128
Inside the Systemd Age Verification Debate: Developer Responds to Criticism (itsfoss.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Dylan M. Taylor is not a household name in the Linux world. At least, he wasn’t until recently.

The software engineer and longtime open source contributor has quietly built a respectable track record over the years: writing Python code for the Arch Linux installer, maintaining packages for NixOS, and contributing CI/CD pipelines to various FOSS projects.

But a recent change he made to systemd has pushed him into the spotlight, along with a wave of intense debate.

At the center of the controversy is a seemingly simple addition Dylan made: an optional birthDate field in systemd’s user database.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 109 points 7 months ago (12 children)

I was expecting civil discourse and a level-headed response.

He may have been hoping for that, but surely he didn't truely expect it. The FOSS community can barely have a civil discussion about filesystems.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 7 months ago*

    At the moment of most intense debates about mandatory age checks and government surveillance you (Dylan) hoped people to be calm about this? Then you my friend are simply delusional. They are angry and for a good reason. Why the rush to comply with a surveillance practice that hasn't forced on you with some sanction or enforcement. You did not even wait for it to play out. You did not have a discourse about alternatives. You just went ahead and hastily applied a change as if as if doing some sort of coup.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    HEY MY GUY you want a CIVIL discussion about CIVIL DISCUSSION?

    /s

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Ugh, I’m forking this thread. If you guys can’t agree with me I’ll make my own.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

    Q. You say this is "just attestation, not verification" but we know that infrastructure always gets repurposed later. This is where the legit fear lies. Today it's birthDate. Tomorrow could it be location, identity, or verification tokens? I understand that you are providing a workaround but where should we draw the line between compliance and resistance?

    A. Funny you mention that, location is already a field in userdb. Like birthDate, this field is also trivially nullable, stored locally, and can be set to anything. As long as we are talking about a user self-attesting a date - especially with the ability to enter any value we want - we aren't in the realm of identity tracking. I draw the line at when a third party internet-connected service is doing validation of ID. Let’s be honest though, I strongly believe such a thing isn’t possible on a FOSS operating system environment unless they could control what was bootable on the device at a firmware level, enforce signatures to ensure that you couldn’t boot something unrestricted, remove the ability to be root, and block LD_PRELOAD so signals couldn’t be faked. There’s probably more ways to circumvent that. What I’m trying to say is real ID verification on Linux would be awfully hard to implement, and I guarantee you, nobody would put up with it. They’d fork to a version that doesn’t have it immediately as a protest. Right now, we’re considering implementing something akin to the date pickers that were ubiquitous when signing up for internet services in the early 2000s where it’s just an honor system. Things like actual ID checks and/or facial scanning + age estimation would be just too incompatible with Linux where we have the freedom to change whatever we want to.

    the intellectually diverse lemmings represented in this post and many others cannot understand this

    won't stop them expressing their feelings tho, bless their hearts

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago*

    That's a sound argument, mostly (in the quote, i mean)

    If the technical implementation of how they would try and force age verification was the problem people were concerned about, this take would be very useful.

    Physical locks on glass doors are easy to bypass, doesn't mean you won't get shafted if someone just so happens to catch you in the act.

    If third party age verification is legally mandated the implementation being technically difficult (or easy to bypass) doesn't stop it from being illegal.

    Being a condescending prick works better if the position you take is unassailable, you do you though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    You definitely can't have your cake and eat it too. Linux for many has been about freedom and privacy. He made a direct contribution toward a system that would help take that away

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    That's a rather negative view. There's a big difference between people who actually contribute to FOSS (in any way, not just code) and random keyboard warriors in the contents. Sure, there's always some drama somewhere, but that's not exclusive to FOSS.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •