[HN Gopher] GrapheneOS refuses to comply with new age verificati...
___________________________________________________________________
GrapheneOS refuses to comply with new age verification laws for
operating system
Author : CrypticShift
Score : 180 points
Date : 2026-03-22 16:28 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tomshardware.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tomshardware.com)
| echelon_musk wrote:
| How's that gonna pan out with Motorola?
| estimator7292 wrote:
| If Motorola have a problem with it, they obviously aren't the
| right partner for Graphene.
|
| Graphene obviously won't want to partner with a company that
| immediately bends over backwards for this kind of puritanical
| nonsense.
| izacus wrote:
| Motorola will obviously have a problem with violating the law
| in several US states.
|
| Like, what's unclear here? Do you seriously say that
| corporations should just ignore laws which they don't like?
| fwn wrote:
| If shipping a specific device configuration to the US is
| illegal, Motorola should not ship this specific device
| configuration to the US.
|
| I do not think our parent is suggesting otherwise.
|
| AFAIK Motorola and GrapheneOS are not merging, they are
| getting into a partnership. They do not have to think or do
| exactly the same.
|
| Apple can comply with both CCP and US demands at the same
| time without a problem. I am sure Motorola can adjust their
| services to the markets they are working in, as well.
| izacus wrote:
| Motorola is pretty much only present in US these days,
| why would they build a product that can't be sold in
| their primary market?
|
| Demanding that OSes outright violate the law because you
| disagree with your own elected government is pretty
| insane.
| HybridStatAnim8 wrote:
| They are not building a product that cannot be sold in
| their primary market. They are not designing GrapheneOS
| devices, they are improving existing devices to meet GOS
| requirements. There will still be an OEM OS for those
| devices. Preinstalled GOS devices can simply not be sold
| there.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Can't speak about other continents but Motorola
| smartphones are at least available all over Europe so
| your initial statement is incorrect.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Your arguments show a lack of the least imagination, let
| alone simple reasoning.
|
| There are countless ways to satisfy any regulation while
| still doing whatever you actually want to do.
|
| The very most obvious is simply sell the device, in the
| affected areas, with any sort of os that meets the letter
| of the law in that area.
|
| If it's also easy for the user to install something else
| once it becomes their property, well that's the new
| owner's business atthat point, Motorola did their part
| and complied with everything required.
|
| No one needs to demand a company violate anything. That
| is just a silly argument to even try to make. Calling
| people insane for things they never said nor even implied
| is what's insane.
| HybridStatAnim8 wrote:
| Motorola wont break the law. They just wont sell preinstalled
| devices, if preinstalled devices was even on the table for
| 2027.
| HybridStatAnim8 wrote:
| Motorola likely wont sell devices with GOS preinstalled in
| those regions.
| NotPractical wrote:
| Wasn't most of the hype surrounding the Motorola partnership
| based on the idea that you'd be able to get a device with
| GrapheneOS pre-installed, boosting the legitimacy of
| GrapheneOS as a competitor to Google Android? Sure,
| "GrapheneOS adds several more supported devices" is cool and
| all, but it's not nearly as exciting...
| HybridStatAnim8 wrote:
| No. The bare minimum is that Motorola provides the needed
| baseline hardware security requirements to their future
| devices. Everything else is just a bonus. There could be
| green-boot support and/or preinstalled devices, but thats
| not a necessity. GOS benefits with an official hardware
| platform, potentially early partner access to AOSP source
| code, input on hardware and firmware decisions, and
| Motorola benefits by potentially having GOS features,
| better hardware security, and making tons of money from
| alternate OS users, GOS or otherwise.
| raverbashing wrote:
| More likely they will just add their own age widget themselves
| CqtGLRGcukpy wrote:
| GrapheneOS also posted about it on their Mastodon / Fediverse
| account: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116261301913660830
| Svoka wrote:
| Seems like a pure virtue signaling: they don't sell or make
| hardware. It is mandated only for pre-installed operating
| systems, from what I understand.
| crtasm wrote:
| They've partnered with Motorola to have it preinstalled on
| phones, this is in TFA.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Could just ship it along on an SD card with a single button
| install you do yourself. Technically not preinstalled.
| izacus wrote:
| I'm sure noone in the legal system of California would
| notice that trick!
| moffkalast wrote:
| Well correct me if I'm wrong but dumb laws are usually
| not written by people who know much shit about fuck. So
| it's entirely possible they wouldn't.
| tredre3 wrote:
| You sound like a teenager fighting his parents.
| "Technically you didn't say WHICH bed I had to be in by
| midnight!!!!! I was in A bed, I followed the rules!!!!"
|
| Society (mostly) works because we all agree that laws
| have intents. The wording is crafted as best as possible,
| and for the rest we have judges to shutdown lawyers
| trying to be a moffkalast smart asses.
| HybridStatAnim8 wrote:
| Sounds like it exposes a ton of attack surface. Better to
| just have a card with a link to the webinstaller, probably.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| This is emblematic of a misunderstanding technologists
| often have about the law. We try to treat it like code we
| can exploit and hack around. But there is no compiler
| deterministically producing outcomes. Of course, this
| misunderstanding is often bolstered by the accurate
| observation that lawyers and businesses find loopholes and
| favorable interpretations that to us appear much like the
| exploits we propose. The critical element that's often
| missed, though, is the human one. To get away with an
| exploit, to have the case law updated to reflect your
| favorable interpretation, you need power, influence, and
| alignment on your interests. There are tax "loopholes" now
| that are commonly used but in a prior era, under the same
| laws, would have seen you dragged into court and
| eviscerated. If you tried your cute SD card trick a judge
| would tear you a new one. If _Microsoft_ tried it, they
| could maybe talk to the right people before the case and
| come to an understanding that this little loophole was
| convenient for dev devices or something, and convince a
| judge to rule that they could do it, but only if
| accompanied by some external age confirmation they could
| self-attest to, with some wording that makes it clear that
| the trick is only usable by large and well-respected
| institutions. The law is not an impartial arbiter that you
| can outsmart. It 's the enforcement mechanism for multiple
| tiers or rules that bind different classes. This age
| gathering law is a classic moat law. It exists to prevent
| outgroups from shipping software that's incompatible with
| this age communication system, and in a business-to-
| business context serves to establish obligations between
| ingroup members. Any other clever interpretation of the law
| will be discarded regardless of specific wording.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Right, my bad. It's easy to forget our society is a
| convoluted backroom quid pro quo even if we pretend
| otherwise on paper.
| HybridStatAnim8 wrote:
| Preinstalled devices is not the main goal of the partnership.
| GOS is ok without having that to start. Motorolas stock OS
| will still be available.
| fph wrote:
| Let me add that the typical GrapheneOS user will probably
| prefer to install the OS themselves rather than trust what
| comes preinstalled.
| HybridStatAnim8 wrote:
| The typical GOS user generally doesnt want to do that.
| Flashing is a hurdle that increases barrier for entry.
| Reducing or eliminating that burden is ideal. Greenboot
| support would make flashing a little easier.
| HybridStatAnim8 wrote:
| Its a statement for the future. They arent bound to add this
| now but they could be in the future. They will adapt
| accordingly to avoid it.
| razingeden wrote:
| Virtue signal away. I'm with whatever device and OS purveyors
| are willing to tell these tyrants to get stuffed.
|
| I haven't cut over to it completely yet but I think this'll be
| the last nail in the coffin for my time as an Apple user. It's
| already a loveless marriage , it's already over, I'm already
| sleeping with GrapheneOS on the side. it's asking when I'm
| going to leave her and it's always "soon, baby. soon."
| iugtmkbdfil834 wrote:
| As they should, I was personally surprised so many people were
| surprised come ICE raids that government can buy and track
| location via apps, advertising and your phone in general.
| Regular people need an idea, who is.. uhh.. less likely to sell
| them down the river.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| I think that malicious compliance all the way might have been the
| better option here. If a birth date is all that is needed, let
| the user enter a random one. If actual biometric verification is
| needed alongside, let the user also paste the code to a fake
| biometric validator that always returns valid.
|
| It is the same philosophy as with an app that forcibly wants an
| invasive permission to the detriment of the user. Let the app
| have the permission while in a sandbox so it sees nothing.
| HybridStatAnim8 wrote:
| Giving in in any capacity is unacceptable. The GrapheneOS
| foundation is based in Canada and is not obligated to record
| this information, so they wont. They have no reason to comply,
| be it malicious or otherwise.
