- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.world
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):
-
paramazo/systemd “The systemd System and Service Manager without age verification”
-
ganitam/systemd “Systemd fork just before the Age Verification addition. Hoping more capable developers and maintainers do same…”
-
GSYT-Productions/systemd-fork “The systemd System and Service Manager, without the stupid Age Verification”
-
speedythesnail/unret arded-systemd “The systemd System and Service Manager, without the ret arded age-verification commits”
-
ta13579/systemd “The systemd System and Service Manager WITHOUT THE FUCKING AGE CHECKS”
-
r4shsec/systemd-no-age-verification “This is systemd but without the age verification made via pull request https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40978”
-
Pingasmaster/fightthesystemd “Systemd without the nonsense: no age verification, no lighthouse built-in.”
-
Jeffrey-Sardina/system “Liberated systemd – no surveillance. Ever.”
-
HaplessIdiot/systemd-saneagecheck “The systemd System and Service Manager with age verification bypass and polling rate options for said feature”
-
Queer-Coded-LGBTQ/systemd-fuck-california “The systemd System and Service Manager, but without age bs added in.”
-
Codiak540/unshitted-systemd “A fork of systemd aiming to strip the Age verification. Sue me california.”
Hopefully the energy of this reaction won’t be scattered among too many alternatives, although some amount of scattering is always good.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, yes. And I agree this could become a slippery slope towards enabling something we, as privacy concerned citizens, despise. It could also turn into enabling Linux as a solution for governments that require this. So from my PoV the question is whether it’s better that Linux will be prohibited for noncompliance or that SystemD enables a persistence layer for DoB to be used for yet to be clarified mechanisms? So far SystemD has been exceedingly good at designing this init system but maybe this is the exception and a wrong turn. I’m still curious to learn more arguments for exactly why they chose as they did.
That’s the same slope.
It it better that systemD add a column?
Is it better than ubuntu starts enforcing it?
Is it better that they just outlaw software that doesn’t comply?
For me, that line starts back at the very beginning. There’s no room for FOSS for Authoritarianism. I’m not interested in giving them a few inches of rope so that they can hang us with it later. If governments want to use Linux, they can, they can even fork it and make their own changes. They don’t get to demand how our own software tracks us.
You’re right. All PI data should be tokenised to ensure a proper abstraction between the user and their identity. And then a tool a bit like Flatseal to allow granular access to that data.