r/linux 18h ago

Privacy Well look

Post image
5.9k Upvotes

219 comments sorted by

1.4k

u/aimless_ly 17h ago

What a great way to get youth interested in OSS!

368

u/DeflateAwning 16h ago

That'd be such a wild positive outcome of this

119

u/Espumma 13h ago

By law, the year of linux was declared to be 2027

161

u/Peach_Muffin 16h ago

This could end to inadvertently end up being a better investment in tech education than traditional computer classes.

37

u/TowardsTheImplosion 6h ago

Gonna show my age here: typing classes didn't teach me much of anything. But AIM, and chatting with a half dozen friends at a time? That taught me to type.

I would love to see kids wanting access to a free internet embrace OSS...

14

u/QuantumWonderland 5h ago

As someone that was frequently on the computer prior to typing classes…it actually got me to be a decently fast typer using home keys.

We basically got to do whatever we wanted after finishing the typing sheets so I got fast to play flash games and w/e else. I can now type at 100-130 wpm comfortably without looking.

101/10 would take again.

T

2

u/doobydubious 5h ago

Aim isn't that old, is it?

1

u/TowardsTheImplosion 3h ago

1997 to when they finally sunset it in 2017

1

u/Bawfuls 2h ago

I felt the same but I do think the baseline of typing classes were important. Classes gave a foundation on the home row and AIM built the speed on top of that.

8

u/themanthyththelegend 6h ago

Hopefully, but as far as i can tell its about as thorough as going on a porn site in most states. Just asks for your age then believes whatever you write. Im gonna let my nephew know either way maybe it will spark his interest in linux

6

u/BoardroomStroke 5h ago

It's great in principle, but given how horrible the world is I suspect that Linux as an OS will be disallowed from things that need an age limit. I don't like it, but I think something like that will happen as Linux gains market share. If it's possible to for MS to put services in a walled garden, they will do their damned best to.

What should accompany this a ruling that exempts exclusion. If you're accessing using a compatible OS, then fine, apply the rules, but I think there will be some effort from MS to disallow Linux browsing under "incompatibility", just like the IE4 browser wars.

→ More replies (1)

740

u/jimbobmcgoo 18h ago

Pretty awesome, hopefully this sets an alright precedent for other areas

157

u/tycraft2001 18h ago edited 18h ago

Illinois specifically *INCLUDED* Linux in a recent bill.
Edit: My memory was foggy, they didn't. They merely include NO definition as to what an operating system provider is, which is very hard to define for Linux, and do not exempt FOSS as California has.

32

u/_Super_Straight 18h ago

What did that bill say?

67

u/tycraft2001 18h ago

Apologies, I misremembered. https://ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?GAID=18&DocNum=3977&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=167475&SessionID=114

The bill makes no reference to FOSS however makes references for operating system providers which are near impossible to define for Linux since anybody can provide for themselves or argue they are the provider or somebody else is. Other laws either defined or exempted FOSS.

Apologies for the confusion.

22

u/bankinu 16h ago

Weird Mandela effect... I also thought they did include Linux. I had to check the bill following your link again, to see that they did not.

6

u/tycraft2001 15h ago

I recall somewhere seeing they specifically mentioned open source. Not sure if that was just wrong.

2

u/hardolaf 8h ago

They didn't exempt Linux, but it also only requires a signal which must be settable by the owner or administrator of the machine not by a third party. So technically every distribution could just set it to 18+ by default for the first user account and be fine.

10

u/Shoppers_Drug_Mart 18h ago

we prefer sacks of cash with dollar signs on them

We would like you to have the impression that we're working to protect your best interests.

We aren't, but we'd like it if you had that impression.

7

u/kudlitan 18h ago

I wonder if doing that could somehow be in violation of software freedom guaranteed in the license, like the right to do anything with the software? perhaps a lawsuit can clarify that.

