Context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKzRf8B-oDk
Would it be possible to run mpv and a browser directly on hardware somehow? Perhaps in an environment that doesn’t classify as an operating system according to the definition in those California codes?
I know that an operating system distributes workloads and facilitates communication between various hardware components, but would it be possible to build a Linux kernel that is “only” an interface to the CPU, a GPU, a sound card and a keyboard? One that can take commands to run for instance a browser[1] and mpv? Having the user manually - through commands of physical switches - handle the inter component communication? Or perhaps by being a kernel it already falls under the definition of an OS?
I’m just spitballing here. Barely know what I’m talking about, so please enlighten me! :D
Nowadays, a browser feels like a container that can run most things a physical computer would: stream media, serve as a word processor, play simple games, what have you. ↩︎
There is no hard definition within the laws so this is all speculation. This means that there is no technical answer because the question in is core is a legal one.
Your TV for example can have a browser without problems.
You can have an integrated board that runs a full Linux without you being able to touch the underlying OS and let that start a browser, too. You know those tv screens that show you traffic into it flight plans at the airport? Those are often full Linux computers set up exactly like that.
In short: we’ll only know when the law is actually being tested. It’s written in a way that I as layman could talk and software and even most hardware into it’s definition, it’s absolute bullshit…
Most TVs are probably already compliant because using them requires creating a Google or Apple account, which already want your age information (and the California bill explicitly allows using existing data like this IIRC). That’s good for avoiding disruption, but not so good from a privacy perspective.
Right. Would you say then, that trying to preemptively circumvent a yet untested law is a waste of resources and time? As in, it’s better to wait and see how authorities and courts will handle and implement the law?
For users yes - for developers, as much as it saddens me, no.
Ubuntu for example started the discussion about what they need to do to show their the demanded effort was being put into.
It’s the devs that are put at risk here - and I dare say by design. If this just correlates or is caused by the support from the big OS corporations one can only speculate. My speculation is: at the very least strongly influenced.