Ultimately, the problem is much bigger than /etc/machine-id since there are dozens of hardware IDs on any PC that can be used by malicious telemetry to silently to uniquely identify and track you, and the only solution to this problem currently is to make sure you really trust any software you use.

Systemd, in particular, acts a lot like malware for Linux because if you try to reset your machine-id a long list of stuff that breaks in in it. You could make a cron script to reset /etc/machine-id every day, but machine-id is so deep in the stack that you’d also have to reboot to ensure it’s updated.

  • hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    First off, your post wasn’t about machine-id, it was about systemd using machine-id, yes? If you think machine-id is a mistake, blame Linux, not systemd. This is a shift from your original claim.

    Second, I’ve already explained my argument many times. Machine-id was likely a simple solution to a few problems Linux faced, and Linux was able to keep pace with competition and gain popularity. Same with systemd adopting machine-id. If they focused on fingerprint resistance, then other core features of modern Linux distros would have lagged behind, and I might not be using Linux today.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Maybe go back and read through the thread because I very clearly and repeatedly explained myself. I’m not going to do it once again for you here. You’ve basically made this huge assumption that machine-id was somehow critical to adopt for which I’m not aware of any supporting evidence, nor have you bothered providing any rationale for. You just keep stating it as fact. Meanwhile, as I’ve explained, systemd makes the whole situation worse precisely by creating a monolithic structure which everything depends on, and which makes solving the problem more difficult now. I don’t think there’s any point continuing the discussion though because we just keep restating the same points here and I don’t think any further understanding will be gained by anyone from continuing to do that.

      • hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        My evidence was small but should have been easy to understand:

        1. systemd uses machine-id 2 systemd adoption is high amongst distros

        You can argue correlation vs cause but I’d argue this is not zero evidence.

        You are on the other hand assuming that it would have been easy to avoid machine-id. Do you have evidence for this claim?

        Why should I have to provide evidence while you provide none

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          That’s not evidence of anything, it’s just a tautology stating that machine-id is indeed used, which has never been under any dispute throughout this discussion. What I provided was rationale for why machine-id is problematic, and why systemd makes the problem worse. You have not provided any rationale for why it’s necessary aside from stating a tautological fact here. Again, nothing new has been added to the discussion in the process, but you insist on continuing it for reasons unknown. I’ll just let you have the last word here since that’s what you seem to be after.

          Have a good day.

          • hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            it’s just a tautology stating that machine-id is indeed used

            I stated two things, that machine-id is used and that adoption is high. You’re ignoring the latter. Might be correlation or causation, but definitely not tautology.

            You have not provided any rationale for why it’s necessary aside from stating a tautological fact here

            This is a gross misrepresentation of my words. I’m not saying it’s necessary, I’m saying it contributed to the success of some of the most private distros that exist today. In other words a net positive. You provided zero evidence that it was a net negative, and demonstrated ignorance about the complexity of engineering.

            Either you keep misunderstanding my argument, or deliberately misrepresenting it to avoid admitting its merits. It’s becoming clear which is true.