Doesn't this law just let parents set up age-labelled accounts for their children with the idea that apps not suitable for children won't be allowed under those accounts?
Seems no worse than what mobile OSes already do and not that bad a feature for a modern general use OS (except if you monitor someone's age bracket and noticed the exact day they change, you can work out their precise date of birth.) It does seem unsuitable to force it to be added to embedded OSes, freedos, CP/M and historical/retro OSes in general.
I envision sysadmins rebooting 10,000 servers, each one asking to verify the op's age, and even better, each time a web server forks off a process. (OK, this is hyperbole, but sometimes you need hyperbole to point out absurdity)
But not to worry. Very large companies "somehow" manage to get exemptions adn carve-outs from California laws that burden most of us. It's the golden rule. Whoever has the gold, rules. (stares at PG&E bill)
Do you remember the disappearing "billionaire tax"?
No idea how this will affect much of FOSS, for example, source code and binary repo's being blocked (I haven't read all the fine print).
"Shoot, if you must, this old gray head (with a camera, thank you) but spare free and open source operating systems, I said."
I guess it is users' accounts, so service accounts are exempt? I would hate to see a headless server rebooting and waiting for an age verification from a service account at a power or water sanitation plant...
Maybe all laws should have a "dev environment", starting with the politicians. All their systems will demand their age and proof of age for say 12 months? Toaster, washer, dryer, cell, dishwasher, car, calculators, etc. Then, if they still want to pass the law, 3 months of red teaming by the "general public" for all the systems that have their data. And, if they still want it, go for it.
> The DB48X project intends to rebuild and improve the user experience of the HP48 family of calculators
They just updated their license to exclude California residents. The law is so vague there is a possibility to apply it against the project, per project team.
This, frankly ridiculous situation perfectly illustrates the significance of free software ideology as opposed to open source and other ideologies. Over the years, the concept has been attacked, ridiculed, deemphasized and dismissed through sustained vilification campaigns in the name of being too political, too ideological, too purist and too extreme. I have witnessed even personal attacks made against its proponents.
Open source philosophy emphasizes the sharing and openness of code source so that the collaboration improves its availability and quality. For free software on the other hand, openness is only a means to an end. In fact, you're not even required to distribute the source. You need to supply it only to the users of your software, and only if they request it. Free software instead focuses on the concept of computing freedom. The idea that the computing devices you own MUST do only what you want, and anything you want (within the limits of technological possibilities).
In practice, free software ideology and open source ideology achieve nearly identical results. Most open source software are free software. Most OSS licenses qualify as free software license too. But free software philosophy raises an important question that OSS philosophy doesn't. Does the software do what you want? Does it work in your interests as a device owner? Over time, we saw the emergence of software that are open, but harms your interests in multiple ways. Examples include AOSP, Chromium, VSCode, etc. And yet, we falsely call them FOSS.
And now when governments and corporations implement measures and laws that take away our freedom to use the devices we paid for and supposedly own in ways we want, the OSS philosophy rarely questions their sanctity. Sure, there is some opposition from the OSS community to these measures, but they are mostly based on practical issues like the inability to enforce the restrictions or to face its consequences.
However, these restrictions are antithetical to the free software philosophy in a more fundamental, ideological and political way. Had it been the dominant philosophy among the two, there would have been a bigger push back in the name of violation of our rights and freedoms. This is why our stances, ideologies and politics with respect to technology matters.
The loss of emphasis on free software philosophy has blunted our opposition a bit. Free software proponents were screaming about such eventualities from the beginning. But they were dismissed as eccentric. And that brings us to the sustained vilification campaigns I talked about earlier. It was clear from the beginning that these campaigns were coordinated by moneyed interests. They don't want us to have strong opinions or political beliefs about what we do, lest we revolt when they exploit us for resources or force us to do their bidding. Always be wary of people who argue against the interests of the common. Who knows what lurks under the sheep skin?
Vilification, and arguing against common interests, isn't exactly one-sided.[0] And what's the great divide, anyway? It never seemed to me to be an disagreement about the four freedoms. Some hate that Microsot could just use BSD's TCP/IP stack and make millions, some shudder to think of the pain and suffering that would have been inflected upon humanity had they developed their own.
> It never seemed to me to be an disagreement about the four freedoms.
Who's even discussing the four freedoms today, even in the context of events like this, much less argue and agree or disagree about it? The entire point of my 'essay' was to remind everyone that those very relevant messages were deliberately deemphasized and drowned out. Arguing 'both sides were at fault' will only prolong our misery forever.
