Considering the massive number of servers running Linux used in the industry, this sounds like a good way to kill the Tech Industry in California.

This is a gift to Microsoft.

This law only applies to computers used by children. The law explicitly defines “users” as minors. It does not apply to machines used solely/primarily by adults. It does not apply to servers, or other machines with no local users. It won’t affect the tech industry directly.

This law effectively prohibits your children from (legally) using anything but Microsoft/Google products until they are 18.

With this law, Linux cannot be installed on a school computer. With a FOSS OS, the local systems administrator would be considered the OS provider, and would be liable under this idiot law.

Where did you get that?

The law’s broad definition of an “operating system provider” […] pulls in not just Windows, macOS, Android, and iOS, but Linux distributions and Valve’s SteamOS.

Doesn’t seem like Windows is somehow excluded.

they arent saying that windows is excluded, they are saying that windows will offer the option to enter age, linux wont and hence linux wont be an option for schools etc.

Even if Linux offers the option, school districts won’t use it. The district itself will be considered the “OS Provider” under this law, if they choose to use a FOSS OS. They have complete and total control over the OS. That makes them liable, rather than leaving that liability with Microsoft or Google.

This sort of regulation violates the first amendment right to speech, the first amendment right to free association, antitrust, and a whole shitload of really good law.

Nothing about it specifically changes if it is Windows or Linux. By the definitions in the bill, they are just as much the “OS Provider” under Windows as they are Linux.

A windows sysadmin does not need to be granted the authority to alter or disable the binary blob that performs the age verification. Microsoft can restrict that access and maintain control over that aspect of the OS. As they will be held liable for allowing it to be disabled, they are not likely to do so.

Canonical cannot compel a similar restriction in its users and sysadmins, due to the FOSS-ness of the software. They cannot be held responsible for what that sysadmin does with their software. The sysadmin, then, becomes the OS Provider.

I honestly don’t even think the lawmakers thought this far, after reading the bill myself. I’m cautiously optimistic that this will end up in the courts, hopefully dying there.