| mmooss wrote:
| They are not on an island; they need to function in society.
| If they want people outside Canada to use GrapheneOS, then
| they need to comply with local laws.
|
| Maybe they don't care about that. Maybe they just want to
| make a secure phone OS, as a sort of hobby, and don't care if
| anyone uses it but themselves. That's ok too.
| applfanboysbgon wrote:
| If you want a privacy-violating OS, there are already two
| big options on the market. A secure OS for people who do
| not live in authoritarian surveillance states offers a
| benefit to some people, even if not all people. A third
| privacy-violating OS offers no value to anyone anywhere in
| the world.
| snackbroken wrote:
| People who live in authoritarian states like North Korea or
| California can (and arguably should) ignore the fact that
| GrapheneOS is illegal where they live and use it anyway.
| epolanski wrote:
| As they stated "If GrapheneOS devices can't be sold in a
| region due to their regulations, so be it."
| iugtmkbdfil834 wrote:
| Agreed. This is one of those moments you might as well simply
| say no. For practical reasons too, your users do have options
| and tend to be the kind that will drop a distribution if it
| goes rogue.
| endofreach wrote:
| Agree. I didn't even think of that. Embarrassing. Your approach
| might have been the best option.
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| You'd need to closely read the law and have a lawyer advise
| you, but a neat attempt might be to just ask for the date of
| birth, send that "in real time" to the App Store program, and
| then have that program simply discard it?
|
| I don't think current iterations of the law require that this
| be sent off-device in any way.
| Polizeiposaune wrote:
| The second requirement of the California law is that there be
| an API available to all apps that returns the age band a user
| is in -- one of:
|
| age < 13
|
| age >= 13 && age < 16
|
| age >= 16 && age < 18
|
| age >= 18
|
| A non-maliciously compliant implementation would need to
| retain a date of birth or equivalent until the user was over
| 18.
|
| A maliciously compliant API could just wait 18 years after
| account creation before yielding an answer. (remember folks:
| "real time" does not mean "fast").
|
| One of the oddities about the way the law is phrased is that
| it requires the age band information about the user be
| provided to "the developer" rather than to the application.
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| > The second requirement of the California law is that
| there be an API available to all apps that returns the age
| band a user is in -- one of:
|
| Is anyone actually going to bother to do this though? Why
| would they?
| Polizeiposaune wrote:
| Asking the device owner for the user's birth date is precisely
| what the (California) law requires.
|
| Biometrics are not required.
|
| The concept appears to be that a parent or guardian could enter
| the birth date before turning the device over to a child.
|
| Malicious compliance would be providing this age bracket API:
|
| boolean is_user_over_18() { sleep (18 * 365.25 * 86400); return
| true; }
|
| This is a real-time interface (as required by the law) that
| takes 18 years to complete. (Remember: "Real-time" does not
| mean "fast").
| OutOfHere wrote:
| The New York bill specifies a biometric requirement.
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| > Asking the device owner for the user's birth date is
| precisely what the (California) law requires.
|
| Why would anybody bother to implement that?
| mmooss wrote:
| The GrapheneOS Mastodon post says,
|
| "GrapheneOS will remain usable by anyone around the world without
| requiring personal information, identification or an account."
|
| https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116261301913660830
|
| That raises the issues that GrapheneOS needs to solve, which may
| require more creativity than bold, somtimes combative statements.
|
| If GrapheneOS doesn't comply with laws and regulations then they
| will sometimes be banned or restricted. If that happens, they may
| not be "usable by anyone around the world" for long.
|
| That doesn't mean they have to capitulate or sacrifice security.
| They can find creative solutions, some of which are suggested
| here. The first step is to carefully read the spec to determine
| what is necessary, then talk to someone like the EFF, and find a
| way forward.
| notrealyme123 wrote:
| The problem is the spirit of the law, not the word.
| HybridStatAnim8 wrote:
| They wont break the law, they will just move to where there are
| no such regulations. This isnt a promise to violate laws.
| nout wrote:
| In the meantime systemd already added handling for Age to the
| system bus. Next step is to add your race, then income, then who
| you voted for...
| joe_mamba wrote:
| Western tech direction in the last 5 years:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXL-r8deB5o
| gruez wrote:
| If you think that's bad, just wait till you see eastern tech.
| haolez wrote:
| That's an interesting topic. Please, elaborate.
| joe_mamba wrote:
| Western surveillance tech is superior because it gives
| you the option to choose your gender on a fluid scale
| when they're vacuuming your private data, whereas
| backwards eastern tech limits you to only male or female.
| nout wrote:
| What about not asking for gender when gender is
| completely irrelevant to the thing that the user is
| trying to do?
| joe_mamba wrote:
| But how would the government know who's writing mean
| comments against them online without detailed
| surveillance?
| Muromec wrote:
| Finally we can set the evil bit correctly on a kernel level.
| iugtmkbdfil834 wrote:
| That is ok. The writing was on the wall for a while. It is time
| to let it go. It served its purpose. We might as well start
| mapping out a way without it in a more serious way out of sheer
| necessity. I know I am.
| alexdns wrote:
| it was reverted ?
| crooked-v wrote:
| Someone tried to gaslight the maintainers into reverting it
| and was rejected.
| crimsonnoodle58 wrote:
| Why? Why should Linux ever implement local laws like this as
| core functionality? Especially invasive/anti-privacy ones.
|
| If someone wants to introduce an age-verification-ca-module,
| fine, but not make it core. Yes I understand systemd is not the
| kernel, but its ubiquitous enough.
|
| That just says to every country around the world; Windows, Mac,
| and even Linux is on board too, let's make it law also!
|
| I dunno, I always expected Linux to be the last bastion of
| freedom and not to capitulate so easily.
| wormius wrote:
| Systemd has always rubbed me the wrong way, and its uptake
| across all the base distros turns me off, but at least...
|
| https://nosystemd.org/
|
| There are still distros without it, I may have to go to one,
| since I already jumped Win10 to Cachy for the BS MS is
| pulling. I was going to go systemd-free but Cachy "just
| worked" compared to the others in terms of setup. So I stuck
| with it.
|
| I wish Lennart would just stop already.
| handoflixue wrote:
| > Why? Why should Linux ever implement local laws like this
| as core functionality? Especially invasive/anti-privacy ones.
|
| 1) It's legally required to sell computers with that OS in
| certain jurisdictions
|
| 2) I presume there is at least one person actually selling
| said
|
| 3) The feature is so trivially easy to bypass that it
| presents no reasonable privacy threat at this time (IIRC,
| it's just a numeric field with no validation?)
| dathinab wrote:
| > Why?
|
| it's maintained by companies
|
| they have to comply with law
|
| that they are mostly US companies doesn't exactly help either
| drnick1 wrote:
| I don't see what prevents anyone (e.g., a distro maintainer)
| from patching that anti-feature out of the source or disabling
| with with root access. As long as people can control the
| software running on their machines, which is the idea behind
| Linux, nothing that people don't actually want will stay in the
| system.
|
| Systemd shouldn't be foisting this nonsense on Linux users
| however. I suppose the anti-systemd subset of the Linux
| community was proven right after all, this is the kind of issue
| that can end up facing when a huge piece of opinionated
| software like systemd more or less becomes an indispensable
| part of Linux.
| endofreach wrote:
| I know it's gonna be a very unpopular opinion. I do like,
| appreciate, respect & admire that they are ready to die on a
| hill. I just don't think it's the right hill. I do not have an
| issue with the legality of it. Rather I think age verification is
| actually not bad. Sure i see the potential danger. But there is
| potential benefits, that'd counter the danger, by a lot.
|
| In different times, i might have argued differently. I'm not
| saying it's not worth protecting the world you deem worthy of
| protection. But no matter what that world is to any of you. The
| one we all share is changing for sure. Uncontrollably fast. And
| many things are gonna change. And many things won't matter that
| much anymore, if we actually end up going where we're headed.
|
| I mean a this is just a super small part of it all, but i assume
| in this specific case, for graphene, it's a battle for privacy...
| and they're right. But we're still going into a future where we
| got 5,10,20,30 more years of "AI", even just keeping the same
| level of overall sophistication for most, but costs decreasing
| immensely... I don't know about you, but I don't think the ways
| we protect our privacy can be unaffected, already because we're
| going to learn all new aspects about which data is private. Just
| out of practicality. Extreme example: but if generating hundreds
| of obscene deepfakes of any person as easily as taking a photo
| with your iPhone... ah, i can't keep having this discussion, i
| hope i am just an insane moron who is wrong. But, just to be
| sure: instead of arguing if we should close the windows on the
| train that's burning, or leave them open, as some are smart and
| others need help, let's just get off the fucking train.
|
| And yes of course. One might argue (I actually would), we should
| not start implementing laws like that or start making personal
| information a requirement to digital access.
|
| But this might be the first step to a different future, or not.
| As i said, who cares where the train is headed. It's burning and
| nobody even really wants to be on it. Let's please get off the
| train.
|
| Not saying the battle is lost. I have tried working on something
| because I still have great hope. But someone seriously must act.
| I tried, getting off the train. Or at least start standing up
| from my seat. Realizing it's not that easy to get off. It's
| embarrassing, but i can't even get off the train by myself... i
| tried anyway... but here i am, sitting again (currently on the
| floor, lost my seat, damn...)... i have been building something
| for the past 2 years. Well, trying to build something, an attempt
| to change course... ruining my life over it. And currently i
| failed, before i even got to a point where my prototype or any of
| the theoretical work even remotely represents the vision. But
| maybe i just learned, i was wrong about all of it. I hope i'll
| make it back being able to afford working on it and someday a way
| to make enough money to pay smarter people than me to join. But
| currently, it's insane for me for me to even dare dreaming about
| that. I have really dug myself a hole. Next time, it should at
| least be a hill...
|
| So in the meantime: can people like the dudes & dudinas from
| graphene please chose a wiser battle. If just some of all these
| people got together & worked on getting off the train, instead of
| working on things that seem meaningful now, but wouldn't even be
| considered worthy of being mentioned in the future... we'd have a
| shot.
|
| Damn. I still just can't accept it, even though i've literally
| lost everything believing that. And i am ashamed so deeply
| believing in what i saw, and in friendly moments still see, as a
| future... thinking i could change it, without changing myself...
| but please god, in the end, let me not have been just bonkers,
| but convicted.
|
| (As if that, would be, any different).
| iugtmkbdfil834 wrote:
| I appreciate the thought, but I personally disagree having seen
| the patterns of the past 2-3 decades. There is zero real
| benefit to it save powers that be. Honestly, the only
| reasonable move forward is non-compliance. Everything else
| results in steady inching towards full blown panopticon ( and
| some would argue that we are already there ).
| HybridStatAnim8 wrote:
| GOS is not going to compromise on user privacy and security.
| This is not a technical problem, it is a social one where
| parents refuse to do what they should have done from the start.
| The internet is not for kids. Presuming users to be guilty
| until proven innocent is unacceptable. Making mechanisms to
| obtain user data, even if it is completely and perfectly
| functional and achieves what it sets out to do, risks malicious
| parties obtaining that information. The only way to win the
| game is not to play, to not ever provide that data, and
| children shouldnt be playing the gane in the first place.
| stego-tech wrote:
| Good on them. Devices shouldn't collect any extraneous data by
| default other than that needed to fulfill a feature a user
| consciously selects, and that includes this stupid age
| verification spyware regimes are pushing.
|
| An adult had to pay for the ISP connection; that's the extent of
| age verification needed. We shouldn't be demanding adults expose
| their identities to for-profit entities and surveillance states,
| so much as mandating for-profit companies make parental controls
| easier to use, more effective, and stopping them from harvesting
| data on kids in the first place.
|
| Not every corner of the universe needs to be baby-proofed; we
| just need to build a society where parents are enabled and
| supported to be parents, rather than outsourcing such a critical
| role to strangers and/or devices so they can get back to work.
| pxeboot wrote:
| > An adult had to pay for the ISP connection
|
| In many countries, it is still possible to buy a prepaid SIM
| without any ID.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Apps requesting an age is not extraneous and there are many
| legal and safety reasons why an app may collect this
| information. If the operating system doesn't do it you run into
| the cookie banner situation where every individual site has to
| implement a dialog box asking the user instead of there being a
| standardized way to do it.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| > An adult had to pay for the ISP connection
|
| Ever heard of free wifi?
| nothrowaways wrote:
| Apple should be championing this.
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| Age verification at the OS level makes no sense to me. Most
| households aren't going to have a separate device for every
| family member and so you will end up with a tablet or computer
| set up by one of the parents (and thus having their age stored)
| that will be used by both parents and children. Likewise, people
| generally won't create a separate account for every potential
| user.
| izacus wrote:
| What are you talking about, most households give personal
| phones to their children, especially teenagers.
|
| Laptops aren't rare either.
| bradfa wrote:
| I suspect there's quite a difference between what most people
| do and what most HN commenters do.
| dathinab wrote:
| I frequently see comments which would have made sense in
| the past (e.g. early 2000th) but kinda aren't fully
| reflecting reality anymore
|
| it's as if humans have a tendency to make up their
| mind/world view in their younger years and then tend to
| kinda stick with it/only change it slowly as long as no big
| live changing events happen
| zamalek wrote:
| Give the kid a device that is age-controlled. No need for all
| devices to support it.
| pas wrote:
| the law is there because parents are fucking clueless
| unprincipled whining crybabies, who need a lot of support,
| and sometimes that includes a bit of pushing ...
|
| or who knows what problem is this supposed to fix. orphans
| buying phones? kids buying secret phones behind their
| parents back?
| dathinab wrote:
| > Age verification at the OS level makes no sense to me.
|
| it's the only form of "age verification" which can be done in a
| somewhat privacy respecting way (as in at most leak the age)
|
| the idea is to "bounce back" the "is old enough" decision to
| parent controls and let the parent choose (the Californian law
| doesn't quite do that perfectly, but goes into that direction)
|
| and if you sell what is more or less a general purpose
| compute/internet access device with OS (which I do include
| phones into) I think it's very reasonable to either sell it to
| adults only (with a disclaimer it's "not for children") or
| include proper parent controls
|
| > Most households aren't going to have a separate device for
| every family member
|
| in current times in the west it is very very common for many
| devices to be for one person only. Especially phones, or at
| least have different (OS) accounts.
|
| but again this comes back to "parent controls", weather that is
| for a child (OS) account or a way to switch from a child
| profile to a adult profile doesn't matter
|
| but in the end, the point of such laws should be to give
| parents tools to parent. As well as handling the case of parent
| acting in neglect by inaction. But if a parent intentional
| decides to give their children a device with their profile
| because they think it's fine than that should be their choice
| and responsibility.
|
| > Likewise, people generally won't create a separate account
| for every potential user.
|
| where it was possible I have not seen it not used, weather it's
| on a switch, gaming console or PC. It is the most convenient
| way of automatically separates logins, browsing history, game
| safes etc.
|
| and the law als isn't made for that shared computer in the
| living room (through it will apply there). It's more about the
| devices children might use unsupervised, e.g. their phone.
| drnick1 wrote:
| This is absolutely the right stance to take against such stupid
| mandates.
| cadamsdotcom wrote:
| This is excellent; silly laws on the books should exclude
| countries from access to things.
|
| Unfortunately it's not enough because there's also a need to work
| to get the laws repealed AND stop the endless attempts to bring
| them back.
| arbirk wrote:
| We are back to printing books, boys
| idatum wrote:
| Can someone catch me up how FB et al are not the ones responsible
| for age verification?
|
| Is it lack of something similar to PKI for identify verification?
| whynotmaybe wrote:
| If we go back a few years and analyze the porn magazines that
| are sold in a gas station, it's not up to the magazine to
| ensure that the "reader" has the legal age.
|
| So we delegated the responsibility twice, first the gas station
| attendant must check the age of the buyer and then, the buyer
| should check the age of any reader.
|
| So now, who's the "gas station attendant" in our situation?
| pas wrote:
| because there are other sites/apps online too, and it's better
| to decouple the "obtaining the verification" and the
| "presenting the verification"
|
| and if sites and apps don't need to be in the loop for this
| they can't end up leaking all over the 'net
| hereme888 wrote:
| so... just sell a phone with a script prompts the user to install
| the OS, and it auto-verifies hashes, can't be bypassed, etc. Is
| that too simplistic a solution?
| h4kunamata wrote:
| We expected no less from GOS project.
|
| systemd which was already in hot water over because the problems
| it creates over service, this was the last drop to get folks
| dropping systemct altogether.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-22 23:00 UTC)