this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
249 points (87.2% liked)

Technology

83069 readers
3578 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RoddyStiggs@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

My date of birth is FU/CK/YOU

[–] Prox@lemmy.world 24 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

YOU-FU-CK is the better format and this is not debatable.

[–] RoddyStiggs@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 16 hours ago

This guy fucks

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 6 points 19 hours ago
[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 12 points 18 hours ago (6 children)

This is getting blown way out of proportion.

What’s being described right now is just an optional date-of-birth field. It doesn’t block installation, it doesn’t require verification, and it doesn’t change how the OS actually works. It just exists, and you can ignore it entirely.

The leap to “this is step one toward needing a passport to install an OS” is a classic slippery slope. It jumps from a harmless, non-enforced field straight to full identity verification with no actual mechanism connecting the two.

More importantly, this ignores how Linux works at a fundamental level.

Linux is open source, which means the code is public and can be modified by anyone. If any distribution ever tried to enforce something invasive like identity checks, that code would be stripped out almost immediately and redistributed as a fork. People already fork distributions over far smaller disagreements than this, and users would migrate just as quickly.

For this scenario people are worried about to actually happen, the entire ecosystem would have to move in lockstep and the community would have to abandon one of its core principles overnight. That’s not a realistic outcome.

Being skeptical of regulation is reasonable. Treating this like the beginning of mandatory identity verification at the OS level, especially in the Linux world, just isn’t grounded in how the technology or the community actually operates.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

What’s being described right now is just an optional date-of-birth field.

The timing is dogshit.

Like getting handed a grenade pin and told "It's a fucking pin! It's harmless, what are you worried about?"

[–] Bjornir@programming.dev 19 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

What is the use case for that field? I do not see it as being used as anything else than a stepping stone towards age verification.

[–] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

this is the correct way to frame this issue. it serves no purpose other than to support things that are further down a slope

I wonder if a fork becomes successful, or if traditional init based systems make a comeback

enterprise users obviously won't give a shit about any of this, and will keep using redhat or amazon linux or whatever

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Seems like you don't really need to fork the system until someone applies DOB field in a meaningful way.

Even in such a situation, I would suspect the short-term solution is simply a patch or crack to neuter the functionality that the DOB field is supposed to implement. A full fork seems unnecessary, even counterproductive, since it would define your OS as meaningfully distinct (and noticeably out of compliance) with a standard installation.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 23 points 14 hours ago

It's giving an inch. We shouldn't be doing that. We should be fighting tooth an nail against every single aggression against our privacy. They've already taken far too much.

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 14 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

is a classic slippery slope

Were have you been the last few years or so? We're not just "going down" one slippery slope after another, we're speeding down them.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

Classic Authoritarian Log Flume

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 25 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

with mass adoption of enshitification. and with the world in general. calling things a slippery slope fallacy is a long and losing gamble.

if the field was put in because of a law, then it’s for a reason, if the data isn’t important, or enforced, then it is useless and should not have been added.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 15 hours ago

I wonder if it was put in for the same reason CA passed a self-reporting law recently. I wonder if it's an attempt to repel through malicious compliance far worse age verification that's forced at a federal (US) level.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bruzzard@lemmy.world 12 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

If that is the case, explain why is it being implemented in the heat of mass age verification? What is the motive?

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

The motive is mass government surveillance obviously.

But like with many things in our government federally and statewide, these people don't actually understand how the technology functions. They can make all the laws that they want and Linux will still remain an open source software.

[–] bruzzard@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Thanks for the explanation. What you have described is not different to the manner in which I understand the situation as well.

My concern is that (despite your good intentions) your previous comment may have the unintended effect of making light of the situation we are all in.

The 'field' we have the privilege to ignore now id a mandatory requirement for a passport and iris scan tomorrow.

My first thought is to not sit still and accept the new law - rather, to empower everybody here to write to their legislators to block or reverse these gross violations of privacy. May Linux developers have already expressed willful non-compliance to the law. Show we not get behind these developers and organisations (like the EFF) and demand a repeal?

I however apologise if I have misunderstood your intent. But one thing is for sure, if we do not put up a fight at present, then the future is already lost.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 68 points 1 day ago (26 children)

An init system does not need to know my personal details; it’s for starting programs in a specific order just fuck off with this shit. You don’t even have to capitulate to this stuff and these freaks are out here doing it preemptively like they expect a fucking pat on the head for being first in line to dive tongue first on to that boot.

[–] AcornTickler@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Systemd isn't an init system. Systemd-init is an init system and it is a part of the systemd suite.

[–] eleitl@lemmy.zip 10 points 14 hours ago

It has been sold as just an init system to people who argued it's a Katamari Damacy. We now know who was right.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 day ago (8 children)

Whatever the fuck it is it doesn’t need to know how old I am to do its job.

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 40 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It already has fields for personal information, though, and they're every bit as sensitive as your birthdate. realName, emailAddress, location, and timezone are already in there. The important part is that they're all optional, and you don't have to fill them in at all, or can fill them in with fake data. The system still serves you, not some outside party.

But the timing of it does have a lot of people freaking out about it.

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 12 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

I now fear it will one day be required for services on the internet (as it is by a recent law in California). I want to make that less likely, and more difficult to implement.

Having a principle the majority do not have and refusing to participate means being another step further out of society.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)
[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 6 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

My hate of SystemD is further justified! And you all just called me gray haired and not willing to update with the times!

[–] eleitl@lemmy.zip 9 points 14 hours ago

Remember when they said "relax, it's just an init system, no biggie"? Pepperidge farm remembers.

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 81 points 1 day ago (15 children)

Everyone should set it to 1970-01-01.

[–] mrbn@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 hours ago

Nah, I'm all about that 9001/01/01 life

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 6 points 19 hours ago

In other news there has been a massive uptick in Boomers converting to Linux....

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›