You must log in or # to comment.
Nobody gives a fuck about your weaseling technicalities. The salient fact is that this change was made in order to “comply in advance” with totalitarian fuckery. It SIGNALS POLITICAL SUPPORT for it, and that’s not okay!
I studied at the PR in question and that’s not the conclusion I arrive at. Let me try to explain how this looks to me.
Also keep in mind, I do think we absolutely need to keep the political pressure on and push back on identity-gating policies with all our collective might. In that light the PR itself does the two things I’d absolutely require here: one, it allows the user to put whatever value they want in that field, including none at all, and two, it disallows all apps from reading that field without the user’s active permission.
Basically it’s a superficially valid implementation of a bullshit requirement that still leaves all the power in the user’s hands and therefore renders the requirement meaningless. Or in other words, a huge middle finger to the proponents of age-checking.
Mind you, I feel there’s also value in loud non-compliance and I’m glad some are taking that road – keep it up, folks. But I’m leery of demands that only one single approach be taken. This needs to be fought on every front we can. And to me the PR in question reads like an effective defensive move.
That’s something I wondered about the person who implemented this too, I wonder if it was an attempt to install a bare minimum to say “There. We did it. Leave us alone.” Instead of leaving it up to the government to force the issue, and he’s getting absolutely raked over the coals for it.
If that’s the case, I feel terribly bad about this backfiring so hard on him. I do think we should be putting up a lot more resistance before resorting to something like this though.
Some others have also suggested that this was done out of spite, however after reading the github I didn’t see anything said to support that. Are you sure you’re not reading something into this that’s not there?
I’ll be honest I haven’t dug into the GitHub transcripts.
Are you sure you’re not reading something into this that’s not there?
Absolutely not sure! In fact my first inclination leans towards the cynical “This is totally a pro-authoritarian virtue signal move.” Because that’s seemingly everything nowadays.
But also I know things are seldom as they first seem. So I’m at least curious about this guy’s actual motives. Coming out of nowhere just for this contribution is hecka sus though.
I don’t like any of it. I looked to the Internet and open source to escape that petulant normie-verse of endless rage and braindead legislation. And they’re coming to assimilate us like they do everything else. :(
I agree that not everything is what it seems at first, I just fear it’s wishful thinking in this case.
Yeah, I fear you’re right. Evidence doesn’t point to benevolence here.
Couldn’t reply to me pointing out that this was merged, and was stated to be explicitly to support age verification laws, so you had to lie about it as a meme instead.
Because thats what youre doing right now, lying and spreading misinformation. You can admit it.
OP is a dumbass
The birth date field that was added can be used by age verification processes, but it’s not age verification itself.
It was added specifically for the purpose of two state laws and Brazil.
Trying to weasel it as “this doesnt implement it” is misinformation at best.
Okay.
How does it verify?sigh
How do these laws do anything to “protect children”? And since they dont actually do that, which you may already be aware of, what do you think their purpose is?
Then ask that question to yourself and think about whether the verification of an age is the issue with what’s going on here, and why people are angry with systemd maintainers merging something that houses PII, for no other stated reason or potential use case than a law that will have zero ability to “protect children”.
Edit: and to be clear, laws that currently exist in two states, CA & CO, as well as Brazil. Thats it.
Then ask that question to yourself and think about whether the verification of an age is the issue with what’s going on here
Verification is the issue. Or, rather, it would be if there was any verification here at all.
I could put 1970-01-01 in that field no problem. Systemd has asked for precisely 0 additional information from any of its users, because it neither asks you to fill it in nor verifies that what you filled it with is correct. Just like the real name and location fields that were already present, which, might I remind you, are also PII.
Systemd isn’t the problem here. The laws are a problem and pissing in systemd’s direction won’t change that.
Okay
Look at the pull request
Tell me how it verifies anything. It’s a field.
I’m not arguing about the politics. The law is laughably inept at best and horrifyingly insidious at worst (and the truth is likely both at the same time).
But again, read the change, read the comments, tell me what verification is happening.
Age verification could be a usecase. The PR in question just adds a optional date field labeled birth date. If you are mad about age verification (as you should be) feel free to direct your rage elsewhere.
Age verification could be a usecase.
ITS THE EXPRESS PURPOSE AS WRITTEN IN THE PR.
