On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 9:01 AM Windl, Ulrich wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
>
>
> I missed the start of the thread, but why does the OS “need” the birthdate?
> EU requiring age checking for all users?
It's not the OS but the user management. And it does not need it, it
only provides a place where the admin can optional store it. Did you
ever asked yourself why your "OS" needs your full name, room number or
phone numbers (private and business)? Nothing of this is needed to
login.
Most IMS have this birth day field since ages, and if not, admins find
other ways to store them. Only look for all the questions of admins
how to add that field, if their LDAP schema does not provide it.
> IMHO age verification is not a task of/for an operating system. More
> specifically if done at all, ager verification should be separate from
> identity verification (i.e.: The user’s age should be verified anonymously).
> My fear is the those demanding ager verification actually want to prevent any
> anonymous communications.
Having a defined place where an admin can optionally store the date of
birth is not age verification done by the OS. It's not even a
standardized interface, as the majority out there uses identity
management systems (which by the way in most cases provide this field
already) and not systemd-userdb.
It's the same, only more standardized, as if people write
"dataOfBirth=XXX" into the GECOS field of /etc/passwd. I have already
seen that...
Thorsten
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ulrich Windl
>
>
>
> From: systemd-devel On Behalf
> Of Itxaka Serrano Garcia
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 6:01 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [systemd-devel] Fundamental concerns regarding the
> "birthDate" field in userdb
>
>
>
> Hey all,
>
>
>
> I really dont get this, why the birth is so important when there are already
> things like location, real name (oh my god, real name! Why not always use an
> alias for privacy?) and email? An OS should only concern itself with the
> username and password for login and the home directory!!
>
>
>
> Please wake me up when systemd decides to make those obligatory and dont
> allow me to put whatever I want in there (1 january 1900 for everybody)!
> Otherwise this is a nice addition to a **user database**, and if it can be
> used for local account control like parental locking and similar features, it
> would be very welcome for those of us trying to get parental locks to work
> under Linux :D
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Itxaka
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 5:14 PM wrote:
>
> Lennart,
>
> I do understand the uneasy feeling by some. It is therefore necessary that
> the idea behind adding a birthday field to the userdb file needs to be
> clarified.
> You used the words 'superset of unix', AD, LDAP and thunderbird as reference
> where birthdays might be stored. Regardless, whether you use birthdays in
> your application, the application is solely responsible for guarding the data
> it was given at an application level.
> However, I fail to see why an operating system needs to have a user's
> birthday in one of its components. After all, Linux is not a proprietary OS
> like Window or macOS etc. Then, setting the date field to a fake date or just
> garbage - as you suggested - is, I fear, not a solution in the long run. If
> the field is there, someone or something will start using it. Exactly what we
> don't want in an OS.
>
> Why? Well an OS is only responsible for system resource management, serving
> applications and protecting the overall system's integrity. Adding data that
> has nothing to do with the aforementioned roles is opening the door to adding
> more data which has nothing to do with the role of an OS. Also, this may also
> hamper future system updates and/or migration.
>
> Regards,
> Frans de Boer.
--
Thorsten Kukuk, Distinguished Engineer, Future Technologies
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße 146, 90461
Nuernberg, Germany
Geschäftsführer: Jochen Jaser, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich, (HRB
36809, AG Nürnberg)
