The Linux Thread - The Autist's OS of Choice

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
mango_reseller said:
Even if we accept your argument that the government needs to do something, there exist ways that the government can use. For instance, let's consider a zero knowledge proof solution. Your (state/federal) government has your ID. It has it because it produced it. You go to a website. It asks for age. You send a request to a government server asking to verify your age range. It doesn't know why, just that you're asking. It replies yes/no. It signs this response with a government key that can be verified. You give this signed response to the website. You get in. They don't know who you are, they just know your age. Super simple, will never happen because the surveillance state makes no money from it and it actually costs the government to implement. Next?
Click to expand...
This would quite literally be my ideal solution for this. If only we lived in a world where the government works in service of the people. One day, who knows.
 
skiar said:
You're right. People should not lose their privacy and/or anonymity when using the internet. This I agree with. Is their some way to combine that with kids being prevented from accessing social media/whatever "undesirable" content? I don't know. Do I think there should be a way? yeah, I just don't know what it would look like. Especially currently when privacy and anonymity are increasingly unpopular concepts to the powers that be.

And yeah, even if we do have a system like that it will be circumvented. Just like kids giving a hobo $5 to get a beer. But having that barrier of entry is still a gross good since it limits exposure.
Click to expand...
We already have this. That's the problem. WE DONT NEED LAWS TO FIX THIS ISSUE. It's damn near a non issue, that's being turned into one. And this isn't me saying their is no problem with kids having open internet access. Its that there have been solutions in place for 20 years at this point.

But in the last few years suddenly normal people decided we need to regulate access to the internet.

I just see the people that fell for this as useful idiots. It's the exact same rhetoric they have been using for decades to try tricking the peasants into wanting horrific laws. Like the many attempts to regulate away end to end encryption. Think about how harmful it would be to kids if the citizens had a means of communication that stops government snooping. (Well the EU from what I've seen actually suceeded in killing it there).

I fucking hate this. Becsuse there's nothing I can say to change the mind of people that have fallen for this bullshit. Like what was the name of that propoganda show in the UK about social media? Adolescents? It was a fictional show, and you had talk show hosts acting like it was non-fiction. They are literally selling us propoganda. And people continue to eat it up. As an online sperg, I can only screen into the void about it, literally nothing I can do will make a difference. A retard posting online about why this is bad won't compete with companies, and governements putting out propoganda daily, that makes people think this is actually going to help. Or its "owning the libs", or whatever justification there is.


I've been following this series these guys have been dropping where they are basically just asking nick fuentes to explain his beliefs. Split up into a bunch of episodes. The most recent one is kind of tangentially related to this topic actually. At least on free speech on internet platforms, and to me that is one of the biggest concerns with where things are heading.
 
mango_reseller said:
Not to be a gigafaggot here but could you please summarize it in your post so that I dont have to sit through a Nick Fuentes video
Click to expand...
It starts with the point he often makes to his followers. Particularly the younger people on his audience to conceal their power level. He says, do not share your political beliefs on social media, keep your head down, go to school, get good positions, etc.

Then it moved to social media, and free speech. Particularly getting into the topic of free speech vs freedom of association. How those could contradict. But at the same time, a platform like youtube effectively has a monopoly on video sharing, along with ties and funding of big tech with the federal government. And it proposes the idea of an actual federal version of a social media platform. Which would be the first amendment would legally apply to it. Personally I don't like that idea. But I guess at the same time I guess that could exist while allowing non government run sites to still exist.

Also the seeming eventuality of the uppercase I Internet becoming walled off lowercase i internets that are firewalled off from eachother to control influences from outside nations like china has done. Is talkes about in it.
 