I will absolutely direct my anger and frustration where it belongs, which includes systemd along with the dumbasses pushing these laws.
As well as you for spreading misinformation. Make no mistake, its deserved.
Can’t tell if you’re a bad faith pedant or just indescribably naive.
It’s enablement.
Of what?
They ask for it to store a date today, ask for IDs the next. Heck they already want 3d printers to somehow identify if they’re printing parts that can be used in guns, but 3d printers don’t have that kind of computing power nor should they need that so odds are most companies will require an internet connection and upload to a central server to be analyzed. And thus privacy goes away unintentionally.
ask for IDs the next.
Who? How?
It’s just a stupid “slippery slope” fear mongering. “Then Linux will require a child sacrifice to even boot and will not connect to the internet unless you recite the entire Pledge of Allegiance”.
It’s just a stupid “slippery slope” fear mongering
Do you want me to point to the last 25 years?
I could go back further.
The slippery slope fallacy has to do with ignoring the fact that restraint is possible.
I am gonna ask you to look at the last 25 years and show me where there’s been an ounce of restraint to privacy in the US. An ounce of restraint placed upon surveillance.
Do you want me to point to the last 25 years?
Yes, please point me to all the instances of open source projects implementing some mandatory ID checks. You know what? Just name one.
The slippery slope fallacy requires that the expected escalation be unlikely.
There already exists places where third party age verification is required, so it’s not an unreasonable expectation that a government already pushing for age verification “for the children” would also try a similar kind of legislation.
Yes, please point me to all the instances of open source projects implementing some mandatory ID checks. You know what? Just name one.
Given that open source wasn’t a hard criteria until you just added it to try and support your argument , why would proof of a position nobody has taken help anyone?
Perhaps you meant point you at the instances of legislative creep around privacy and age verification in the last 25 years, as was suggested.
In which case you can just search for it, it’s easily findable.
If you need help with search terms, try “Age verification UK”
Nobody is claiming all(or any) open source projects will comply, the argument is that this is a step towards laws/legislation that make not complying illegal.
You could argue against that, but i don’t think you’d have much of an argument, which you probably know, because you would have done that already if it was a valid point.
What they are pointing at is that systemd has potentially done something to pre-capitulate and voicing their concern.
Nobody is pushing this single field change in isolation is a full age verification system, to pretend they are is disingenuous and reeks of bad faith.
Given that open source wasn’t a hard criteria until you just added it
Dude, we’re talking about systemd. It being open source is the single most important factor here. If you don’t understand this you have no idea what is being discussed.
Bringing up age verification in UK is like saying iptables supports internet censorship because great firewall of China exists.
They aren’t “asking for a date”
The PR in question just adds a way to store a birth date. That’s it
But why are they?
To comply
To not comply while superficially pretending to, I suspect, from studying that PR. See my other comment above, where I run my mouth a little longer about this.
In order to comply with the specific Californian law. It’s referenced in the PR. If you could read (to quote your meme) you’d be very upset.
This hasn’t been needed until just now, coincidentally when dipshit one-foot-in-the-grave out of touch sociopaths try to make it a law? It’s just a fluke that the timing is the same?
There’s a disconnect over this in that one side looks at the present data and other takes a possible result from that into account. (dividing people into groups…for the sake of argument ok?)
Now from strictly an IT perspective, this is indeed pretty meaningless. One line of code that stores one piece of data. Who cares right?
From the other side you take the very hot topics of politics and privacy into account (two things that are also very front and center with most of the Lemmy crowd afaik).
Because it can start by just one line of code but where will it end? Personally I’d rather be over cautious and assume the worst.
I mean look at the story of cookies. Back in the 90’s they were a small benign piece of data and look how that turned out. Our entire world is influenced by it today to great extend.
Personally I’d rather be overly cautious.
People need to remember that slippery slope is a very specific fallacy where a hyperbolic chain of events is not backed up by supporting evidence.
If we allow gay marriage people will want to marry their dogs!
While none of us can possibly know where this ends, this is preemptive compliance with privacy invading measures that are practically indistinguishable from the kind of overreaching control desired by malicious parties. This is a much stronger case and even IF this is the last step, there’s no reason to take it in the first place.
It’s morally correct to loudly object at every step, that’s how you fight this.
