None of the id fields in the systemd db are required to be filled. This is useless. Simply don’t put any personal info in, and bam, you’re already liberated, from laws that aren’t even in effect yet!
This is perfectly logical and I agree. Except that this controversy has prompted me to go learn about Lennart Poettering. I’ve been using systemd forever and I like it - I like journald and remote journald, I like networkd, I even deleted cron off my systems and use systemd timers exclusively. I knew there was some controversy about Lennart, but I didn’t really care. Now that I’ve read a bit about his background and, maybe more importantly, his new company - I don’t have a good feeling for the future of systemd.
The prospect of being prompted to submit an ID is not useful for making decisions in the here and now? As far as I understand it, this is the concrete danger. California lawmakers and lawmakers from elsewhere have indicated that this is only the beginning.
But this is just speculation. The fact is, systemd introduced a new optional field in the local database. They don’t publish an OS so they have no obligation to do anything more, actual implementation would have to happen in other projects.
What this is, is a spite-fork by some random AI researcher and anybody installing that on their system has way larger problems here and now than hypothetical ID verification in the maybe future.
They don’t publish an OS so they have no obligation to do anything more, actual implementation would have to happen in other projects
Why are the people who decide on changes to systemd implementing stuff that the vast majority of Linux users vehemently reject? +Things that they have no legal obligation of adding I might add.
What this is, is a spite-fork
No one deeply cares about the spite fork. It’s weird that commentators have suddenly become very acclimatised to the systemd changes. A few days ago people were asking themselves why a rando got through with an intensely disliked pull request and now we are here.
the vast majority of Linux users vehemently reject?
I think you vastly over estimate the importance of the reddit/lemmy-sphere freaking out over this.
And the more insane the slippery slopes you imagine skiing down, the less seriously you’re taken. The fact that there isn’t a serious programmer making a fork and instead y’all promoted a slopfork from someone who didn’t read the docs, should be a wakeup call for how unserious y’all are.
If it’s the vast majority of Linux users, how come there was not one that’s read the systemd docs?
I honestly don’t care that much about the law eitherway but the hyperventilating over a milktoast law is something else, it makes me think maybe we should age gate higher.
None of the id fields in the systemd db are required to be filled. This is useless. Simply don’t put any personal info in, and bam, you’re already liberated, from laws that aren’t even in effect yet!
This is perfectly logical and I agree. Except that this controversy has prompted me to go learn about Lennart Poettering. I’ve been using systemd forever and I like it - I like journald and remote journald, I like networkd, I even deleted cron off my systems and use systemd timers exclusively. I knew there was some controversy about Lennart, but I didn’t really care. Now that I’ve read a bit about his background and, maybe more importantly, his new company - I don’t have a good feeling for the future of systemd.
Finally someone who’s read into the issue
Will you still say that when they implement ID checking functionality?
Will you still say that when aliens from the 19th Dimension verify your age rectally?
I don’t know what this derailment is ultimately trying to say honestly.
It’s saying that you can invent an infinite number of hypothetical futures but they are not useful for making decisions in the here and now
The prospect of being prompted to submit an ID is not useful for making decisions in the here and now? As far as I understand it, this is the concrete danger. California lawmakers and lawmakers from elsewhere have indicated that this is only the beginning.
But this is just speculation. The fact is, systemd introduced a new optional field in the local database. They don’t publish an OS so they have no obligation to do anything more, actual implementation would have to happen in other projects.
What this is, is a spite-fork by some random AI researcher and anybody installing that on their system has way larger problems here and now than hypothetical ID verification in the maybe future.
Why are the people who decide on changes to systemd implementing stuff that the vast majority of Linux users vehemently reject? +Things that they have no legal obligation of adding I might add.
No one deeply cares about the spite fork. It’s weird that commentators have suddenly become very acclimatised to the systemd changes. A few days ago people were asking themselves why a rando got through with an intensely disliked pull request and now we are here.
I think you vastly over estimate the importance of the reddit/lemmy-sphere freaking out over this.
And the more insane the slippery slopes you imagine skiing down, the less seriously you’re taken. The fact that there isn’t a serious programmer making a fork and instead y’all promoted a slopfork from someone who didn’t read the docs, should be a wakeup call for how unserious y’all are.
If it’s the vast majority of Linux users, how come there was not one that’s read the systemd docs?
I honestly don’t care that much about the law eitherway but the hyperventilating over a milktoast law is something else, it makes me think maybe we should age gate higher.
forget cookies, reload, begin; forget cookies, reload, begin
… auto clicker
when that happens, I’ll build my own ISO with that part stripped out, or just move away from systemd
Yes, because I won’t be using their distribution.
deleted by creator