Everyone should set it to 1970-01-01.
this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
246 points (87.3% liked)
Technology
83251 readers
4345 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nah, I'm all about that 9001/01/01 life
Ive been born since 1900-01-01 for a long time now.
Me too!
Although someone (steam maybe? I don't remember) updated their system and won't take it anymore. So now it's 1930-01-01.
You should try it. It's like I'm 30 years younger!
0001-01-01
I’m old.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Most people are born on the same date their whole life.
In other news there has been a massive uptick in Boomers converting to Linux....
load more comments
(1 replies)
The contents of the field will be protected from modification except by users with root privileges.
sudo my age to a thousand years then; no, thank you very very much
load more comments
(1 replies)
My date of birth is FU/CK/YOU
YOU-FU-CK is the better format and this is not debatable.
This guy fucks
load more comments
(1 replies)
FU/CK/YOOU
This is getting blown way out of proportion.
What’s being described right now is just an optional date-of-birth field. It doesn’t block installation, it doesn’t require verification, and it doesn’t change how the OS actually works. It just exists, and you can ignore it entirely.
The leap to “this is step one toward needing a passport to install an OS” is a classic slippery slope. It jumps from a harmless, non-enforced field straight to full identity verification with no actual mechanism connecting the two.
More importantly, this ignores how Linux works at a fundamental level.
Linux is open source, which means the code is public and can be modified by anyone. If any distribution ever tried to enforce something invasive like identity checks, that code would be stripped out almost immediately and redistributed as a fork. People already fork distributions over far smaller disagreements than this, and users would migrate just as quickly.
For this scenario people are worried about to actually happen, the entire ecosystem would have to move in lockstep and the community would have to abandon one of its core principles overnight. That’s not a realistic outcome.
Being skeptical of regulation is reasonable. Treating this like the beginning of mandatory identity verification at the OS level, especially in the Linux world, just isn’t grounded in how the technology or the community actually operates.
What’s being described right now is just an optional date-of-birth field.
The timing is dogshit.
Like getting handed a grenade pin and told "It's a fucking pin! It's harmless, what are you worried about?"
with mass adoption of enshitification. and with the world in general. calling things a slippery slope fallacy is a long and losing gamble.
if the field was put in because of a law, then it’s for a reason, if the data isn’t important, or enforced, then it is useless and should not have been added.
I wonder if it was put in for the same reason CA passed a self-reporting law recently. I wonder if it's an attempt to repel through malicious compliance far worse age verification that's forced at a federal (US) level.
This isn’t even malicious compliance. It’s just compliance. The owner of the system can set ages for system users. Smart people will set it to what they want.
load more comments
(3 replies)
What is the use case for that field? I do not see it as being used as anything else than a stepping stone towards age verification.
this is the correct way to frame this issue. it serves no purpose other than to support things that are further down a slope
I wonder if a fork becomes successful, or if traditional init based systems make a comeback
enterprise users obviously won't give a shit about any of this, and will keep using redhat or amazon linux or whatever
Seems like you don't really need to fork the system until someone applies DOB field in a meaningful way.
Even in such a situation, I would suspect the short-term solution is simply a patch or crack to neuter the functionality that the DOB field is supposed to implement. A full fork seems unnecessary, even counterproductive, since it would define your OS as meaningfully distinct (and noticeably out of compliance) with a standard installation.
It's giving an inch. We shouldn't be doing that. We should be fighting tooth an nail against every single aggression against our privacy. They've already taken far too much.
is a classic slippery slope
Were have you been the last few years or so? We're not just "going down" one slippery slope after another, we're speeding down them.
Classic Authoritarian Log Flume
If that is the case, explain why is it being implemented in the heat of mass age verification? What is the motive?
The motive is mass government surveillance obviously.
But like with many things in our government federally and statewide, these people don't actually understand how the technology functions. They can make all the laws that they want and Linux will still remain an open source software.
Thanks for the explanation. What you have described is not different to the manner in which I understand the situation as well.
My concern is that (despite your good intentions) your previous comment may have the unintended effect of making light of the situation we are all in.
The 'field' we have the privilege to ignore now id a mandatory requirement for a passport and iris scan tomorrow.
My first thought is to not sit still and accept the new law - rather, to empower everybody here to write to their legislators to block or reverse these gross violations of privacy. May Linux developers have already expressed willful non-compliance to the law. Show we not get behind these developers and organisations (like the EFF) and demand a repeal?
I however apologise if I have misunderstood your intent. But one thing is for sure, if we do not put up a fight at present, then the future is already lost.
load more comments
(3 replies)
My hate of SystemD is further justified! And you all just called me gray haired and not willing to update with the times!
Remember when they said "relax, it's just an init system, no biggie"? Pepperidge farm remembers.
No thanks, not the distro I will be using.
Systemd isn't a distro, it's an init and bootstrapper that underlies several distros
they easily might have meant that the distro they will be using has declared they will not implement this
That was very, very likely what the parent comment meant. The correction was unnecessary.
I'm a Debian guy so I'll set mine to April 28, 1973.
1930-01-01, done. But this shouldn't be a requirement to begin with either.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›