we still have not gotten around to making any decision on this age verification nonsense
-
what do i mean by "pay their own way" here?
simple. they consume alpine. they do not contribute back to alpine. no code. no money. no infrastructure. nothing.
so, frankly? taking action strictly to facilitate compliance with a law that will never be enforced in the context where alpine is used is not interesting to me. and I won't be advocating for that.
anyway, from a policy perspective, @postmarketOS and other derivatives specifically targeted at consumers may need infrastructure for this.
presumably we will just build an implementation of whatever canonical/red hat make for their distributions
-
personally, regardless of what the chuds tell me (its always men, incidentally, who definitely want to tell me my interpretation is wrong), i still see no evidence that alpine is an intended target of any of these bills/laws.
and personally speaking, i am happy to leave it at "not for use in the state of California" and watch how quickly the law caves when they realize half of california's GDP is flowing through alpine installations
@ariadne imagine if Docker started doing age verification to pull Alpine-based images for users in California
-
anyway, from a policy perspective, @postmarketOS and other derivatives specifically targeted at consumers may need infrastructure for this.
presumably we will just build an implementation of whatever canonical/red hat make for their distributions
my point here is that they have the law, they can attempt to enforce the law.
and in that scenario, we have the real power: we can say "not for use in California" and every company in silicon valley will be blowing up the governor's phone demanding this law be repealed immediately.
so... given that, it is just not a priority for us.
-
personally, regardless of what the chuds tell me (its always men, incidentally, who definitely want to tell me my interpretation is wrong), i still see no evidence that alpine is an intended target of any of these bills/laws.
and personally speaking, i am happy to leave it at "not for use in the state of California" and watch how quickly the law caves when they realize half of california's GDP is flowing through alpine installations
@ariadne How weird that those part of computer literacy that might have guided legislators to understanding why this whole idea is nonsense never showed up in any of the post-1990 curricula, when Microsoft started dominating the field.
-
@meena that's my point. they are already invested in alpine. a development program to switch to another operating system will take multiple quarters and likely cost money.
alpine is a really good deal for business: you get a reasonably fresh enterprise-capable operating system for $0. you bring your own support & servicing, but the operating system has been designed from the ground up to enable self-service in all things.
this is not the case with traditional Enterprise Linux, where the system is designed from the assumption that the user holds a support contract.
-
personally, regardless of what the chuds tell me (its always men, incidentally, who definitely want to tell me my interpretation is wrong), i still see no evidence that alpine is an intended target of any of these bills/laws.
and personally speaking, i am happy to leave it at "not for use in the state of California" and watch how quickly the law caves when they realize half of california's GDP is flowing through alpine installations
I am wondering if it would be enough to ask everybody who complains to pay a lawyer so that they can actually give legal advice. Before that we don't know what the compliant would be and we change nothing
-
my point here is that they have the law, they can attempt to enforce the law.
and in that scenario, we have the real power: we can say "not for use in California" and every company in silicon valley will be blowing up the governor's phone demanding this law be repealed immediately.
so... given that, it is just not a priority for us.
@ariadne i don't think these bills even contemplated the existence of servers and especially not how any "line" between them and end user devices is imaginary
-
@ariadne i don't think these bills even contemplated the existence of servers and especially not how any "line" between them and end user devices is imaginary
@valpackett @ariadne the line is pretty clear: a server is on the trusted side by virtue of being owned by a company (employees are adults). You can easily buy a certificate for that from a CA.
If that is too much hassle, you can always rent a server in the cloud.
-
personally, regardless of what the chuds tell me (its always men, incidentally, who definitely want to tell me my interpretation is wrong), i still see no evidence that alpine is an intended target of any of these bills/laws.
and personally speaking, i am happy to leave it at "not for use in the state of California" and watch how quickly the law caves when they realize half of california's GDP is flowing through alpine installations
@ariadne fwiw (and that shouldnt be much because idk shit) i kinda took it for granted that this is what linux in general would do as soon as these laws passed and im a little shocked no one has. and a little shocked by the degree to which lawmakers are insulated from the consequences of their own insanity/hubris in general
-
@ariadne fwiw (and that shouldnt be much because idk shit) i kinda took it for granted that this is what linux in general would do as soon as these laws passed and im a little shocked no one has. and a little shocked by the degree to which lawmakers are insulated from the consequences of their own insanity/hubris in general
@NocturnalNessa it is complicated:
1. lunduke broke this news for the sake of dunking on the linux foundation (there are certainly things that can be said about LF...)
2. different linux systems have different design goals, and thus different compliance positions.
3. most distributions are probably talking to lawyers and/or discussing the situation with their contributors which have paralegal experience.
4. most distributions simply do not have the weight to take this position and have it be meaningful.
5. in practice, the law won't be enforced on linux distributions unless they are shaped like a consumer operating system. and this law is clearly targeted at consumer operating systems.
-
@NocturnalNessa it is complicated:
1. lunduke broke this news for the sake of dunking on the linux foundation (there are certainly things that can be said about LF...)
2. different linux systems have different design goals, and thus different compliance positions.
3. most distributions are probably talking to lawyers and/or discussing the situation with their contributors which have paralegal experience.
4. most distributions simply do not have the weight to take this position and have it be meaningful.
5. in practice, the law won't be enforced on linux distributions unless they are shaped like a consumer operating system. and this law is clearly targeted at consumer operating systems.
@ariadne@social.treehouse.systems @NocturnalNessa@infosec.exchange regulators wont even know about linux distros unless they come preinstalled in hardware that can be bought at bestbuy . so like . not a huge deal
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
