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
prollyanotherlurker said:
Seems pretty dumb of all things to ship making it xfce's wayland session. At least pick kde or gnome to do a wayland by default thing. Otherwise stick with xorg.
Click to expand...
the keyword is stable so both of those would be horrible options
experimental wayland session for xfce is probably the worst though
i will never understand people that glaze opensuse its easily one of the worst distros ive ever used
 
acid_ra1n said:
the keyword is stable so both of those would be horrible options
experimental wayland session for xfce is probably the worst though
i will never understand people that glaze opensuse its easily one of the worst distros ive ever used
Click to expand...
They claim to be stable then use one of the most unstable Wayland desktops. You can basically write opensuse off as they let the crazies in charge.
 
prollyanotherlurker said:
(For anyone wondering, the plan is to add a dbus interface to handle the age verification api)
Click to expand...
Expanding a bit more on this:

1772605265430.png

1772605455465.png

1772605469929.png

1772605484083.png


I am not even American and I hate Commiefornia like you wouldn't believe.
 
Last edited:
Gonna do a little devil’s advocation here. I think Louis Rossman said that this scheme was worthless because it didn’t ask for ID. I disagree. You’re going from asking the user how old they are, where the user has every incentive to lie if they’re not in the ‘correct’ age bracket, to asking the device setter-upper how old the user is. Typically, children are not the ones who buy their own devices and it seems this law assumes they’re not the ones setting up their accounts. So then, you go from pornhub asking a kid “are you 18?” to Linux/Windows asking the kid’s parents “are they 18?” and then replaying the parents’ answer when pornhub asks.
I haven’t read the California bill, but the Colorado bill stated that if your application refuses to use the OS’ age verification API, you are assuming all liability regarding age restriction laws, while if you use the API you’re released from some of that liability. That’s a pretty strong incentive for companies and platforms to start move towards this scheme. This is a point I think a lot of people are missing, they (the legislators) goal with this seems to not be introducing yet another age verification requirement, its replacing all existing age verification schemes with this new one.

Again, I don’t support this law because age verification is a spook and no matter how “privacy friendly” this is, it shouldn’t be a legal requirement. However, I think the apocalyptic speculation regarding this law is excessive. No, this law does not mean we’re turning into Britain, or China, not yet at least.
 
August Levasseur said:
Gonna do a little devil’s advocation here. I think Louis Rossman said that this scheme was worthless because it didn’t ask for ID. I disagree. You’re going from asking the user how old they are, where the user has every incentive to lie if they’re not in the ‘correct’ age bracket, to asking the device setter-upper how old the user is. Typically, children are not the ones who buy their own devices and it seems this law assumes they’re not the ones setting up their accounts. So then, you go from pornhub asking a kid “are you 18?” to Linux/Windows asking the kid’s parents “are they 18?” and then replaying the parents’ answer when pornhub asks.
I haven’t read the California bill, but the Colorado bill stated that if your application refuses to use the OS’ age verification API, you are assuming all liability regarding age restriction laws, while if you use the API you’re released from some of that liability. That’s a pretty strong incentive for companies and platforms to start move towards this scheme. This is a point I think a lot of people are missing, they (the legislators) goal with this seems to not be introducing yet another age verification requirement, its replacing all existing age verification schemes with this new one.

Again, I don’t support this law because age verification is a spook and no matter how “privacy friendly” this is, it shouldn’t be a legal requirement. However, I think the apocalyptic speculation regarding this law is excessive. No, this law does not mean we’re turning into Britain, or China, not yet at least.
Click to expand...
The majority of people using linux are not parents setting it up for their children dude, lmao be for real, that number isn't even remotely significant enough to regard this as a massive concern.
That being said the assertion in the second paragraph is correct, the purpose from california lawmakers perspective is likely having a global system based age verification system to "sweeten the deal" for anyone retarded enough to buy into the idea of age verification at all.
 
prollyanotherlurker said:

Of course this happened in California, and I wouldn't have even heard of it. There is no way I would want pay attention to the kind of insanity going on in their state. I heard about the Colorado thing before lunduke talked about it. Not this.

Well that makes sense, and kind of shows the problem. One state passes a law like this, then others follow. I wouldn't think that needs explanation, because you can see it happen with all kinds of things. The speed varies, but this stuff can, and does have an effect that reaches outside of the state they get passed in.
Click to expand...
Shit like this always makes me pissed off, but then I see Calif*rnia (hard-r) and am relieved I'm not Calif*rnian. Why is it always C*li (soft-i)?
 
How long til Japan does some crap like this but worse by implementing it with the My Number (Japan’s universal ID card that combines social security, drivers licence and government insurance card.)?

Jokes aside, I have mixed feelings about forcing the whole OS age verification thing.

On one hand it’s fine to have age verification. On another, I do not trust these mega corporations, governments, nor tech bros with anything regarding identity information. We live in a Grifteriffic and Scammeriffic world where some guy in another part of the world could take someone’s identity and run amok.
 
August Levasseur said:
Gonna do a little devil’s advocation here. I think Louis Rossman said that this scheme was worthless because it didn’t ask for ID. I disagree. You’re going from asking the user how old they are, where the user has every incentive to lie if they’re not in the ‘correct’ age bracket, to asking the device setter-upper how old the user is. Typically, children are not the ones who buy their own devices and it seems this law assumes they’re not the ones setting up their accounts. So then, you go from pornhub asking a kid “are you 18?” to Linux/Windows asking the kid’s parents “are they 18?” and then replaying the parents’ answer when pornhub asks.
Click to expand...
1772655883301.png

I hate this Clown World so damn much.
 
I'm not happy this is happening but I'm also not surprised since we opened the door to this when we had age restrictions in the first place
Was only a matter of time before they came up with an actual way to verify your age
 
I did not read the laws being implemented because I am lazy and not American. But how is this supposed to work for server infrastructure? Every time a VM spins up, even if no person every uses or looks at it, it is supposed to "check" the users age? I suppose I should be surprised about this not being a very well though out law but it seems like a slight oversight. If there is a provision for this please do enlighten me however.
 
skiar said:
But how is this supposed to work for server infrastructure? Every time a VM spins up, even if no person every uses or looks at it, it is supposed to "check" the users age?
Click to expand...
The CA bill, in the least, does nothing of the sort. Also just to be clear on what the bill's language is:

1798.501.​

(a) An operating system provider shall do all of the following:
(1) Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.
(2) Provide a developer who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface that identifies, at a minimum, which of the following categories pertains to the user:
(A) Under 13 years of age.
(B) At least 13 years of age and under 16 years of age.
(C) At least 16 years of age and under 18 years of age.
(D) At least 18 years of age.
(3) Send only the minimum amount of information necessary to comply with this title and shall not share the digital signal information with a third party for a purpose not required by this title.
Click to expand...
It also menacingly ends as follows:
(g) This title does not impose liability on an operating system provider, a covered application store, or a developer that arises from the use of a device or application by a person who is not the user to whom a signal pertains.
Click to expand...
i.e. probably more to follow, as they clearly recognize the more obvious pitfalls. This is an extremely barebones "foot in the door" type bill.

EDIT:

In my opinion, the OS level laws are heavily lobbied for by app stores and the like, in a "passing the buck" manner. I think that a lot of the discourse around this is split in 3 camps as follows:
1) Genuine disagreements with the law on an ethical level. For whatever reason, privacy violation, slippery slope, whatever, refuse this fundamentally. Idealistically, I am in this camp.
2) Genuine disagreements with the law on a technical level. You can agree that a signal is needed and the probably best way to have that signal is on an OS level as opposed to doing it per application (i.e. having discord, tiktok, kiwifarms, 4chan, reddit all scan your face), but they believe the way the laws are pushing for it is at the very least retarded. Pragmatically, I am in this camp.
3) Literal shilling, either for or against the law, by people that are using maximalist rhetoric in either direction to either speed up this specific law (OS-level verification) or to shift the law to something they prefer (i.e. app-store or per-app level verification).
My guess is that a lot of the extreme opposition to this law is meant to make it so that it is actually enforced on a per-app level, so that the various apps can gather more data from you and sell you more shit. To be clear, this excludes obvious idealistic lobbying against the law by organizations like the ACLU, NetChoice etc. More so the individual people that go against it and you think "huh, so and so is against that law? Weird, but welcome". If it smells like bullshit, it probably is.
 
Last edited:
mango_reseller said:
.e. probably more to follow, as they clearly recognize the more obvious pitfalls. This is an extremely barebones "foot in the door" type bill.
Click to expand...
I see, make it vague enough to get through the door and expand on it later. Reminds me of what the EU is doing with its chat control bullshit.
mango_reseller said:
2) Genuine disagreements with the law on a technical level. You can agree that a signal is needed and the probably best way to have that signal is on an OS level as opposed to doing it per application (i.e. having discord, tiktok, kiwifarms, 4chan, reddit all scan your face), but they believe the way the laws are pushing for it is at the very least retarded. Pragmatically, I am in this camp.
Click to expand...
I always have to stop myself from my knee jerk reaction to proposals like this being anger since at some level I do agree with restricting under age user from being able to access social media platforms for example. I suppose I just don't have trust in any current western government being able to implement it in a way that is not a complete affront to privacy.

Anyway, thank you for the clarification. I have a sad feeling we shall be seeing similar laws being proposed in the rest of the world soon enough
 
acid_ra1n said:
I'm not happy this is happening but I'm also not surprised since we opened the door to this when we had age restrictions in the first place
Was only a matter of time before they came up with an actual way to verify your age
Click to expand...
"we" opened the door to it when sites and services wouldn't self-police the fuck out of the coomers and groomers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom