Mar 21 '26
[deleted]
1
u/MainPast101 Mar 21 '26
There is a law in new york proposing just that.
Yeah right now it isn't actual verification, just an optional field, but it was created precisely because of the laws in california and brazil, and other states that have them proposed.
5
u/kovec KDE Plasma Mar 21 '26
This is step 1 of a multi-step plan. You can be sure that a later step will require actual verification.
16
u/Qigong1019 Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26
My response to someone not involved... Don't. The Cali AB 1043 has to see a federal courtroom. There are no technical specifications in law. It breaks several layers and projects of Linux that would have to work together including installers, a secure process or location, containers and container managers, and hypervisors if the politicians want baremetal signal to transgress. Also, not excluding pentesting and what can you do with a Linux Live USB stick.
I'm alluding to the fact that questions need to be asked in court or Congressional hearing to pry answers out of non-technical politicians that don't understand the ramifications. In truth, admin rights and UAC is enough, which is why I think step 2 of their hidden agenda is getting apps such as browsers to access a known age signal across all distros. Otherwise, one individual's attempt to try this is futile. It takes distros, projects, professional associations, and legal teams working together.
Sorry for Dylan, but this is not under the control of a systemd merge. The archinstall comments say everything... resistance. Dylan is a k8s orchestrator, not an OS architect. Get the right person for the right job. The code was uninspiring. How systemd merged it is more proof for the initV fans on how out of line systemd is.
I have Endeavour on a system. One might think that using a system sourced/repoed outside of the US and UK might get you some distance. If the US starts shutting down domestic mirrors, you can pick foreign repos.
The alternative logic is my Rocky Linux install. US, but if anyone can gather the money and legal team, it would be the IBM/rpm distro chain. Huge chunks of the professional world run baremetal on Redhat, plus Rocky, Alma, and Fedora being the progressive pilot program. Debian and Canonical also run in the cloud.
All you have to do is look at the companies that fund these "big" branch distros. There are professional stakeholders for Linux, and not AI and social media(whom funded the bill). The industry is at risk if the govt mangles Linux, period.
The community base has to wait for the tsunami. There's not much to like while important people keep tight lipped. Have some faith in the battle though. Apple and Android already have age base and profiling. Does it work? Has it prevented anything? Okay then. Linux carries the planet, but there's no need to play Atlas. I think Lennart Poettering needs to control his 2,450 systemd contributers and post Microsoft honeymoon. Hands on wheel time.