The thing to also keep in mind is that this shit is pushed now by Facebook and politicians, none of whom care a single shit about kids, as they so loudly claim. That alone is a huge red flag as it’s always “but think about the poor children!!” that is used for the most nefarious shit being pushed.
This has been in the works for a long time (I’ve seen attempts for this at least a decade ago) and now it finally passed in some places,. meaning that it only got easier to soon implement it everywhere
Yes, it’s a slippery slope argument but that slope is right there in front of us
What’s your point about bringing up the fallacy? The people lobbying and implementing these laws are pretty vocal about building a panopticon.
One line of code
Heh, look at the merge again.
It surprised me what a mess systemd code is.
Slippery slope again
Hell no, we didn’t fall for anything. This is a real problem with real and far-reaching consequences, associated to multiple legislative attacks against privacy etc, pushed by corporates and religious groups.
YOU fell for the “think of the children” lie and “It’s just a text field” BS. No, this is far worse than just a text field.
Do you feel the same about the “user name” field? Do you consider that to also be the end of privacy and the road to totalitarianism?
Problem is “why now”, but also comparison to username field is not really valid - username is actually useful, what’s the point of birth date apart from age verification? You need some kind of username to converse to fellow engineers, birth date is completely unnecessary for that
Are you saying that you’re putting your real name in the “user name” field? And feel that you have to?
What’s the difference between inputting a bogus name or a nickname in the “user name” field and selecting 1970-01-01 as your DoB?
You need some kind of username to converse to fellow engineers
On your OS?? No, you don’t. You select a username on whatever system you pick for said comms, has nothing to do with the OS account’s “user name” field.
A username field isn’t for your real name, it’s for a username and it has always been for that. Stop being intentionally obtuse.
What’s to stop them from using all of the required user fields and then running a background fingerprinting check and then using that fingerprint every single time you visit a site? It doesn’t have to be your real date of birth. What matters is that it’s a consistent info for your user account so that they can identify who you are. Obviously there are other ways to fingerprint a user, but this just makes it easier to do so, and it’s another unnecessary datapoint for “them” to use.
People are defending this with such fervor, too, that it really makes a person doubt whether they’re even arguing against actual humans. Like, I can see why people would be against general change or against privacy invasion, but why would someone care so much about defending a date of birth field?
A username field isn’t for your real name, it’s for a username and it has always been for that. Stop being intentionally obtuse.
I’m not talking about the “username” field.
I’m talking about the “Full name”, or “User name”, or “Name” field in the OS - name depends on the language version and the OS itself. Stop being intentionally obtuse.
What’s to stop them from using all of the required user fields and then running a background fingerprinting check and then using that fingerprint every single time you visit a site?
What…?
First of all: the OS username is not shared with the website.
Secondly: websites already do fingerprinting, what are you talking about?
People are defending this with such fervor, too
Yeah, “stop overreacting” is such incredible fervour!
but why would someone care so much about defending a date of birth field?
I could not care less. I just find it weird that you guys panic about it so much, to the point of there being dozens of new systemd forks, just because a new optional field was added.
“It is too late, for I have already straw-manned your argument in a meme”
source? i mean you went through the effort to post a meme about it at least include the relevant information
The source is the source: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/acb6624fa19ddd68f9433fb0838db119fe18c3ed
Takes a birth date for the user in ISO 8601 calendar date format. The earliest representable year is 1900. If an empty string is passed the birth date is reset to unset.
That’s it. That’s all it does.
Whatever was discussed in the PR, the code does precisely nothing to implement any kind of verification. It’s just an optional birth date field, like tons of electronics have had forever.
Removed by mod
So they’re introducing a system where a users age can be verified?
No. They are not.
It is an optional field that does no semblance of checking its veracity. Again, like basically every bit of electronics has had forever.
Removed by mod
I just don’t see how it’s any different than my Sony PSP having an optional birthday field. Or oldschool forums having one. It can’t possibly affect me, or anyone who’s concerned about it.
If systemd starts talking about bundling face scanners or whatever they actually need to verify someone’s age, and then tons of linux systems start requiring it, then I will be gravely concerned.
it’s optional now but can be mandatory later? It literally takes a baby monkey’s brain to understand that.
