• aurelar@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    Technically, Linux is not an operating system, just a kernel, so I’m not sure how this would be implemented.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      1 day ago

      See, here’s the big open secret. All these politicians, who make all these rules? They don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. They think a kernel is something that gets stuck in your teeth whrn you eat corn.

    • Damage@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      You just said it, it’s a rule for operating systems, which means that whoever ships Linux as part of an operating system has the onus of implementing this.

      If you do Linux from scratch, that would be you I guess.

    • Aganim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Linux being a kernel is hardly relevant though. The law lies the responsibility at the “operating system providers”, looking at the definition in the article that would be the developers/organisation behind the individual distributions. Politicians don’t care if each distro comes up with their own solution or gets built-in to the kernel.

      But personally I think they all just give this law the finger, put a ‘not for use in California’ in their licenses and forget about this brainfart.