The Linux Thread - The Autist's OS of Choice

[jeff7989]

I decided to become Artix chud by converting my ~5 yo Arch to it. Here are first impressions:
1. Guide on Artix wiki is wrong, you can't yoink systemd from running system or over SSH, you'll get black screen with blinking cursor or severed connection. Do it from chroot.
2. I'll have to learn OpenRC and get some missing services set up. Network is over wire for now, will fix it tomorrow.
3. One of my ZFS datasets is not automounting, will investigate.
4. Fortune package is pozzed, fixed by downgrading.

fortune: this fortune was built with -D NO_OFFENSIVE=1 so the -o flag is unavailable (Sorry)

Thank you for reading my blogpost.

 

[August Levasseur]

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:

The CA and Colorado bills both explicitly include “covered application stores,” not just operating systems. It defines covered app stores vs non-covered app stores by whether the store can be used to download apps that run on their own vs ones that run “within a host application”, i.e. plugins. I do wonder what exactly the bounds of “within a host application” are, what about apps running on .NET or the JVM? What about a store distributing PWAs that run in the browser? You’d think Emacs’ ELPA would be non-covered, but the things people have done with Emacs plugins…
As well, what about package managers? Are they all now considered “covered app stores”? Would individual repos be considered app stores? Can the stores and the OS use the same system, or do they have to independantly ask for user ages? What about app stores/package managers that don’t require users make accounts? What about OSes that don’t require that users make accounts, such as Haiku?
What does this mean for Github?

I maintain that the basic architecture the bill advocates for is not that bad, but these are the problems you run into with trying to make this a legal requirement.

 

[mango_reseller]

The CA and Colorado bills both explicitly include “covered application stores,” not just operating systems.

Is every software's website (i.e. brave dot com) a covered application store for providing brave dot apk and brave dot dpkg? and so on. It's just retarded man idk

 

[prollyanotherlurker]

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.

We've had computing, and even the internet for how long now? I'm in my 30's and I've had the internet my entire life. I grew up by the time I was conscious enough to be able to really get online to basically do whatever I wanted on the internet. None of this stuff was needed up until this point. I can't see any world where "this isn't that bad". Even in the very unlikely event that this doesn't get expanded (emphasis on very unlikely) I don't want to see any of this, this being written in law is bad enough. 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.

I really don't understand if people that support this shit are like 19-20 year olds that didn't go on the internet around the same time someone my age did when I was 12-14. If anyone here is my age that somehow thinks things are so much more dangerous for kids now are you retarded? Have you been so programed by the propaganda they've pushed (yes it literally is propaganda, and we all fall for some propaganda no one is immune), that "WE NEED TO CONTROL THE INTERNET THE KIDS ARE GETTING GROOMED", and the narrative that the internet didn't just have porn, gore, chat rooms, and every single thing we have now that people pretend are some invention of the modern internet as easily available as it is now. This was shit I know was on the internet when I was a kid, because I saw it first hand. I'm so fucking tired of the porn shit being used to justify this slow move we are watching, as things slowly get more fucked than they already are.

I feel like people don't get the significance of a free and open internet. Or they don't care about what the significance is. Either way I have complete and utter contempt for people that want this kind of shit, or that are even ok with it. I don't have many extremely strong political stances, but this is the thing I probably care about the most. When we no longer have the internet we are lucky enough to enjoy now that doesn't just ruin sites like this. It stops the free flow of information, before the internet people got their ideas from TV, radio, and books. And look into the CIA involvement with new broadcasters in that time. At least what's been declassified so far.

I really don't know how to get across the idea, that this is something WE NEVER needed up until this point. Then suddenly after a bunch of people started spreading around the ideas that we need ID verification, age verfication, paperless money. Now oh, yeah,we gotta save the kids lets start putting in the infrastucture that will be used for this stuff. Seriously does no one remember what things were like more than a year or two ago? I hope the people that buy this shit just kill themselves. They're niggercattle and if they got shot in the head and eaten, it shouldn't be a crime.

 

[WielkiWapiesz2137]

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.

 

[Betonhaus]

The CA and Colorado bills both explicitly include “covered application stores,” not just operating systems. It defines covered app stores vs non-covered app stores by whether the store can be used to download apps that run on their own vs ones that run “within a host application”, i.e. plugins. I do wonder what exactly the bounds of “within a host application” are, what about apps running on .NET or the JVM? What about a store distributing PWAs that run in the browser? You’d think Emacs’ ELPA would be non-covered, but the things people have done with Emacs plugins…
As well, what about package managers? Are they all now considered “covered app stores”? Would individual repos be considered app stores? Can the stores and the OS use the same system, or do they have to independantly ask for user ages? What about app stores/package managers that don’t require users make accounts? What about OSes that don’t require that users make accounts, such as Haiku?
What does this mean for Github?

