The latest changes implemented in the Systemd repo, related to or prompted by age-verification laws, have made many people unhappy (I suppose links about this aren’t necessary). This has led to a surge in Systemd forks during the last days (“surge” because there have always been plenty of forks). Here are some forks that explicitly mention those changes as their reason for forking (rough time ordering taken from the fork page):

Hopefully the energy of this reaction won’t be scattered among too many alternatives, although some amount of scattering is always good.

  • Samskara@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    Yes, this whole thing is very silly. Linux installers ask for your full name already. You can just make one up. Same with the birthday.

    The slippery slope total surveillance state paranoia is hysterical.

    • fluxx@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      That is not the point. If it was so logical to add, why add it now, when you know it is controversial? The devs are aware of the controversy, they have made a political decision to do it this way. At the very least, they could’ve handled it with more care - as sensitive matters should. Turning a blind eye and pretending this is business as usual is very insulting. To me at least, and I’m sure to most who care. If you do this during “the surveillance state paranoia”, you have to be aware you are contributing to more of it.

        • andioop@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          As an autistic nerd without true technological and historical expertise, it’s very difficult to know what to think and disheartening to read others’ perspectives on this because instead of measured discussion, there is “bootlicker” and “surveillance state paranoia” being thrown around to dismiss the other side’s ideas and holy shit am I sick of the hostility and personal attacks here. I think both sides are plausible, don’t know which one is right, and it seems Lemmy is not going to be able to help me decide which one is more plausible.

          I really hope you didn’t mean “raging autist nerds” in the derogatory 4chan way where a disability I didn’t choose to have is an insult, where people having strong emotions over a niche topic is something bad to mock and insult. Language is language, not everyone who has goodwill/is neutral towards a population knows the correct inoffensive language, etc. etc. but I have to admit “autist” in combination with its use in a phrase referring to people you don’t like, whose diagnosis status you don’t know, really makes me draw unpleasant conclusions.

          I guess maybe this is a lesson that no matter how knowledgeable I think public forum users are, heated topics will include people being dismissive and insulting others unless there is very heavy moderation in place to keep things civil, and that I have to find somewhere else to find knowledgeable people giving their interpretation of information.

        • fluxx@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I agree to some degree, but I think the issue of age verification is beyond this point. Yes, Linux users tend to be much nerdier and reactive than the general public. But they are the ones who use linux in the first place. Whether they gatekeep linux from others is another story, but the devs should know their audience by now - and hopefully care. And what’s more - a lot of idealists (I wouldn’t call them autistic, though that may be a factor) hate systemd in the first place. They already dont use it or don’t want to use it. So the ones that do, I argue, are more mainstream. I am one of them. I don’t want to go back to sysvinit and write a script for each new service. I also know that this doesn’t end here. Today they add the field, tomorrow, some mainstream browser will depend on it existing and the frog will be boiled. Now it is not an API, but it’s added in case anybody needs it. So you didn’t even have to add it. And they didn’t add a gender field in case anybody needed it, for example. Yes, Linux community would probably start arguing about that, but not nearly as much IMO. I think this is far more mainstream issue than you give it credit, honestly.

    • bearboiblake@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to worry about”, people used to say. You don’t hear it as much, these days, probably because it is now such a transparently ignorant thing to say.

      • Samskara@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        You’re not forced to enter your true name or true birthdate. Do you have your true birthdate on your Steam account for example?

        • bearboiblake@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Yes, not yet. That’s how they walk it in, a little at a time. First they add in the functionality, but don’t worry, you don’t have to enter your true birth date! Then, well meaning (or malicious) developers will start making use of that field, instead of asking you for it on a case-by-case basis. Then, more regulation will come down the pipe, requiring that the date of birth be sourced by some trusted provider. Soon enough, you need to use your government ID biometric chip to log in, and all of your activity is directly connected to your real-world identity. That is their end goal. That’s why they’re doing all of this.

          The more important question here, why do you feel the need to defend this? What does this feature add to your operating system? How does it improve your computing experience?

          • iltg@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            not who you replied to but makes linux systems maliciously compliant so that you can still use them (say, in schools) without having your privacy violated.

            your slippery slope argument could apply to any field of userdb: real name will require an id, location will require geolocation!

            slippery slope is a logical fallacy, complain when systemd requires an id, not when it does the bare privacy-respecting minimum to comply with a silly law

            • bearboiblake@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              It isn"t malicious compliance at all, it is just compliance. This is exactly what the law requires, to a T. Windows and MacOS would implement it in an identical way.

              You want to act like this field is just being added for no reason, and not for compliance with a law that is being created as part of a fabric of increasingly authoritarian age assurance, age-based restriction laws and a rising tide of fascism. A slippery slope argument is where someone claims negative consequences without evidence, there is plenty of reason to believe the goal is de-anonymization.

              What benefits would this feature add for you? How would it improve your computer? Why is it being added now and not at the same time as name and location which were added literal decades ago?

              • Digit@lemmy.wtf
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                de-anonymization

                Not just.

                The billionaires and epsteins and ghislaines want to protect our children, by knowing, when tracking everyone, where and who the children are.

                Why wont everybody just switch off their brains and accept this already!?

                Most frustrating.

                ;/

                • bearboiblake@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  Criminalizing sexuality and blocking teens from accessing adult content does make them more vulnerable to abuse, but honestly, I think this is a bit of a far cry - the Epstein class already has unlimited access to working class kids to abuse without these laws being added to the books. Look at how prolific their abuse was, and to how many levels of power it touched. They clearly had no problem at all finding kids to abuse.

                  I think this is far more about political control and censorship than it is anything to do with kids. “Think of the children” is one of the classic excuses used to justify totalitarian action, right up there with “preventing terrorism/crime”.

              • iltg@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                for me it adds nothing (like most userdb fields as i don’t use them) but equally doesn’t remove or compromise anything, userdb is optional

                i’m absolutely not acting like it’s being added for no reason, did you read my reply? it’s being added (and i just wrote it) to maliciously comply with CA upcoming laws. you instead just acted like a optional field is the same as MS no-offline setup. “Windows would implement it in an identical way”. do you even use linux?

                you claim there’s plenty of evidence and this is not a slippery slope because the goal is deanonymization. this is not how you prove to not be in a logical fallacy. “legalize gay marriage and they’ll marry dogs”, “oh i have plenty of evidence queer folks are against nuclear family”. the second statement is true (per this queer folk) but it doesn’t make the first less of a slippery slope.

                Meta pushes for age verification? i believe that, not contested. systemd will violate privacy? this is the slippery slope. i know meta wants privacy violated. you’re claiming that having an optional field is a dead giveaway systemd wants to let meta do this.

                how? wouldn’t systemd rely on meta services, or third party stuff like persona, to id you if they really wanted to make sure who you are? i see no api calls, i see no system lockdown when not complying, i see no data being sent away.

                i see an optional field that nothing uses, that prevents nothing, that is strictly on your device.

                you say it’s “just” compliance, but how does it verify? if this is compliance with age verification, it sure lacks a lot of verification and seems to just be age. thus why this is malicious compliance: the bare minimum to be lawful and not compromise user privacy. seems desirable to me

                • bearboiblake@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  Again, no, it is not malicious compliance. As per Tom’s Hardware:

                  The law does not require photo ID uploads or facial recognition, with users instead simply self-reporting their age

                  It is just compliance. Stop lying about that. The law itself is backed by Meta, Google and OpenAI. Wake the fuck up.

                  Anyways, stick your head in the sand if you want to, that’s your prerogative, but don’t say we didn’t warn you. I’ve been arguing with people like you about increasing authoritarianism and fascism for decades, you always chirp about slippery slopes until it’s already too late. How convenient.

    • RedWedding@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yeah, its not like there is a big push by many governments around the world, for more surveillance and therefore less privacy, right?

        • RedWedding@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          Yeah, you really missed my point by saying that. This law on its own is not dangerous, because you can lie.

          They will clearly stop it there, I mean its for the safety of our children after all.

          • Digit@lemmy.wtf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Oh wait… are you saying that seriously?

            I’ve been saying that kind of thing satirically, sarcastically.

            … I guess I need go back and put “/s” on a lot of my posts. I didn’t think anyone would take or say such things seriously. … You’re not serious, are you??

          • BananaIsABerry@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            No I didn’t miss your point. I was intentionally stating that what you’re worried about is not what is currently happening.

            Slippery slope, the world’s always ending, blah blah blah