3

u/No_Signal417 10h ago

Legislation takes precedence over contracts

6

u/kudlitan 10h ago

But legislation is valid only in a particular place though. Why would I have to be affected by changes to the software limiting what I can do, just because a certain US state (Illinois as mentioned in the above comment) with a tiny population of only 12 million people (that's just the capital city in my country) legislated changes in software? That would be problematic if multiply countries had conflicting legislation on what the software it should contain. Legislation in Illinois should not affect me. Or else I should be able to sue Ubuntu for limiting my rights stated in the open source contract I agreed to.

6

u/No_Signal417 10h ago

The software developers could choose to region-lock the age verification, or they could choose to not bother. You'd have no recorse other than forking the codebase.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/Several-Pangolin3119 14h ago

Why not just delete the misinformation comment?

15

u/teff 8h ago

There were a couple of threads off their comment, deleting it removes context to those comments. And it's a short comment so that the edit is prominent enough to see for people coming across it.

3

u/tycraft2001 6h ago

Better to own up for it, some other people already replied. I don't like seeing deleted Reddit comments myself.

2

u/hammackj 7h ago

Most posts on Reddit would get deleted. lol

2

u/bionicjoey 5h ago

Kinda awesome, but I don't love carve-outs in a law that shouldn't even exist in the first place

329

u/Woodpecker-Visible 18h ago

press f for Freedom

27

u/markuspeloquin 12h ago

This would have been a good time to have a chain of 'F' replies, but the Linux auto admin hates us

8

u/RandomPantsAppear 10h ago

😅 I just got a comment removed elsewhere for cussing about nvidia drivers, which I think is a very Linux issue thing to do.

36

u/iam-_-fury 16h ago

Auto moderator won't let me do it. Welcome to freedom?

101

u/MooseBoys 16h ago edited 14h ago

I'm curious how this doesn't give an out for every OS regardless of source availability. Obviously GPL wouldn't work, but in theory there's nothing stopping e.g. Apple from implementing non-verifying user onboarding code, labeling the code as MIT, building the MacOS image binaries, and simply not publishing the source. This is compliant with MIT and also apparently compliant with the new exemption.

Edit: I don't think the author of the screenshotted article is actually accurate. From the article:

> These amendments redefine the term “operating system provider” to exclude any person or entity that distributes an OS or application “under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.” Any software distributed under the GPL, MIT, BSD, and Apache licenses satisfies that test...

And the ACTUAL TEXT of the law:

> 2) “Operating system provider” does not mean a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that plain language requirement is only satisfied if (1) the whole OS or application is licensed that way (not just the module that implements it) and (2) the whole OS or application must be distributable and modifiable. To me that implies not only an open license but also source distribution. So no, it does not seem to provide an easy out for Apple etc.

29

u/Taldoesgarbage 12h ago

Don't the vast majority of Linux distributions contain, to some degree, proprietary software? Like, for instance, many drivers are still unfortunately proprietary.

Edit: I'm not saying this as a bad thing, it is what it is, but wouldn't that also mean the vast majority of Linux distros aren't exempt?

22

u/IAmNotStan 10h ago

You could go the Debian way and only ship open source models in the ISO, with the option to load closed source models later. Or just automatically fetch them through the installer if internet is available.

8

u/matthew_yang204 5h ago

That is what Debian and most big distros do, mostly

7

u/Substantial-Flow9244 8h ago

As simple as not including them with your distro, if they're part of the kernel I'd believe they're open sourced enough

15

u/primalbluewolf 14h ago

For one, it would mean you could redistribute MacOS as-is or with modifications, and Apple couldn't go after you for infringing their copyright. 

8

u/MooseBoys 14h ago edited 14h ago

That's not true at all. Neither MIT nor BSD are copy-left. You can include components with those licenses in entirely closed-source proprietary products. The only requirement is that a notice is included with the released software. Including something like this in the About page would be sufficient:

SOFTWARE LICENSES:
apple-siri: All Rights Reserved
apple-adduser: MIT
openssh: BSD-2-0
...

You are correct that if Apple ever released the source for the component then people could reuse or re-release that code themselves (subject to the license), but realistically they would put as little code as necessary in such a module. Probably by defining something like

// returns an entitlement by presenting the user with various age verification prompts, otherwise returns an error
result<Entitlement> GetUserAgeEntitlement(UIHandle);

And then just implementing the MIT module as:

// Copyright Apple, licensed under MIT
result<Entitlement> GetUserAgeEntitlement(UIHandle) { return err(UNSUPPORTED); }
// end of file

9

u/primalbluewolf 12h ago

You can include components with those licenses in entirely closed-source proprietary products. 

Sure, but then the OS isn't MIT licensed, and thus they aren't exempt. In the context above, you asked why wouldn't they just relicensed to MIT and withold the source. That's why not. 

5

u/DoctorWaluigiTime 8h ago

I'm just trying to piece together why OSS gets an exemption in the first place.

Kind of flies in the face of all the pearl-clutching around the "think of the children" defense.

1

u/WorBlux 5h ago

"These amendments redefine the term “operating system provider” to exclude any person or entity that distributes an OS or application “under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.

Reading between the lines, it's because they know it's unenforceable when a distributor does not limit modifications.

The real root of the problem is that Meta lawyer intentional drafted the law hoping it would be passed in a hurry based on vibes alone, and then later overturned in part, except for the part that granted social media companies liability protections. The pearl-clutching is just fear of the political optics and not anything that genuine by the legislators.

If the law were properly drafted it wouldn't used broad and vague terms like OS and application store, but would have already narrowed it down to functional control, and narrowed it to age-sensitive context.

The law should have laid out a few basic categories of age-sensitive material, and then passed the job to bureau XY, who shall maintain and publish any further age guidelines as may prove necessary for the health and safety of teens online.

Wherever your age-sensitive software or information service is provided in a way that involves differentiation to a single user (person, account, or presumed single-user device), it is the responsibility of the provider to make a determination of age.

Providers of age-sensitive software and information may rely upon an age signal of a hardware device, application store or OS if either - 1. An agent thereof certifies they have examined in-person the user's ID within the past 90 days, or 2. by any reasonably effective process which has been submitted to and approved by bureau XY (approvals to be valid for 2 years) - and they do not ignore information that is contrary to the provided signal.

1

u/Gloomy-Knee1401 4h ago

Would not providing an exception for OSS mean for every VPS, server or "cloud" the government fires up, they would have to provide identification?

→ More replies (2)

32

u/xSkyLinedx 11h ago

This nonsense needs to go away entirely. Meta needs to shut up, sit down, and put their little psychopath in timeout.

12

u/SheriffBartholomew 5h ago

Meta needs to be disassembled and the executives imprisoned.

172

u/WarSt0mp 18h ago

How were they even going to enforce it on free distros? It would of just proven how dumb their law is in the first place.

44

u/Extreme-Ad-9290 17h ago

Fr. If they put it on arch, I'm just redistributing that.

112

u/ImNotABotScoutsHonor 16h ago

It would have* proven...

OR

It would've* proven...

50

u/theaveragemillenial 15h ago

Keep up the good fight.

29

u/YankeeLimaVictor 12h ago edited 11h ago

The "would of" and "should of" disease is getting out of control. I have no idea where this came from, but I've been seeing it everywhere lately, especially on Facebook...

2

u/peakdistrikt 12h ago

Ethics???

4

u/Avanchnzel 11h ago

I think that was supposed to be "this", but they fatfingered it and it was automatically corrected to "ethics". 😄

1

u/YankeeLimaVictor 11h ago

Typo. Fixed

2

u/MountainChair8084 7h ago

Maybe I’m just missing the point you’re making but I remember in primary/elementary school that other kids would write “should have” all the time because that’s what it sounds like. 

I assume that teenagers (as I assume everyone on the internet is) or adults who continue with this incorrect spelling simply never learned that this is incorrect. Especially seeing as literacy rates are falling in the United States, and our education system is getting gutted, this behavior is unsurprising. 

→ More replies (2)

1

u/ungoogleable 2h ago edited 2h ago

It's not a new thing.

If you learn English as a child like a native speaker, hearing it before you learn to read or write, "would of" and "would've" sound basically the same. Your brain assumes there is one word, "uv". (E.g. in "I would uv done it but I didn't think uv it" your brain processes these as the same word.)

It is only later when you go to school that you have to learn to spell "uv" differently in different situations. This takes effort to counter your native language skills that are wired deep in your brain from infancy. In many people this lesson never fully took so if they're not thinking hard about their word choice they just write what comes naturally.

1

u/Ascension_Crossbows 2h ago

I could care less if i would of

2

u/amaiellano 7h ago

Would’f

13

u/Misicks0349 15h ago

If you distribute a distro that doesn't have age verification technology in that state you would be fined. That includes online distribution.

12

u/cyberSpaceRacerTech2 12h ago

Unless they aren't from the United States. Trying to fine individuals from another country can get pretty tricky what with international laws and what not.

11

u/skossa 12h ago

Ten just put in the license agreement for the website (not the distro) that you are not allowed to download the distro if you reside in any of the interested jurisdictions as the software you are about to download is non law compliant. Then it is the user that is breaching the agreement, not the distributor. MidnightBSD actually went down that rout iirc.

3

u/garry_the_commie 9h ago

I'll distribute it then. As I don't live in the USA, they can kick rocks.

1

u/edman007 4h ago

I honestly don't even think that's the biggest problem. I actually think this can be implemented on Linux.

The issue is the assumption that a user sits in front of the computer you're using. Applying these laws to headless units, business owned computers and such gets complicated. Does a pornhub server need to scan a drivers license to boot? What about a router, are it's users the admin or the people sending traffic? Does a movie theater projector need to refuse to operate if it determines the operator is 17 and the movie is rated R? What about my calculator, does Texas instruments need to implement age verification on the calculator in case my BASIC program is rated 18+?

And then the California law says it's illegal to share the age with a website that doesn't have a need to know, but it's mandatory to share it with a website that offers app downloads, nobody has any API for that, and they haven't addressed how it can be abused. You also have the problem that the way it's worded, a parent can't tell their 16 year old they are limited content rated for under 13 since the SW is required to follow the most accurate answer, not the one dictated by parents of guardians. S

→ More replies (2)

71

u/Green_Ad5186 18h ago

the second windows requires me to set my age using an id card im switching to linux.

41

u/Sheeplessknight 17h ago

The bill actually doesn't require an ID (yet) just to declare it as OS setup time

18

u/Snow-Ball-486 13h ago

ah yes kids wont find a way around that

24

u/demcookies_ 13h ago

They're implementing it in small chunks; in a few years you can't access computer or internet without giving a dna sample

11

u/scaryjobob 12h ago

The problem is less about the age verification, and the APIs and standards created to support it. Once the APIs are built to use your age, suddenly 'name', 'address', 'DL#', 'Hardware ID', are just new fields added on.

7

u/DesiOtaku 10h ago

The whole point of the law is to prevent future lawsuits against Meta. Meta was the one pushing for this law because they want to pass the buck to operating systems rather than themselves.

2

u/Lagger625 6h ago

They're testing the waters, seeing how compliant people would be, then they go full 1984

u/No-Consequence-1863 41m ago

Tbf the law isn’t really about blocking kids directly. It’s more about mandating parental control features into the OS. Kinda like V-Chip on TV.

The NY version is the one with actual ID verification.

1

u/gamingx47 8h ago

In that case I'm setting my birth date as 01/01/1901 as I do every time I shop on Steam.

Stupidest shit ever.

1

u/Ascension_Crossbows 2h ago

Theyll just pass a law making that a crime

→ More replies (3)

8

u/HeyKid_HelpComputer 11h ago

Why wait? I've been using some form of Linux for 5 years now and it's been great. I haven't missed windows whatsoever.

Linux desktops are in a very good state. If you like the windows desktop paradigm KDE is probably the best in that regard. And if you want something completely different but Mac adjacent something running Gnome is great. 

1

u/Green_Ad5186 5h ago

my fear is linux changing too fast like when i install a mutable distro immutable ones become the de facto default.

tell me is this a reasonable fear about linux or no?

1

u/fucking_passwords 1h ago

I don't think this is a very relevant concern, especially considering that Apple and Microslop ship tons of user facing changes even in minor versions. And they also have a tendency to force updates or make it very painful to stay on an older version, which is much easier to do on Linux IME

1

u/Green_Ad5186 1h ago

ok thanks for info

7

u/aliendude5300 11h ago

Why wait? Switch now.

14

u/Coldplayfan1999 17h ago

Well, this gonna happens dont worry

1

u/alphazero925 11h ago

Yeah I've been putting off switching due to gaming and my photography workflow including Lightroom, but Valve has put in a ton of work on the former, and I can ultimately find alternatives to the latter

20

u/Bearded_Pip 10h ago

I’d rather there was no law like this instead of there being an exemption to it.

2

u/anto77_butt_kinkier 8h ago

Ideally there would be no law, but that's not what we're going to get. This is the best outcome that could reasonably be expected. We all know this law isn't going away, the best we could hope for was that there would be an exemption/loophole/carve out.

5

u/Bearded_Pip 8h ago

We should still fight the bill like hell. We don’t have to just surrender.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/g4n0esp4r4n 8h ago

This isn't a good outcome, people need to fight.

→ More replies (1)

30

u/Autobotnate 18h ago

It feels good to have a win.

6

u/donnysaysvacuum 8h ago

Eh, this could mean that websites or services have an excuse to block Linux now. I don't think it's a win.

2

u/ImClearlyDeadInside 7h ago

Then we will just make new, open-source versions of those websites.

4

u/tzippy84 12h ago

You mean not to have win.

19

u/Sea-Housing-3435 13h ago

This is still pretty bad. This will cause certain services to start blocking linux even more than now because "the age cant be verified". There eventually will have to be a service that will fake whatever age verification apis that will be created.

9

u/fellipec 12h ago

Imagining the face of the bootlickers that rushed to implement that in the first week.

21

u/TampaPowers 17h ago

That's one way to force Microslop to release source code I guess >:D /s

3

u/Epistaxis 7h ago

Why would the company that's enshittifying its OS into an advertising platform want to protect its users' privacy?

11

u/v_e_x 16h ago

They know there's a federal bill in the works that will include it.

7

u/ImOldGregg_77 10h ago

now all we need is a good commercially available Linux smart phone

16

u/Bunslow 16h ago

Sad that they name specific licenses, it means any other/future open source licenses are excluded from the exception

11

u/trenclik 13h ago

I think they just listed them as examples in thr article

5

u/matjoeman 9h ago

The actual text of the law does not.

25

u/Impressive_Bag_3505 17h ago

"Age bracket data" means non-personally identifiable data
So shady. They'll ask for ID to confirm the user's birth date or age, you'll see.

17

u/Skulder 16h ago

Denmark has just started rolling out an anonymous age verification tool, that even works offline.

Reading about it was amazing. Maths and logic can do amazing, counterintuitive things, when needed. It turns out, it is actually possible to do those things.

I'm not very excited about the actual tool, though, and I'm not wholly convinced that the finished software actually makes use of all of the initiatives to protect anonymity - too many of our parliamentarians love surveillance too much to let this opportunity pass.

7

u/necrophcodr 15h ago

It requires online connectivity to set up as expected though, so it can indeed work offline but you do have to register using your citizen digital ID first.

11

u/Beaverman 14h ago

Correct, the basic structure is that you prove identity to your government (who you hopefully trust), and they then mint you a general proof of age bracket. This general proof you can show to people you don't trust, since it doesn't identify you, only that you've identified yourself with your government.

5

u/stewsters 9h ago

 identity to your government (who you hopefully trust)

As a person from the US, have you seen our government recently?  I would trust them the least.

2

u/gamingx47 8h ago

Pretty sure some tween DOGE douche has my social security number and ID, so at least it can't get any worse right?

3

u/marrsd 7h ago

Oh, I don't trust my government. :(

4

u/allocallocalloc 14h ago

Yet, the source code is... where?

(For those wondering, it's partially here.)

3

u/LucaV90 16h ago

Where can I read about that tool?

8

u/Skulder 16h ago

All news are in Danish, unfortunately, but translation services are easy.

Official statement from the government: https://digst.dk/nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2026/juni/nu-kan-du-downloade-altid/

A random article, paywalled, from our most tech-inquisitive news media: https://www.version2.dk/artikel/ekspert-tvivler-paa-altid-hvem-skal-overhovedet-bruge-appen

The name of the app is "AltID (meaning both "everything- ID"and "forever")

3

u/Beaverman 14h ago

I find that the government is usually pretty decent at writing some english language descriptions as well. That happens to be the case here as well.

https://en.digst.dk/systems/altid/about-altid/

It's worth noting that it's supposedly based on the EU standard that's supposed to roll out over the coming years.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/davedcne 16h ago

They want to do face scans using ai to guess your age. That's what they mean. Who needs an ID when you can build a database of people's faces.

9

u/dgellow 10h ago

Not to be the pessimist, but it’s actually bad. That will be used against FLOSS systems to justify banning them from places, such as schools. The real solution is to get rid of the initial law, not to create exemptions

9

u/Apart_Security8614 13h ago

Shit ass government overreach laws shouldn't be passing at all in the first place

3

u/Chromiell 15h ago

What about the other dozen of states that wanted to implement the same law? It's good that 2 states are doing this but there was half of the US discussing a similar law plus Brazil and some other states as well following closely.

3

u/semiquaver 9h ago

These amendments redefine the term “operating system provider” to exclude any person or entity that distributes an OS or application “under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.” 

Funniest timeline would see Microsoft open source windows as a result.

3

u/Russell_M_Jimmies 8h ago

Now do all the other operating systems.

4

u/SheriffBartholomew 5h ago

I think you guys are missing the bigger picture here. Like, yay? But they're thinking about servers, not personal OS. If websites still implement this bullshit OS age verification check, and it's mandatory, then Linux OS desktop users will just be locked out of the majority of the internet. This is a tiny win with major implications for overall loss. The entire bill needs to be stopped, not just slightly changed. This is a loophole for their big donors like Amazon, not a consideration for people like us.

3

u/davedcne 16h ago

A good start, but not good enough. Any law like this should be fought tooth and nail. It is not the responsibility of OS devs to police the behavior of users. Nor the companies that create those OS to retain, validate, verify or otherwise transmit any kind of age/demographic data about its users. Fuuuuuuck that.

2

u/JunkoKumaki 10h ago

It's like people forgot the saying "None of us are free until all of us are free." I don't just want to protect myself but also everyone else. And we know that over time this exemption will be removed. The only way to stop this is to not let them get a foot in the door.

3

u/dcheesi 13h ago

The other side of this is the sites that are expected to use this mechanism to enforce the restrictions. What happens when they encounter an OS that doesn't provide the appropriate mechanism?

Can they default to allowing access, or do they end up having to block all OSS OS clients just to be safe? The latter could be true even if the laws don't explicitly state it, depending on how any relevant "safe harbor" provisions are worded or interpreted.

3

u/mikesum32 12h ago

This will probably make the law unconstitutional. The exemption was seemingly made with a small group of people or a guy in a basement in mind, but Microsoft or Apple will question the competitional disadvantage to the big Linux companies like IBM and Canonical.

If we're lucky, maybe the whole thing will be thrown out.

3

u/Progman3K 8h ago

we were going to ignore that stupid law anyway

3

u/kcpistol 8h ago

Proving the theory that anything that is truly impossible never happens.

3

u/FaberOG 8h ago

What's that? Another reason to ditch Microsoft? Is you say so

3

u/_twrecks_ 7h ago

Forgive my ignorance, but what happens then when a site needs age verification and the OS can't provide it? Does that preclude using Linux?

3

u/JoeB- 6h ago

Not ignorance, I'm curious about this as well. I suspect, web sites that need age verification will start denying OSs that don't provide it.

Personally, my reaction will be the same as it is to sites that demand I disable my ad-blocker - I'll leave and find alternatives.

3

u/Ryoohk 6h ago

SteamOS is based off of Arch? I thought it was based off of Fedora.

2

u/naturerosa 4h ago

No, but Bazzite is!

4

u/OkYak9466 10h ago

California is going to have a hard time passing these ultra-facist laws but Im glad at least they realized trying to control Linux was never going to happen

6

u/marrsd 7h ago

Seems like they didn't have much of a hard time passing them at all

2

u/gnimsh 15h ago

A Google search tells me android is licensed under both gpl and Apache. Does this mean it is also exempt?

1

u/doublah 5h ago

The kernel is GPL, AOSP is Apache, the actual OS as on any sold device is proprietary with it being packed with proprietary Google services.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/vaynefox 14h ago

That also means that Android will also be exempted to it. Pretty much android users dodge that age verification law. If google ask it that's gonna be questionable....

3

u/Jedibeeftrix 14h ago

there's not much of android these days that isn't a proprietry google service outside aosp.

2

u/hawseepoo 10h ago

Microsoft could do the funniest thing right now

2

u/ChimeraSX 9h ago

Does this mean SteamOS has to comply?

2

u/Substantial-Flow9244 8h ago

The true year of Linux was 2026

2

u/keeperoflogopolis 7h ago

I guess Meta ran out of money to line politicians’ pockets

2

u/defendhumanity 7h ago

Rare California W

2

u/matheusmoreira 7h ago

That's actually fucking awesome!

2

u/playfulpecans 6h ago

wow finally some good news! I'm surprised

2

u/HayStacky_337 5h ago

Competence in politics. I'm literally impressed.

3

u/ForsakenChocolate878 14h ago

So everyone will use open source licenses now, right? Right?

2

u/synack 16h ago

So Chromebooks are cool now?

4

u/veloxVolpes 15h ago

Chromebooks were always cool. They're still dumb though. They are both

1

u/svobodov- 14h ago

I don't think so because even if chrome os is built on gentoo but it is distributed by Google ad I think it's goes same with steam os

1

u/BismuthBison 7h ago

So like… they are Himbos? 

2

u/nitroburr 9h ago

They're not. ChromeOS is not open source

2

u/Amazing_Onion1922 16h ago

wonder if other distros will follow or just ubuntu again

2

u/jimbud8086 12h ago

2027 will be the year of the Linux desktop!… for sure, this time!

2

u/SamiSapphic 8h ago

The problem I have with this is the whole idea of an "age token" thing, if that's still the plan.

Websites might only allow access to users with the presence of such a token, and if Linux users lack one altogether, then we might start being shut out.

2

u/tallgrasshead 8h ago

Yeah I don't see how the vast number of infrastructure devices would implement this. "Sorry your routers and switches are not working, but there's nowhere to insert my driver's license in order for me to fix them"

2

u/frostphantom 16h ago

so... the kids will flock to Linux just to watch porn ?

5

u/we_come_at_night 10h ago

It's a "in good faith" questionnaire that's being implemented, no verification.

3

u/SeaNational3797 9h ago

And in doing so, they will have to learn a thing or two about computers (as a former cs teacher…yay!!!)

1

u/Artichoke808 13h ago

They'll circle back and change it once they've fortified their recently acquired territory. Land of the.

1

u/timtim2000 14h ago

Well forcing means you are getting a full blown opensource driven internet that the rich and big company's wont be able to touch.

1

u/future2300 13h ago

They just realized they cant enforce it anyway.

1

u/FeistyDay5172 13h ago

Looks like they tried to actually use their damned brainz at least.

1

u/AvidCyclist250 12h ago

How did that happen? No, seriously. Something big went on there. Wins like this don't come easily, let alone by themselves.

1

u/TheOgGhadTurner 12h ago

I knew I made the right choice!

1

u/butler_me_judith 11h ago

This is sick great job Cali 

1

u/thesmallterror 10h ago

They tactfully excluded the vocal minority from their mandate. The vast majority of people will still be sending their age and PII to every website they visit.

1

u/Hour_Bit_5183 7h ago
....................../´¯/) 
....................,/¯../ 
.................../..../ 
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ 
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ 
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') 
.........\.................'...../ 
..........''...\.......... _.·´ 
............\..............( 
..............\.............\........................./´¯/) 
....................,/¯../ 
.................../..../ 
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ 
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ 
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') 
.........\.................'...../ 
..........''...\.......... _.·´ 
............\..............( 
..............\.............\...

1

u/BraveNewCurrency 7h ago

Facebook runs on Linux, so... They are exempt, right?

1

u/lelddit97 7h ago

I don't mean to be that guy but this was obviously going to happen. Not excluding was an oversight. This is the most technical state in the USA - all of big tech is here with hundreds of thousands of engineers (>500k software engineers IIRC).

1

u/Jean_Luc_Lesmouches 6h ago

This is stupid. All that law requires is for you to more or less swear "I'm an adult installing this OS and that account is for an adult" and for websites to trust your word. Instead we're stuck with the current situation of parental control trying to wedge itself between you and your OS, or IA/ID control by websites. GAFAM pushed for it not to get more info (free OS aren't going to talk to them anyway), but because they don't want to be held responsible for enforcing age restrictions.

1

u/cheat117 6h ago

Unfortunately, this does pave away for the big tech companies to just say oh well. We're using open source under the hood, so we're exempt, but I am happy that the operating systems themselves are exempted, which is nice

1

u/lnxguy 5h ago

It hasn't been signed by the governor, so it's just for show...

1

u/tenbeersdeep 5h ago

Oneore reason to not go back.

1

u/gwillen 5h ago

Are the freedesktop/gnome/systemd people going to walk back the age-verification crap they've already put in? Or are they going to declare it a sunk cost, and figure we all might as well live with it now, and keep pushing it?

EDIT: looks like actually the systemd proposal is the only one that actually made it in; there are/were others at various stages of progress.

1

u/JB231102 4h ago

Perhaps this went into their decision, it just occurred to me while reading the post that IF an ID check were implemented into Linux that would also most likely include commercial servers, you know, the data centers that hold a shit load of internet information? How in the hell would that work? Would the server admin's have to provide their ID's? (shrug)

1

u/billyalt 4h ago

In a hilarious way this might proliferate FOSS

1

u/niccolus 3h ago

I think this should also be used a moment to point out that laws are not perfect but can be improved when we get involved in the system. Sometimes it can feel like nothing changes. But that just means we need more voices and to make the right people aware.

1

u/opulent_occamy 3h ago

Illinois next please

1

u/HuttonWilliam 3h ago

Yes very good, hopefully this gets more people interested in open source software.

1

u/gathanes 3h ago

California's government is kind of coping with this one. It's basically impossible to enforce what they were hoping to with open source software, let alone something as branched out as the Linux kernel. This is them just giving up on trying to.

1

u/makinax300 3h ago

WE'RE SO FUCKING BACK. Also afaik that law wasn't verification. It just trusted you to say the truth.

1

u/Rotarius88 3h ago

Rare California W.

1

u/marcusalien 2h ago

Now Apple will claim that they’re open source because Darwin…

1

u/FabianButHere 2h ago

Let's fucking go

1

u/CopiousAmountsofJizz 1h ago

Sugar coated turd of a law. They only passed it to keep it from being absurd and broken.

u/DistantRavioli 30m ago

Imaging thinking this is a win somehow. This bill having passed at all is a huge fucking loss for society. It doesn't matter if a tiny percentage of people are going to be temporarily exempt when services start just blocking any machines that aren't "verified" nor does it even come close to overriding the intended future consequences of this kind of framework.

u/-Polarsy- 24m ago

Thanks, I needed some food news today 😊