this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
86 points (66.8% liked)

Linux

64059 readers
946 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Some of you need to watch this video, and hang your head in shame.

Dylan Taylor has been receiving constant harassment, including threats to his life and safety, for actions done collectively by SystemD. The article by Sam Bent was explictly mentioned as part of the harassment campaign, and rightfully so.

I don't think enough people realize that this is catastrophically bad. It'll discourage people from becoming open source developers, it'll discourage people from using Linux, and it'll discourage legislators from taking the Linux community seriously.

If you ever wished ill upon another human being for complying with a relatively inconsequential law, you are better off never touching a computer again. The Linux community has collectively gone so far beyond what is acceptable here.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 74 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (4 children)

I’m going to bullet my thoughts on this whole thing because I’m annoyed by the general response, and the implementation as well:

  • I don’t wish harm on the dev and I don’t dislike them. I don’t even know them
  • Death threats are ridiculous; that’s the working class attacking itself again
  • That said, I want to know what compelled this dev to preemptively implement this field not in 1 but in 2 separate PRs
  • Both the field and the law itself do not serve the user at all; it’s a bullshit vague law that is using children as cover—again (I’m old enough to know how this game works)
  • I’ve always viewed Linux as the rebel among all of the corporate slop we have to constantly dodge, so it is super gross when I see changes in Linux that were made to appease laws built and pushed by fascist tech companies and governments
  • Did the dev even open a line of discussion anywhere, or was the PR supposed to be used for that?
  • What’s his motivation? Money? Fame? I’ve been a programmer for 20 years and I’d never jump on a chance to add something that aligns with laws I think are unethical dog shit—especially in the Linux space where the whole goal is to not be Windows
  • I’m a bit frustrated with the casual “what’s the big deal?” mindset that a lot of people I’ve encountered have about this. Are we not living through the same timeline where the US has fallen under the control of a fascist regime that is being eagerly assisted by Meta, Apple, Microsoft and a ton of other massive corporations? How do people not see that this is the beginning of the wedge? And let’s say it peters out and nothing else happens. I’m not going to be ashamed of the fact that I was a squeaky wheel over it because I’ve seen how these things go. You follow the money and suddenly the bigger picture comes into focus. Why on earth a meager single little dev would implement this, unprompted, is just beyond my reasoning.

This reminds me of when Guillermo Rauch from Vercel praised Trump multiple times. Bro, you’re not Tim Cook. You’re not Ellison, Zuck, or Musk. You’re not even on their level. You’re not going to get on their radar. I have PTSD from fellow tech folks being weirdly aligned with fascism and this whole dumb thing is giving me that vibe again. I don’t think this is that 1:1, but this is like the metal scene. You have to dodge the fascists that seem to weirdly permeate corners of the culture. People that refuse and get annoyed by right-wing labels, but still help right-wing grifters, are their own unique brand of pathetic.

[–] jokeyrhyme@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

I'll be upset when a cloud-connected Linux component prevents the system from working unless the real name and birth date fields have been verified

until then, this is just as inert as the real name field which has been there for decades, and far less useful for surveillance than the real name field which has been there for decades

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world -1 points 1 hour ago

Don't be logical. You're supposed to cry fascist and hurl slippery-slope fallacies like this is the Reichstag Fire.

[–] StealthLizardDrop@piefed.social 5 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (3 children)

Except this field has been implemented explicitly for this age verification laws. If this was for some random birthday greeting when you open terminal, i think fewer people would be up in arms. context is everything.

if this moron implements compliance with laws that record a birthday today, what is stopping him adding 3rd party verification of id tomorrow? So far his track record is corporate bootlicker. You cannot trust projects where this guy is a contributer to

[–] kogasa@programming.dev -1 points 3 hours ago

what is stopping him

The pull request approval process? It's quite easy to recognize that one change is harmless and another is not. The slope is not THAT slippery.

I completely understand objecting to the systemd change, I also object, but acting like the fascists have already won is a bit crazy.

[–] jokeyrhyme@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

it would be very interesting to see that attempt

but Poettering has already said that functionality doesn't belong in systemd so I'm not sure where anyone would raise such a PR

seems like an Ubuntu/RedHat level distribution design to pull in a brand new age-verification / mass-surveillance component, or maybe modify an existing telemetry component

the birth date field only made it into systemd because it's user metadata that is consistent with what is already stored there, whereas surveillance does not

for now, at least

again, I'd be very interested to see what happens with follow-up PRs

[–] StealthLizardDrop@piefed.social 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Poettering closed the pr that was reverting this age field. What happens is adding more and more control in the future to conform to whatever idiotic laws someone might make. Should we then also implement a filter for what you type online to conform with Russian law about calling their war "SVO"? Its their law after all, so why not make the rest of the world conform? Its already years older then this age verification?

[–] jokeyrhyme@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

rejecting the revert is completely separate from accepting additional age-check / mass-surveillance PRs, you know this and you are being willfully ignorant

I would be very upset and very surprised if hypothetical follow-up PRs were merged into systemd, and I'm betting they will be rejected

[–] StealthLizardDrop@piefed.social 0 points 6 hours ago

How is it different? The ready acceptance of additional fields specifically for age verification is clearly proof enough that any further bullshit will be accepted just as quickly. PR description clearly outlines it is for the sole purpose of age verification...

[–] Auth@lemmy.world -4 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Whats wrong with Age verification? its fine to verify age, the problem with the age verification laws is the issue of how age is being verified. In this case its fine because its local first and privacy respecting.

