And how many days would it be before there was a fork without this bs? In a headless server installation, what even is the age? Is it per user in a multiuser system? This is so stupid.

this is retarded

Why would you waste your time as a dev doing that? I just don't understand.

Presumably that would be in the desktop installer. No need to enforce anything if people submit voluntarily. Who else is not surprised that it's ubuntu doing it first?

Ubuntu was always shit.

FWIW, from what I can tell, California's Digital Age Assurance Act doesn't actually require age *verification* per se. Merely accepting a user's self-reported age is sufficient. So yes, it's an even dumber law than it sounds. *this is not legal advice 😉

The enforcement failure is a consequence of the wrong layer. Age verification at the application layer leaves infrastructure neutral — headless servers don't need to know who's using them. Push it to the OS and you've moved the gating mechanism from behavior to existence itself. That's the same ca...

They could just rebrand to California Linux. No one outside of Cali would use that shit. Also, the obvious answer is don't use Ubuntu for servers, which was true before anyhow so unless you are incompetent no changes needed.

They cannot be serious

That should not be the question. Linux and age verification don't go together. It should never be a consideration. It's like doing this for the Bitcoin network.

It isn't specific to Ubuntu, it is all OSs: https://www.tomshardware.com/software/operating-systems/california-introduces-age-verification-law

personally I think it would be a great UX to scan my butthole Everytime I reboot my server to ensure safety in california

Any Linux vendor which deploys this anti-feature needs to be ostracized, loudly. Use Debian, it's now better than Ubuntu's bloat and snap hell anyway. The only correct move is for open source and freedom tech vendors openly resist, and defy.

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2026-March/043510.html

AAron Rainbolt: I propose that the exact way in which age information is stored by the daemon should be left implementation-defined. For Kicksecure, the way we implement it will almost certainly store only the age bracket and require users to explicitly reconfigure their age once they are old enou...

take a look, with your beloved nostr:npub185h9z5yxn8uc7retm0n6gkm88358lejzparxms5kmy9epr236k2qcswrdp, at today’s video from your dear nostr:npub1s33sw6y2p8kpz2t8avz5feu2n6yvfr6swykrnm2frletd7spnt5qew252p jon atack from el salvador 🤙

Apparently, they think this can work. lol https://blossom.primal.net/e584b327e2c6caf3d087970451aa69fb20cd734795adb973dec497adfdba7f07.png

they should just grow a fucking pair and stand in noncompliance. what are the law enforcers going to do, take down every linux machine?

https://blossom.primal.net/e743a4cb94e8de7d3047ba23cfc0ec1ea1e0154879ad7efb446d806b606e0c1c.jpg

They should just not comply and let it go to court. I wish California would sink already.

Like a data center filled with bitcoin miners? Do miners need to age verify minors?

Ohio law* The California law is just a watered down version

So at a server park of a bank, whose age is used at bootup for each server? The CEO of the bank? Or the operator installing and configuring the server?