you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 268 points 6 months ago (5 children)

Simple solution. From now on Linux distros should ship with a big message "NOT FOR USE IN CALIFORNIA".

You want to force age verification? No server in all of California will run. Period.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 73 points 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 31 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    "My name is Microsoft, and I approved this message."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Microsoft's own servers run Linux. An in-house build IIRC named Azure Linux.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    And there's nothing keeping them from adding it themselves for their own in-house use & profit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    What does that have to do with anything?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    If the only server OS legally capable of running in CA is Microsoft's - be it Windows, or their particular spin of Linux - guess who's gonna sop up all that government contract money?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    And why would this particular law exempt Azure Linux only and specifically?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    Wow, I've really got to spell it out for you, huh? Azure Linux will not be exempt - Microsoft will add the required routines to it, and if they are the only ones to do so, then they soak up the server market in CA.

    ETA: I doubt that will wind up being the case as other commercial vendors will not want to be left behind, but we were discussing the theoretics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    So you literally got mad at a made-up scenario in your head?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Please point out where I got "mad."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    When you acted exasperated at having to explain something, for example. Or now, asking for proof that you were mad. These things are not done in normal, polite conversation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    Well, you're obviously either not terribly well-grounded in reality considering how many times I was patient enough to answer what was effectively the same question - never mind that it's perfectly reasonable to ask for proof when accused of something, or more likely you're a poor excuse for a troll. Either way, I've got better things to do than feed whatever your neurotic issue is, so I'll be blocking you. Good luck with finding the mental health assistance you obviously are in need of.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah..... It says just that in the article. You did read the article, right? I mean you didn't just read the title and then rush in here to make a comment?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Where, pray tell? Out of curiosity I went there to check it out, and the "article" is just 3 paragraphs that just barely expand on the title. Maybe uBlock is triggering some invisible paywall there for me?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    Supposedly the age verification thing that's needed is the equivalent to a porn site verification. Just enter a birthday that's in the 1800s, and you're set. This is still a bad direction to go towards though, as it'll set precedent for future bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Exactly. Today you can enter Jan 1 1800 and it will take it. That's not the problem.

    The real problem is the precedence it sets. An asinine rule gets passed and companies adhere to it, meaning they are enforcers.

    Tomorrow when laws require real verification, like ID scan then they've already agreed to be the gate keeper for said asinine laws. It's harder to back out at that point.

    It's all surveillance and it should be stopped.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    There is nothing that's "needed". Its an OS not some demonic construct. It should also be noted that teens will be impacted in it as well - all minors. All this age gating, discriminatory behaviour is eating us alive. Age verification should not exist at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago*

    Whose age do they want on the server? The admins? Whoever staged it? Lol. Sure. Jan 1 1970.

    Do I need to put my birthdate onto my firewalls?

    Ooh are all enterprise firewalls going to start coming with CISA filters pre-enabled? Gotta protect those kids!

  • source
  • parent