[–] Ravell@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Age verification requires doxxing yourself in order to actually work, and if it doesn't require doxxing yourself then it won't work and it can be bypassed, so pointless capitulation granting ease into more authoritarian forms in the future. You don't see why any actually functional age verification is a problem while fascists are trying to control all the digital architecture?

[–] Auth@lemmy.world -1 points 5 hours ago

No it doesnt. If I ask are you 18 and you reply no/yes that is verifying your age without doxing you. This field is for when the user is NOT admin on the machine. This field would be filled out by the parent when they're setting up their kids machine.

[–] StealthLizardDrop@piefed.social 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Its not suitable for proving your age. Its adding a field which is a stepping stone to future gating and more control over something that isn't even applicable to most of the users of the system.

Why not then add a live filter to ensure that you don't call Putler's war in Ukraine and call it "SVO" as you are supposed to? Its the law over there and many years older than this one. People already have gone to prison for not complying with it. But hey lets make that a part of linux too. Its law after all... Do you see how stupid it is to blindly comply to something that doesn't even apply to you?

[–] Auth@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago

How is it not suitable? If I setup my kids age and an app wants to use the portal to check if he is over 18 and it returns no. That suitable age verification and its privacy respecting. Which is what is being suggested.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world -2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

What’s his motivation? Money? Fame?

Why does anybody submit changes to any project? Probably a wide variety of reasons.

I’ve been a programmer for 20 years and I’d never jump on a chance to add something that aligns with laws I think are unethical dog shit—especially in the Linux space where the whole goal is to not be Windows

I hope that you can see that there are people who see this addition as being not a big deal: optional field, no verification, GECOS fields already storing 'realName', 'location', etc.

It doesn't seem like a huge stretch to understand why a person would submit a simple update when they don't think it's of world changing significance.

I’m a bit frustrated with the casual “what’s the big deal?” mindset that a lot of people I’ve encountered have about this.

I'm one of those people so maybe I can help.

Are we not living through the same timeline where the US has fallen under the control of a fascist regime that is being eagerly assisted by Meta, Apple, Microsoft and a ton of other massive corporations?

Yes, we are. That's why I don't use their software or services. The major, and most important, reason why this isn't a big deal to me is that Apple, Meta and Microsoft don't choose the software that is part of my system. We're not in commercial software land, this is the FOSS world. Here, I get to choose what happens on my system because I am the one in completely control.

If a project decides that I have to submit to age verification then I simply won't use their project, it's just that simple. But, that is not what is happening here. There is no verification of any sort, nor is the operation of systemd affected by this field in ANY way.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument that's being presented around this topic which makes the change seem like the beginning of fascisim or the end of privacy or whatever other hyperbolic situations that people are breathlessly inventing to justify their outrage.

We already have fields to store personal data and those fields are optional and rarely used. They exist because they are needed in some cases and in the cases where they are not needed they do not do anything. The birthDate field is exactly the same as the realName field in that sense. It only does something if you choose to install software that uses it.

This field will NEVER affect you unless you choose to install software on your system that requires it.

What's happening here is that people are treating this single JSON field as a stand-in for age verification. It is not. If someone wants to meaningfully fight age verification laws then they need to involve themselves in politics instead of social media brigading and harassment campaigns against developers.

In my view, this 'situation' exists because it allows hoards of people to appear to be 'doing something' without actually doing anything. It's low effort activisim. People find it much easier to write self-righteous and hyperbolic comments and to get into internet fights than to do the hard work required to affect the politicians and laws that are passed.

On top of this we have the signal boosting effect of trend following, clickbait-driven sites and content creators looking to boost ad revenue by playing up outrage and drama.

I disagree with these laws, but this is not the hill where the battle is being fought. It is a pointless distraction and one that is being used to actively target a person for harm.

Nothing is going to happen on your system unless you choose to let it happen. No software update by any project will ever change this.

The only thing that will change it, and the thing that people should focus on, are the laws in the places where they live.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 8 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

This field will NEVER affect you unless you choose to install software on your system that requires it.

If the field did not exist software could not be made to utilize it.

[–] kogasa@programming.dev 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Do you think that would prevent or discourage age verification software from existing? It's not as if a systemd user field is the only place a user's birthday could be stored.

Realistically, age verification software that is seriously attempting age verification isn't even going to touch the systemd field, because why would it? The field could only be trusted if it is managed by an age verification service anyway, in which case the service could just as easily store the data outside of systemd.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Who gets to decide what software should and should not be allowed to exist?

If someone wanted to store a birthDate (and, evidence exists to say that they do) then the most logical place to store that user detail is with all of the other user details... in systemd.

You can choose what you put on your system, that's the Free in FOSS. But, you cannot choose what other people put on their systems.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Its not leaving a lot of choice if it's part of systemd and I'd wager far more people do not want this than were asking for it. There's no benefit to it except for the government and corporations that want your data.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago

The field doesn't do anything by itself. There is zero harm inflicted on people using systemd. There are probably lots of features of systemd that you don't want or use and the entire negative effect that you suffer is a few megabytes less free storage space.

The only way the field would be used is if a person decided to use a different piece of software that wants a birthdate. If they don't choose to install such a program then the field is no more a danger than the realName or location fields. They have scary sounding labels but do absolutely nothing unless the user chooses to use them.

[–] liuther9@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

I ve got a feeling he wont change his mind. This kind of people are just too optimistic