Also this is literally in the PR:
Stores the user’s birth date for AGE VERIFICATION, as required by recent laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc.
ah yeah because all of our digital clocks, smartphones, smart watches, microwaves, washing machines, TVs, and… what else stores user age in a standardized manner? oh, you say none of these and no other things either?
I don’t think anyone who read even the first paragraph of the article (at least the one i read) would say they are doing verification. They are simply adding a field for data to be housed if anyone wants to opt in. Instead of putting it in 20 different spots/apps it’s in one place that any third party can reference.
it’s in one place that any third party can reference.
But why would I want that?
Even if you ignore the whole “this doesn’t verify anything” discussion, why would I want to give third parties easy access to personal and potentially sensitive information? I personally am not interested in simplifying data collection for corporate entities who definitely do not give a shit about the safety of my personal data, let alone hypothetical children. I do not know why this data collection needs or would be desired to be implemented within systemd, besides being a direct response to age verification laws saying its an OS providers responsibility to collect it. Arbitrary data collection by private entities is not “useful”. My personal data has no business being referenced by random asshats that ask for it. There are so few things in the world that “justify” needing my age that I would suggest it would be easier to make my birth date a permanent data point on my PC. Same goes for the other personal details that systemd already supports. Crazy to imagine anyone actually using those on a personal machine.
“While our lawyers are fighting it in court, we decided to whip up the barest minimum viable proof of concept so that if it does come to pass, at least it’ll be on our terms, and not a rushed piece of easily-exploitable garbage pushed out at the last second” the systemd team, probably
Edit: source, two weeks ago, the pull request conversation: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954#issuecomment-4032221990
That’s the question: would they fight it? From all I’ve seen so far, they wouldn’t.
I’m Jeremy from System76. We are in talks with legislators and there are likely to be amendments to the age verification bills, as well as conflicting requirements in different jurisdictions. It may even be the case that open source operating systems are exempted entirely. I detailed this on the xdg mailing list here:
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/2026-March/014797.html
I have other concerns about this specific implementation. By relying on systemd, which is decidedly unportable to non-Linux operating systems, and not used across all Linux operating systems either, it will force at least one alternative implementation to exist. If these implementations end up having to collect jurisdiction specific requirements, that makes it much harder for compliance.
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954#issuecomment-4032221990Yeah, I’ve read that discussion a few days ago. That specific post seemed reasonable, but that was a comment from outside the core systemd team, wasn’t it? As far as I understood all of this, different people took the decision to merge, without coordinating their efforts with those of the corporate linux distros (Pop!, Ubuntu, Red Hat/Fedora, (Open)SUSE).
Its a nullable field, chill. It’s exactly the same as a Linux distro installer asking for your first name for account setup and the moral outrage is genuinely embarrassing
Edit: not to mention that good system design reduces redundant data. If programs want your birthdate, they’ll either repeatedly ask you or go to a central source. If you don’t want to give out that information, you enter a null value or you put something random. The only difference is now you don’t have to repeatedly do that
Good system design doesn’t do things without me asking it to. I’ll gladly manually re enter my birth date for an external service if its required, which to be clear, should be as close to 0 times as possible. What, should I keep all my job application info in the initialization system too? Because a website I’m on might ask for it at some point? Don’t want to be too redundant.
Literally this field serves no purpose other than to build compliance with the surveillance state. No end user asked for this. Like I said, can’t imagine any end user making use of the existing systemd fields either. But those also didn’t get any attention because they weren’t made as a reaction to threats by a malicious regime.
It is just a optional field
Be mad at lawmakers not developers who are trying to make the best of a shitty situation
It was also an option to not make a useless field. Not like this self reported dob is going to cut it for the existing age verification laws as is exists now. But I can be mad at people in a position of community production for not having a spine, too.
How is this supposed to be making the best of the situation anyway? It accomplished nothing but piss off the community and signify to authoritarians that open source developers are ready to bend over for them. Simply threaten unenforceable fines across the world and suddenly everything is hopeless. Better get ready to comply, its inevitable! Its pathetic. Ageless Linux might be performative bs, but at least its critical of this over reach instead of intentionally signalling compliance in advance.
I speak only for myself, but I’m not mad at any developers for following with this. I wish they wouldn’t, but I can’t blame them for following the law to protect themselves.
I still think this is bullshit and just going down the slippery slope. The next thing is “this value doesn’t do anything. Now we need a law that actually checks an ID!” And it just keeps getting worse and worse.