Time for my sperging:
prollyanotherlurker said:
Even shit parents that refuse to watch their kids could put parental controls on devices even from the time I was a kid. There is nothing this law is going to do that actually matters. It's literally only a downside.
Click to expand...
I'm early Gen Z and grew up during "Web 2.0". I remember during elementary school for our computer class we would be watched like hawks to make sure we weren't accessing something we weren't supposed to, even then the teacher who was basically the "IT department" only had whitelisting for specific websites enabled through the school network. We were also taught how to type, do various keyboard controls (this wasn't graded, mainly a showoff), and basic troubleshooting. I remember us having to watch NetSmartz Kids in class and how to practice basic kid-level cybersecurity: don't open an email randomly (always check the sender, subject, attachments, don't run random programs, inform an adult if there was something that seemed wrong, and how a child could determine that without any experience or knowledge, couldn't tell ya), but basically, "Kid, don't be a fucking retard and stay in your lane." At the time during the 2000s, there was always a huge emphasis on parental permission before doing anything online, let alone just going online. Disney Channel (or any kids TV channel) promoting something on their website would also be ended with, "ask for parent's permission before going online." As kids, my brother and I would always play local PC games (Roller Coaster Tycoon, Zoo Tycoon, Rocket Power) our parents got with the PC bundle of the time (I think it was Windows 98, my infant memory for whatever reason is very good and I can remember pretty vivid details still) and basically our Dad would deflect any question about the internet, since one, he didn't fully understand it yet himself, plus it was Dial-Up until like 2003, and calls were always coming and going out the house. Even when the internet came more accessible, parents would talk to the technicians at BestBuy on how to setup the parental controls and how to use them. Right around the early 2010s social media boom, that all that went out the window since everyone had their own mobile device, mainly thanks to the iPod Touch, and there were virtually no guard-rails in place for kids anymore.
prollyanotherlurker said:
The arguement I hear from people is, "well then they will just get on these things at a friends house". Which is so fucking dumb to me. There is a big difference between having 24 hour access to all this stuff
Click to expand...
How many kids these days actually have time limits for their devices? I remember only having like 90 minutes a day, then being forced to play outside afterwards once time was up, and my mom would take that shit to work with her, if we got banned from it.

Just recently, I had to setup parental controls on routers in my apartment complex because the parents don't know what to fucking do about control their kids internet usage. I have internet cutting out on specific devices at bedtime so even if the kid gets the device after bedtime, they can't use it (at least on their home network). When they ask me what else they can do, I tell them to be better fucking parents and assert authority over their kids young so when they're teens, they're hopefully less rebellious.
mango_reseller said:
If most parents dont give a fuck about what their children view, why should the rest of us lose our privacy and anonymity/pseudonimity to some gigatech company for something that has no popular support?
Click to expand...
I always tell conservatives who support age verification, that the underlying principle is the same when it comes to firearms. "Why do responsible gun owners have to be punished when someone else does something wrong with a gun?" It's hilarious watching them short-circuit, because you call out a contradiction in their stance on the underlying principle. They're all about personal safety and responsibility when it comes to gun ownership, so why is it different when it comes to the internet? They don't go crying to the government for more regulation when someone does something wrong with a gun, except to punish the criminal. So why are you going to the government crying for regulation because you are terrible parents and can't control your kids online behavior?
 
Last edited:
WielkiWapiesz2137 said:
You don't understand the same organization that apparently cannot arrest anyone involved with Epstein clearly wants to protect your children. It is 100% not because they want to put draconian censorship laws in place.
Click to expand...
The Epstein files gave us a bunch of clues as to what is really going on, who is blackmailed,
who the handlers are, and who is employing the handlers.
Not everybody is happy that they are blackmailed.
Some want revenge.

So the handlers want to shut off any routes for blackmail distribution, be it real or fake,
by using the same cutouts that brought you abortion and child gender reassignment surgery to push
"protect the children" laws.

Either way, blackmail loses its leverage once publicly available.
 
prollyanotherlurker said:
If we were going to pass laws, maybe we could pass something that would put some kind of responsibility on platforms that outright ignore reports of CSAM, or child grooming on their platforms when it's reported to them (I'm pretty sure we already have those laws actually, they just don't bother enforcing them, but hey they probably care a lot about the kids don't worry).
Click to expand...
Treat anyone who accepts the surface-level justification (protecting children) as either too ignorant to take seriously or as a bad-faith actor.
 
Update on my Arch --> Artix conversion. I got all services running, some were from AUR. Transition was smoother than expected, If for some reason I decide that it's not a stable distro thre's always zfs rollback, but so far it's been alright.

One thing is certain, that pesky
Code: 
a stop job is running for user manager for uid 1000
on shutdown even after messing with systemd config files will never piss me off again.
 
skiar said:
Well, you make it sound easy. And if you have more than the average amount knowledge on how to manage internet access it is. But that leaves a large amount of the population who do not understand and who can not restrict access, either because of ignorance or technical incompetence. Sadly we have to design laws with the lowest common denominator in mind.
Click to expand...
No we don't. What exactly is stopping any retard parent from pulling up a Youtube tutorial on how to set up parental controls on a tablet? Fucking nothing, a parent who can't do that and demands the government do it for them is a negligent parent. This should solely be the responsibility of parents and not the government.
 


Sharing this postly because kiwifarms mentioned.

In the context of based Preston Byrne offering legal council to distros to potentially fight back against these recent laws.
 
Those who exchange liberty for safety deserve neither and will lose both. Any neutral or positive response to ANY sort of age verification push is the result of step-by-step engoyification. There will always be a backdoor/log/fingerprint/deanon mechanism tied into any sort of ID, "zero proof" or otherwise, there has to be attestation that happen somewhere along the chain, its just layered under more and more obfuscation to make it seem like something it is not. It is the same line of thinking that people use when they turn a blind eye to proprietary trash OSes, Google et al. or shit like the IME/PSP spying on them. Same with people that like Flock-style cameras for """"safety"""" reasons, same with people that prefer supermarket to stall food because its been "tested and measured against industry standards".

Its more control, more nanny state bullshit that fosters a population of docile, tagged and bagged, govt dependent nigger cattle, simple as. No one on Earth can convince me otherwise.
 
Ferryman said:
Its more control, more nanny state bullshit that fosters a population of docile, tagged and bagged, govt dependent nigger cattle, simple as. No one on Earth can convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...
I agree, and argue it's more to do with a ruling class that has finally figured out they're hated by the public and are desperately trying to control the narrative, as they fuck up civilisation on purpose.

This is just going to teach a bunch of normies a level of technical skills they didn't have in the past.
 
greatUncleShitHeel said:
I agree, and argue it's more to do with a ruling class that has finally figured out they're hated by the public and are desperately trying to control the narrative, as they fuck up civilisation on purpose.

This is just going to teach a bunch of normies a level of technical skills they didn't have in the past.
Click to expand...
No, more than likely they'll just shrug and do the goy shuffle on camera instead.
 
Has anyone here ever tried installing GNU/Linux on a Surface Book 2 using the custom kernal (https://github.com/linux-surface/linux-surface) available?

It rankles me to still have a machine running Windows, but I would prefer to use this laptop if possible as I have to admit, as much as I hate Microsoft, this is the best laptop I've ever used. I fucking love this keyboard.

At any rate, the only piece of software that was holding me back can run in Bottles so if I can pull this off with the SB2 and not lose too much hardware functionality, I'll pull the trigger.
 
Zyklon C said:
Has anyone here ever tried installing GNU/Linux on a Surface Book 2 using the custom kernal (https://github.com/linux-surface/linux-surface) available?

It rankles me to still have a machine running Windows, but I would prefer to use this laptop if possible as I have to admit, as much as I hate Microsoft, this is the best laptop I've ever used. I fucking love this keyboard.

At any rate, the only piece of software that was holding me back can run in Bottles so if I can pull this off with the SB2 and not lose too much hardware functionality, I'll pull the trigger.
Click to expand...
I did that last year with Linux Mint and it ran fine. One thing is that if you disable Secure Boot on those tablets the boot screen becomes an angry red.
 
How did you find battery life in laptop and tablet mode? The consensus seems to be that it's shorter than when running Windows, but those comments are from a while back.

Have you had any of the issues when the tablet shutting off once disconnected from the keyboard?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom