4 ms·

If it's patented then they have nothing to lose by opening up their source. Proprietary is code for incompetence and an excuse not to expose said incompetence.

kaftoy 11y ago
Many SW projects don't get the same hate for doing the exact same things. Still, I would like to know in what way do you want the source exposed? Just the code files? How is anybody going to judge what's a bug? The usual process is requirement->design->code->workproduct. To be able to start to understand the code, you need to have access to at least the requirements, but usually also the design. Should car makers and the suppliers publish these to? Maybe stream on Twitch.tv the engineering work? And when should it all happen? After the car is released or during the development process? Should we upload today's checkpoint for the next year's Ranger model for EU? I mean, how long should we wait for bug reports before making the cars? Keep in mind OTA updates are out of question at this moment for large care makers and post-SoP (start of production) releases are really expensive. I don't want to sound like an a-hole, but I truly want to understand what people think they will achieve with access to the source code. I am quite sure the VW hack could have gone unnoticed till the end of time. The car market needs a reshape for sure, like an article in The Economist suggested, but let's not get carried away with this wave of revolt and call the hangman on the car makers.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  Requiring open code is a "hangman?" Holy overstatement, Batman.
  - kaftoy 11y ago
    Can't wait to see a forum similar to XDA-developer where custom ROM's for every car will be made available and all the footnotes saying "use at your own risk" and the first 1000 people which, instead of bricking their shit android phones, will end up in the emergency room (if lucky)... Actually, I don't wanna be that cynical, I hope no sane people will use custom ROMs they don't fully trust the source at least on the engine ECU. Open sourcing car SW (especially safety relevant) is a can full of worms. Side effects are being ignored by all these militants. If they wanna be inventive, go ahead and design their own SW from ground up (some projects exist), they will find a way to bypass tuning protection on their cars and they'll be able to run their own brain fart on their own cars, but leave the car makers out. Car makers just don't want them to do it and no body of law will ever be capable of forcing them. At most, car makers will open SW for inspecting commissions, but really low chance to do it for the public. And to me, this is really a hangman situation. An opportunity some people/organizations have waited for some time and are really kicking VW with all force possible, especially from the US direction. But VW fucked up and they can't respond in any way. I wonder how big the fine will be compared to other incidents that actually killed people, or real mass pollution cases (petrol in the sea, etc.).

kaftoy 11y ago

Many SW projects don't get the same hate for doing the exact same things. Still, I would like to know in what way do you want the source exposed? Just the code files? How is anybody going to judge what's a bug? The usual process is requirement->design->code->workproduct. To be able to start to understand the code, you need to have access to at least the requirements, but usually also the design. Should car makers and the suppliers publish these to? Maybe stream on Twitch.tv the engineering work? And when should it all happen? After the car is released or during the development process? Should we upload today's checkpoint for the next year's Ranger model for EU? I mean, how long should we wait for bug reports before making the cars? Keep in mind OTA updates are out of question at this moment for large care makers and post-SoP (start of production) releases are really expensive. I don't want to sound like an a-hole, but I truly want to understand what people think they will achieve with access to the source code. I am quite sure the VW hack could have gone unnoticed till the end of time. The car market needs a reshape for sure, like an article in The Economist suggested, but let's not get carried away with this wave of revolt and call the hangman on the car makers.

Zigurd 11y ago
Requiring open code is a "hangman?" Holy overstatement, Batman.
- kaftoy 11y ago
  Can't wait to see a forum similar to XDA-developer where custom ROM's for every car will be made available and all the footnotes saying "use at your own risk" and the first 1000 people which, instead of bricking their shit android phones, will end up in the emergency room (if lucky)... Actually, I don't wanna be that cynical, I hope no sane people will use custom ROMs they don't fully trust the source at least on the engine ECU. Open sourcing car SW (especially safety relevant) is a can full of worms. Side effects are being ignored by all these militants. If they wanna be inventive, go ahead and design their own SW from ground up (some projects exist), they will find a way to bypass tuning protection on their cars and they'll be able to run their own brain fart on their own cars, but leave the car makers out. Car makers just don't want them to do it and no body of law will ever be capable of forcing them. At most, car makers will open SW for inspecting commissions, but really low chance to do it for the public. And to me, this is really a hangman situation. An opportunity some people/organizations have waited for some time and are really kicking VW with all force possible, especially from the US direction. But VW fucked up and they can't respond in any way. I wonder how big the fine will be compared to other incidents that actually killed people, or real mass pollution cases (petrol in the sea, etc.).