this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
31 points (80.4% liked)

Linux

12958 readers
615 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For those interested, the Systemd release that's planned to include the controversial 'birthDate' field to user records, complying with age-verification laws, is v261 (see 'milestone' in the pull request). This release seems to be planned for May.

The current release, from some hours ago, is v260.1. I see that Ubuntu Noble (24.04) just updated to v255.

all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fox2263@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What’s stopping anyone like not filling it in or putting a false one in?

[–] mech@feddit.org 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Nothing, and that's legal, too. The new law only requires a method for putting in an age or birthdate, no age verification.

[–] mech@feddit.org 41 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

What I don't understand:
Why is everyone hating on systemd for adding the birthdate field, but no one is bashing xdg-desktop-portal for adding the actual age ~~verification~~ attestation system?

Is it because systemd makes for a better target?
Or because most don't know what xdg-desktop-portal actually does?

By the way, Freedesktop.org's Accountsservice is doing the exact same thing for non-systemd users.

[–] mrbigmouth502@piefed.zip 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You raise a very good point. systemd isn't the only thing we should be bringing attention to. Everything in the Linux ecosystem that's pushing for age verification/attestation should have attention brought to it.

[–] mech@feddit.org 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Yeah, but also let's not lose sight of the fact that the SPI (the legal representative and donation distributor for Arch, Debian, Gentoo, LibreOffice, Systemd and a lot of other open source communities) can easily be sued out of existence if they don't follow the law.
And several large corporations have a big incentive to pursue that.

So there is room for discussion whether a maliciously compliant age field that only the local admin can edit is worse than the death of community-driven Linux development as we know it today.

Maybe this isn't the hill to die on.

[–] ascend@lemmy.radio 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think everyone should pick their battles, but I'm also happy that there are enough people picking this one. I also don't think this is the hill to die on and don't think the anger should be solely focused on the Linux Dev community but should be more focused on the people implementing this law in the first place.

[–] mech@feddit.org 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I applaud any devs pushing back against this.
But users harassing, berating or villifying devs just for following the new law can go get fucked.

[–] pglpm@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're absolutely right. And it's the same group of people pushing for this in all these places.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

And it’s the same group of people pushing for this in all these places.

Dylan M. Taylor

[–] Ooops@feddit.org 22 points 1 day ago

Oh, no! Yet another field I will simply leave blank like all the others.

[–] Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club -3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

~~They already rolled it back.~~ No longer sure what I saw.

[–] fruitcantfly@programming.dev 6 points 1 day ago

It hasn’t been rolled back. You can go to the systemd repo and look at the main branch for yourself.

Here’s the commit. Just click through and see if the code was subsequently removed from any of the files. You’ll find that it wasn’t.

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/7a858878a03966d2a65ef9e8f79b5caff352ac53

[–] starsoaked_lily@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Someone posted about it here in one of these linux communities. It was a big blog post.

[–] starsoaked_lily@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

not seeing anything when searching for it, do you have a link? looking on the github it's still merged so it's difficult to believe

[–] Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club 0 points 17 hours ago

Maybe I dreamed it. Maybe it wasn't systemd.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So in 5 years we’ll all be running v260.182.1?

[–] Ooops@feddit.org 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't be rediculous. By then Debian will be on 258 at best...

[–] forestbeasts@pawb.social 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Debian actually has 260 in testing, now.

Which fucking sucks, because systemd 260 ALSO just dropped sysvinit script support. Which... hey, we on alternate init systems kind of need those??

They better not try to use that as leverage to make Debian drop (or just bitrot) the "old" and "outdated" init scripts that work with all the normal init systems.

-- Frost