This looks like previous discussion of the bill that became the act: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45244049
Doesn't this law just let parents set up age-labelled accounts for their children with the idea that apps not suitable for children won't be allowed under those accounts?
Seems no worse than what mobile OSes already do and not that bad a feature for a modern general use OS (except if you monitor someone's age bracket and noticed the exact day they change, you can work out their precise date of birth.) It does seem unsuitable to force it to be added to embedded OSes, freedos, CP/M and historical/retro OSes in general.
I envision sysadmins rebooting 10,000 servers, each one asking to verify the op's age, and even better, each time a web server forks off a process. (OK, this is hyperbole, but sometimes you need hyperbole to point out absurdity)
But not to worry. Very large companies "somehow" manage to get exemptions adn carve-outs from California laws that burden most of us. It's the golden rule. Whoever has the gold, rules. (stares at PG&E bill)
Do you remember the disappearing "billionaire tax"?
No idea how this will affect much of FOSS, for example, source code and binary repo's being blocked (I haven't read all the fine print).
"Shoot, if you must, this old gray head (with a camera, thank you) but spare free and open source operating systems, I said."
I guess it is users' accounts, so service accounts are exempt? I would hate to see a headless server rebooting and waiting for an age verification from a service account at a power or water sanitation plant...
Maybe all laws should have a "dev environment", starting with the politicians. All their systems will demand their age and proof of age for say 12 months? Toaster, washer, dryer, cell, dishwasher, car, calculators, etc. Then, if they still want to pass the law, 3 months of red teaming by the "general public" for all the systems that have their data. And, if they still want it, go for it.
https://github.com/c3d/db48x
> The DB48X project intends to rebuild and improve the user experience of the HP48 family of calculators
They just updated their license to exclude California residents. The law is so vague there is a possibility to apply it against the project, per project team.
This, frankly ridiculous situation perfectly illustrates the significance of free software ideology as opposed to open source and other ideologies. Over the years, the concept has been attacked, ridiculed, deemphasized and dismissed through sustained vilification campaigns in the name of being too political, too ideological, too purist and too extreme. I have witnessed even personal attacks made against its proponents.
Open source philosophy emphasizes the sharing and openness of code source so that the collaboration improves its availability and quality. For free software on the other hand, openness is only a means to an end. In fact, you're not even required to distribute the source. You need to supply it only to the users of your software, and only if they request it. Free software instead focuses on the concept of computing freedom. The idea that the computing devices you own MUST do only what you want, and anything you want (within the limits of technological possibilities).
In practice, free software ideology and open source ideology achieve nearly identical results. Most open source software are free software. Most OSS licenses qualify as free software license too. But free software philosophy raises an important question that OSS philosophy doesn't. Does the software do what you want? Does it work in your interests as a device owner? Over time, we saw the emergence of software that are open, but harms your interests in multiple ways. Examples include AOSP, Chromium, VSCode, etc. And yet, we falsely call them FOSS.
And now when governments and corporations implement measures and laws that take away our freedom to use the devices we paid for and supposedly own in ways we want, the OSS philosophy rarely questions their sanctity. Sure, there is some opposition from the OSS community to these measures, but they are mostly based on practical issues like the inability to enforce the restrictions or to face its consequences.
However, these restrictions are antithetical to the free software philosophy in a more fundamental, ideological and political way. Had it been the dominant philosophy among the two, there would have been a bigger push back in the name of violation of our rights and freedoms. This is why our stances, ideologies and politics with respect to technology matters.
The loss of emphasis on free software philosophy has blunted our opposition a bit. Free software proponents were screaming about such eventualities from the beginning. But they were dismissed as eccentric. And that brings us to the sustained vilification campaigns I talked about earlier. It was clear from the beginning that these campaigns were coordinated by moneyed interests. They don't want us to have strong opinions or political beliefs about what we do, lest we revolt when they exploit us for resources or force us to do their bidding. Always be wary of people who argue against the interests of the common. Who knows what lurks under the sheep skin?
Vilification, and arguing against common interests, isn't exactly one-sided.[0] And what's the great divide, anyway? It never seemed to me to be an disagreement about the four freedoms. Some hate that Microsot could just use BSD's TCP/IP stack and make millions, some shudder to think of the pain and suffering that would have been inflected upon humanity had they developed their own.
0. https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119730630513821&w=2
> It never seemed to me to be an disagreement about the four freedoms.
Who's even discussing the four freedoms today, even in the context of events like this, much less argue and agree or disagree about it? The entire point of my 'essay' was to remind everyone that those very relevant messages were deliberately deemphasized and drowned out. Arguing 'both sides were at fault' will only prolong our misery forever.