I maintain that the basic architecture the bill advocates for is not that bad, but these are the problems you run into with trying to make this a legal requirement.

I would think that anything that runs directly like from the main repositories would count, but things that run inside something like docker wouldn't. Not sure about flatpack or appimage, but I'm guessing if support is pre-installed they will count

 

[skiar]

I really don't understand if people that support this shit are like 19-20 year olds that didn't go on the internet around the same time someone my age did when I was 12-14. If anyone here is my age that somehow thinks things are so much more dangerous for kids now are you retarded?

You are right, the internet now still hosts as much deplorable garbage as it did back then (more even). I am at the age now where I think back on my own development and how my children might develop. And I would rather they did not have the same experience as me, being exposed to cartel execution videos, CP and animal abuse at the tender age of eleven. I don't know any other reality, but I do not think it did me any good.

I don't believe current world governments are implementing any of this age verification shit because they actually give a fuck about children. Which is why I have opposed EU directives in this direction every step of the way. But in an ideal, i.e. fantasy, world I would like some restrictions like this to exist.

 

[mango_reseller]

If anyone here is my age that somehow thinks things are so much more dangerous for kids now are you retarded?

First off, I don't think things are so much more dangerous for kids. If we're in the same age range, your parents probably had no idea about the Internet and you were most likely on some site playing online games with a chat function like Kongregate or Newgrounds and the like, which was quite literally filled to the brim with pedos. Kids today have much better education on the dangers of the Internet because their parents also grew up with it.

HOWEVER, this is also nothing new. I know this is a history lesson basically, but in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, SCOTUS upheld that the CDA-

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was an attempt to protect minors from explicit material on the Internet by criminalizing the knowing transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages to any recipient under 18; and also knowingly sending to a person under 18 anything "that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs."

-was unconstitutional. Ignore for a second how we've come full circle with retards clutching their pearls at this exact thing again today.

Similarly, most here will remember or at least know of COPA and the following SCOTUS ruling, in which

The court ultimately ruled that COPA was too restrictive in light of the First Amendment. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who delivered the majority opinion, suggested that parents and educators could voluntarily adopt Internet filters and related software to reduce the visibility of harmful or unwanted material.

This is nothing new. Technologies change, the government tries to use them as proof of why they need control over the Internet (because they are afraid, and the Internet is a way to distribute information that they cannot control). There are always, ALWAYS useful idiots that will support online censorship. We just have to keep shooting them down again and again, it's that simple.

And I would rather they did not have the same experience as me, being exposed to cartel execution videos, CP and animal abuse at the tender age of eleven. I don't know any other reality, but I do not think it did me any good.

All you have to do is be a good parent and not let them access sites that host such material. You don't need the government to do it for you.

 

[skiar]

All you have to do is be a good parent and not let them access sites that host such material. You don't need the government to do it for you.

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.

 

[mango_reseller]

you make it sound easy.

it is. There's open sourced blocklists of literally everything on the Internet that you might wish to not see. It would be exceedingly simple to implement for any parent on their router, for instance.

 

[Harry Dresden]

it is. There's open sourced blocklists of literally everything on the Internet that you might wish to not see. It would be exceedingly simple to implement for any parent on their router, for instance.
View attachment 8654134

Do you know where I could find a block list like this? I would love to be able to block ads and porn sites from my browser.

 

[prollyanotherlurker]

This is nothing new. Technologies change, the government tries to use them as proof of why they need control over the Internet (because they are afraid, and the Internet is a way to distribute information that they cannot control). There are always, ALWAYS useful idiots that will support online censorship. We just have to keep shooting them down again and again, it's that simple

True.

Also something I wanted to add. It doesn't matter if this is a conspiracy, to implement these things. If these do get passed, it has the same boiling the frog effect either way. There could be no motive behind this at all, other than retard law makes thinking this is going to look good in the upcoming midterms (I honestly think I would hate them even more if this is the reason). Because the effect will be the same as if this did get passed with the explicit goal of expanding it later. That being, this becomes the new normal, then eventually they want to do something else to "protect the kids", that gets passed, repeat.

We are already in a state where things are unacceptable from my point of view. We still have the patriot act laws, there are people that are adults now that were even alive before those were passed. People adjust, they forget. I know its going to keep happening. I feel like I'm just in the minority of the population that actually cares.


On another note. I watched lundukes brazil age verification video. "We are going to ignore COPPA violations for companies that implement age verification technologies". Wtf, seriously.

 

[skiar]

it is. There's open sourced blocklists of literally everything on the Internet that you might wish to not see. It would be exceedingly simple to implement for any parent on their router, for instance.
View attachment 8654134

I don't see exactly what mullvad has to do with this. The average person barely knows what a router is and how to access it.

 

[mango_reseller]

Do you know where I could find a block list like this? I would love to be able to block ads and porn sites from my browser.

If you have uBO installed, just go through its extended lists. For example. (To block the site itself as in you dont want to visit it by "mistake", you'd probably be looking at DNS filtering either on your router or pihole or whatever). Edit: you can just grab whatever from github and import it in uBO.

I don't see exactly what mullvad has to do with this.

Just as a visual example of what it could look like.

The average person barely knows what a router is and how to access it.

You have access to chatgpt. You are a parent and you care. Come on now dude, all it takes is a simple, easy UI/UX experience. People can edit videos on tiktok, surely they can understand something like this given minimal time investment.

 

[prollyanotherlurker]

Sadly we have to design laws with the lowest common denominator in mind.

Or we could just leave this shit alone.

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).

Or if anything make a mechanism to notifiy the governement that a platform isn't taking action in response to reports of these things. To hold them accountable.

That along with the fact you literally would need to have a retarded nigger brain to not be able to figure out how to use parental moderation features on mpst apps and devices these days. It's just going into settings menus, and flipping a few options. To take the bare minimum responsibility.

Not letting you kids have a facebook, tiktok, or instagram. Especially not letting them have snapchat. In general anything that is purely a social media platform. Your kids shouldn't be on AT ALL if you care about your kids.

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, and potentially seeing something while at a friends house in the afternoon. I don't feel like the difference between those two things needs explanation. It should be obvious.

I really don't understand the mindset of the people the unironically support fucking up the internet for "protection". These have to be the same people that don't mind the government legally being able to spy on everything you do because "i have nothing to hide", and don't have any problem with what used to he products you buy being turned into services you rent forever. It's all niggercattle feed to me.

If you have uBO installed, just go through its extended lists. For example. (To block the site itself as in you dont want to visit it by "mistake", you'd probably be looking at DNS filtering either on your router or pihole or whatever). Edit: you can just grab whatever from github and import it in uBO.

Just as a visual example of what it could look like.

You have access to chatgpt. You are a parent and you care. Come on now dude, all it takes is a simple, easy UI/UX experience. People can edit videos on tiktok, surely they can understand something like this given minimal time investment.

Here I'll do one better and show what these actually look like.

You click the little settings button. On an android.



Then in that menu, you click the parental controls button again. Then it brings you to this google setup wizard made to he so easy even the darkest coal black nigger can use it.

 

[skiar]

If you have uBO installed, just go through its extended lists. For example.

Just as a visual example of what it could look like.

You have access to chatgpt. You are a parent and you care. Come on now dude, all it takes is a simple, easy UI/UX experience. People can edit videos on tiktok, surely they can understand something like this given minimal time investment.

Don't worry about me man. I've done what I need to do. The current crop of children I see gives me no hope that most parents, first of all care about social media exposure, and second know how to limit it. It is indeed not some arcane technical challenge but most parents simply do not give a fuck.

In an ideal world every parent does this properly but I don't see it being the case. THAT BEING SAID, do I trust current governments to implement these kind of safeguards? No. Do I think that in the current political environment ideals like this are not just exploited for their ability to gain mass surveillance under the veil of '"protect the kids"? No. But it is something I would like to see implemented in a distant future.

Not letting you kids have a facebook, tiktok, or instagram. Especially not letting them have snapchat. In general anything that is purely a social media platform. Your kids shouldn't be on AT ALL if you care about your kids.

Yup, sadly this opinion is not widespread currently. And I don't know if it will ever become "mainstream"

 

[acid_ra1n]

Yup, sadly this opinion is not widespread currently. And I don't know if it will ever become "mainstream"

i predict in the near future being on tiktok all day will be looked upon like you're doing fent

 

[mango_reseller]

most parents simply do not give a fuck

Which brings us to point #2. 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? You can do it for your kids? Great. You dont have kids? It doesnt apply. You can do it for your kids but you're afraid that other kids' parents dont and they will be a bad influence? We had that scare with kids giving hobos $5 to buy them a beer or two already instead of having their IDs (or lack thereof) checked at the counter. It doesn't solve anything.

 

[skiar]

Which brings us to point #2. 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? You can do it for your kids? Great. You dont have kids? It doesnt apply. You can do it for your kids but you're afraid that other kids' parents dont and they will be a bad influence? We had that scare with kids giving hobos $5 to buy them a beer or two already instead of having their IDs (or lack thereof) checked at the counter. It doesn't solve anything.

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.

 

[mango_reseller]

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.

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?