Forks · systemd/systemd
github.com
The systemd System and Service Manager . Contribute to systemd/systemd development by creating an account on GitHub.

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.

  • Pommes_für_dein_Balg@feddit.org
    7420·
    4 days ago

    Systemd still has no age verification, so all those forks are absolutely pointless.
    If and when Systemd adds age verification, I’ll move away from it.
    But the recent change adds literally nothing. Just leave the field blank, like you always did with those for your home address and full name.
    The age field is malicious compliance. It satisfies the letter of the law while being completely and deliberately useless for its purpose.

    • stravanasu@lemmy.caOP
      213·
      4 days ago

      It doesn’t work quite that way. Typically you have a sequence of very small changes, all “innocuous”, that lock you more and more into the previous ones. When you suddenly realize that the cumulative change is bad, you also find it’s very difficult to “move away from it”. This is why it’s important not to give away a single inch, from the very start.

      • Pommes_für_dein_Balg@feddit.org
        199·
        4 days ago

        That’s simply not true in this case.
        With age verification, there’s a very clear cut-off point that you can see and act upon:
        Age verification is when you’re required to verify your age.
        Not just enter a number.

        And the way to fight against this law isn’t to “boycott” systemd.
        Literally no one will notice. It’s free, so using it doesn’t support it.
        And no one even knows whether you use it or not.

      • TheV2@programming.dev
        0·
        2 days ago

        Except that this change doesn’t lock us into age verification at all. On its own it’s harmless. There are still steps ahead before it’s actually difficult to evade. And sure, we are heading that way and it only makes sense to be prepared for the steps towards the next steps of age verification laws. It really isn’t magic to comply with these small steps, as long as they themselves don’t present a treat, be aware of the bigger picture and still do the work to prevent the actual OS-level age verification.

      • LwL@lemmy.world
        43·
        4 days ago

        That’s why I think the law is bad, but it doesn’t really apply to open source software. You see the actual limit crossed, you can still fork the version from before that.

        Even the law itself, as it stands, is pretty alright. It’s effectively just a parental control system, the OS needs to provide the user age to applications, but that age is just whatever you type at install, without any verification. In general, if enough applications implement it, that’s not a bad system to help protect kids without invading anyones privacy. Of course, it can be circumvented by the kid installing the OS themselves, but that possibility is a feature, not a bug.

        The problem there is the slippery slope though.

    • fierysparrow89@lemmy.world
      201·
      4 days ago

      I think there is an intention to convey a clear message. I will be warching the distro’s. Red Hat, being an IBM company, will probably back this age verification farce. I’m not so sure about the community distro’s like Debian or Arch. Maybe even Ubuntu will stop short.

      Despite being a minor technical feature, I think this will have a disproportionate response from people.

    • codiak540@lemmy.ca
      159·
      4 days ago

      The age field is one step closer to age verification in a program that already has made it more than clear that they don’t respect their consumers. Not only that but it also opens the door for other distro’s to force age verification.

      • Pommes_für_dein_Balg@feddit.org
        81·
        4 days ago

        a program that already has made it more than clear that they don’t respect their consumers

        Could you elaborate on this? I don’t get it.

      • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
        84·
        3 days ago

        This is nonsense. Do you feel like having a “user name” field brings “real ID one step closer”? Just don’t fill that field or enter some bogus data - nobody is checking this.

        • Digit@lemmy.wtfEnglish
          11·
          2 days ago

          nobody is checking this.

          I bet pedos will be very interested in that field.

          Unless you’re calling them nobodies. But then that’s a bit too “I see nothing” complicity.

          • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
            11·
            2 days ago

            Mate, it’s an optional field on your local OS. If a paedo has access to this, it also means they have access to everything else, so there are plenty other opportunities for them to check whether or not they’re interested in you.

    • 4am@lemmy.zip
      48·
      4 days ago

      I don’t know why we downvoted the correct answer.

      It sucks and is stupid but the alternative is banning Linux. You wanna have ICE knock on your door for “harboring a foreign operating system that doesn’t comply with the Christlike values of patriotic Americans”?

      • GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world
        71·
        2 days ago

        I take it when someone tells you to suck their dick, you immediately drop to your knees and start sucking. No other option but to comply, right?

      • zeroConnection@programming.dev
        2·
        2 days ago

        Look at how Trump got these stupid Americans pacified and scared to resist for even the smallest things.

        “B…b…bUt wHaT iF IcE cOmeS”

        LMAO

      • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
        112·
        4 days ago

        It sucks and is stupid but the alternative is banning Linux.

        Good. Have it banned in the one state that probably relies on it the absolute most. Silicon Valley would start to implode and the law would be changed very quickly.

        • Magiilaro@feddit.org
          72·
          4 days ago

          They will not ban it on Servers or for Corporate use, but ban it in youth Centers, in schools, in public libraries, and everywhere else where kids could have access to Computers. This will create another generation of people who only know close source Systems, most likely from Microsoft, who will have no issues with making their Systems compliant to the bindig laws.

          • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
            41·
            3 days ago

            They will not ban it on Servers or for Corporate use

            That’s the thing, the law doesn’t differentiate.

            • Magiilaro@feddit.org
              21·
              3 days ago

              as far as I read the law, but i am neither a lawyer or even american, are those Option only needed for Systems with users and a user, as defined by the same law, is

              (i) “User” means a child that is the primary user of the device.

              The law says nothing about Systems that don’t have such a “user”, or at least i could not find anything.

              So, there could be a valid argument that the law does differentiate.

          • Magiilaro@feddit.org
            1·
            4 days ago
            • Providing courses for kids to learn linux? Not longer possible
            • Providing older, but still perfectly fine running, Computers with Linux to low incoming or otherwise in need families? You are now a criminal!

            Systems have to be ready and in place when the law becomes bindig and active, it is to late to beginn with the work then.