Don’t give them an inch on any of this bullshit. And by them, I do mean the governments trying these stupid laws that, at best, waste taxpayer money and valuable time spent on other worthwhile things.
earliest representable year is 1900
(Time to set it to) literally 1984!
You can if you want
You also could just ignoro it entirely as it is optional
I foresee an astronomical amount of people born at unix epoch to appear if it becomes a required field lol
Since it’s about birth dates, shouldn’t it be an astrological amount of people?
That might just make it easier for them to put them all on a list. Use random dates instead, then they have to identify you and confirm you’re not using your real date to put you on that list.
October 15th, 1582 is another one you see often. (Edit: Some date systems use this as 0 because it was the start of the proleptic Gregorian calendar.)
Don’t forget December 31st, 1969 which you’ll see when computers adjust UTC midnight at the Unix epoch to local time in the western hemisphere.
Lawmakers don’t care whether you’re 18 or 56
Well I still don’t dang like it I’ll tell you hwat.
reads comments
Umm, I think they can read.
I found it extremely funny when people started asking for systemd replacements, of all things, after systemd added the ability to store a birth date.
The author of the PR explicitly says IT IS TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW TRACKING LAW (LOBBIED BY FACEBOOK/META).
Yeah so Lennart Poettering is on the Executive team of Amutable (https://amutable.com/about), how do we feel about that? Remind me again how the open source community feels about trusted computing … https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
Mostly pretty positive actually, having some reasonable assurances that you’re actually running the software that you think you’re running seems like an obvious thing you would want.
Here’s an example of this in practice: https://grapheneos.org/features#auditor.
But I’m sure you know best. Time to cancel GrapheneOS.
It didn’t even add that. You can put custom fields into userdb. It just standardized that, right next to other standard optional fields like full name.
Out of all the steps that happened, this one should be the least controversial, but some people see systemd and start the heavy breathing.
“Replacements”?
We already had loads of those.
And then…
Boom! An explosion of systemd forks since the age “verification”(/attestation) merge and lennart’s blocking of the reversion pull request. https://github.com/systemd/systemd/forks?include=active&page=1&period=1mo&sort_by=last_updated
There’s a bunch of idiots looking to crucify someone over this. This fucking witchhunt bullshit is really shaking my faith in the basic goodness of the Linux community. Trying to make some dev that put a line of code in systemd into a pariah isn’t a good look for opensource.
Edit: 4 fuckwits and counting that don’t have the courage to show their usernames by telling me why I’m wrong to despise pitchfork mobs.
You won’t listen anyway. Just look at your language, calling us idiots and fuckwits while pretending you’re the level-headed one.
There’s enough comments under just this meme and every single discussion on this topic explaining why that change is a direct attack on privacy and privacy being the reason why many of us chose Linux.
Just because one idiot state in the US changes a law doesn’t mean the entire world needs to follow. Fuck em.
Isn’t it up to 5 now? Plus other countries. About a third of a billion people threatened to be living under such statutes. So far. Billionaire pedos have other plans for how to “protect” our children, than “doesn’t mean the entire world needs to follow”.
I don’t even know where this rumour came from.
It’s not a rumor, systemd merged a PR that explicitly said it was to allow handling the new age verification laws. Just because they aren’t actually verifying anything doesn’t mean that they didn’t merge code in direct support of the laws. And why in the world would this even be handled at systemd level anyway?
All of this was discussed in the PR.
Systemd is present on the vast majority of Linix systems so it made the most sense to put it in systemd. It is an optional field so it is up to applications and distros on weither to use it for something. Age verification laws are legally binding so compliance is not optional.
If you have a problem with age verification call your local lawmaker. Don’t attack a bunch of devs who somehow got stuck in the middle.
systemd is introducing birthDate as a user json field, if that’s what you mean with rumor.
The PR to revert that change was not merged:
Next the OS will have to verify this is correct
Be like grapheneos and say no to age verification
That is (or is not) happening regardless of systemd involvement. This is just a place to store the value. Not having such a place in systemd would just mean it is stored in some other place. This doesn’t make it significantly easier to implement age verification nor would reverting it make it significantly harder. It’s just a field that may be used by people who are legally obligated to store or read that data.
Every rant about systemd is a wasted opportunity to yell at someone who deserves it, honestly. Focus on the people pushing age verification laws or doing age verification.
It’s another domino fallen, another step towards absolute control
I don’t think that’s a reasonable assessment of this change
It was added with a note specifically that the implementation was related to a law that was described as stupid.
I think it’s pretty clear exactly what this was being put in for, and why two MSFT devs were ready to approve.
There’s no “it was just…” about this, it was step one of a coordinated plan that has not been abandoned.
Poettering doesn’t work for Microsoft.
Poettering only very recently left microslop
Yes, that’s another way of saying what I said…
So apps can look at it and verify the users age? 🤔
If someone populates it and if apps do it. The “debate” is whether this is something systemd should or should not have done.
It is not something systemd needs. The platform requesting age needs to get it directly from the user.
Eh, this would make it 100% useless though.
I think it’s fairly reasonable for adults to want to ensure a 10-year-old doesn’t get mental health issues by being served hardcore BDSM porn unsupervised, or get scammed by a pig butcher on social media. Of course a curious 10-year-old can’t be trusted to enter their real birth date. So, adding this info to a root-managed userdb kinda makes sense. At this point there’s nothing to suggest that this age will be verified in any way, other than “the person entering it has write access to userdb”. So in the current form it’s just another tool for parents to control what their child sees (provided any apps actually use this field in the future).
However, I’d argue just the birth date is the wrong approach to this and it needs to be more granular.
The requirement to check age is on the provider. It is not the responsibility of the OS to store age and supply it freely to any service that wants it.
This data is stored as a non-privileged birth date.
This means any website can ask for your birth date. Then they store it, and use it for tracking. Private browser? HAH! Not your birth date!
This has N O T H I N G to do with “children.” It’s about Meta trying to escape moderation responsibility.
This is the right wing talking. Slowly putting identity into the OS for tracking. Don’t fall for it (unless you’re the right wing, and then fuck you)
The requirement to check age is on the provider.
Well, if you’re going that route, there are a whole bunch of other issues (apart from absolving parents from responsibility for their kids digital wellbeing). Either the provider just asks the user for their age (which is what we’re doing now, and it’s just 100% useless), or there would have to be some way to prove one’s age. Presumably it would be via a government-issued token of some kind, ideally as a ZK proof. While there are some european countries where this is somewhat feasible, for most of the world issuing every resident a smartcard which can attest if one is an adult or not is just not possible. So, you’d be forced to either give out gov-signed certificates of age as files (which will be easily reused by kids to access stuff which they shouldn’t), or you have a centralized server which can issue time-limited certificates on the fly based on some ID (which will tell the government that you wanna watch adult stuff), or you just have to upload your ID to the provider directly (I hope I don’t need to explain why this is bad).
Meanwhile, what we are discussing right now is just a basic extension to parental controls. Notice how the field is not mandatory, you can just leave it empty, and I’d argue everyone who doesn’t have kids should just do that. As it is implemented right now, the machine administrator decides if they want to use this or not and what to set the date to. Even if some distro complies with the stupid law and make it mandatory in california (which I’d argue they shouldn’t), you can just enter 1970-01-01 and be done with it, because you decide what to put in that field during account creation.
This means any website can ask for your birth date. Then they store it, and use it for tracking. Private browser? HAH! Not your birth date!
Well, first of all, for now browsers don’t even support reading userdb at all, and there’s no way for website to request it. Then, I hope when it is implemented it will be hidden behind a website permission so that kids can decide if they want to share it or not (i.e. “this website wants to know you age: allow/deny”). For adults (if the california law gets implemented), I hope that “privacy” browsers will have a feature to return a random date (more than 18 years ago) every time if the field is not set in userdb, or you can just write a cronjob/systemd-timer that changes the date randomly every hour.
There is a question of random apps now having unfettered access to your child’s birthday. This is indeed an issue, and poettering’s approach of “just containerize it” is not very cool. It would be nice to have a way to gate userdb access behind a user prompt, similar to what I’m describing for browsers. I guess for now flatpaking everything you don’t 100% trust not to read userdb is the only option.
i am told by a very reliable dipshit that everything in this thread is maga disinformation
I only mean the verification is clearly in the app that uses it then.
Because most people apparently don’t know the difference between a system manager and an operating system.
And then they scream RTFM at linux noobs
