4 ms·

>GE app #12 that's going to be abandoned in two years anyway Not merely abandoned, but abandoned with gaping security flaws, no other way to update the device,

>GE app #12 that's going to be abandoned in two years anyway Not merely abandoned, but abandoned with gaping security flaws, no other way to update the device, and an always-on internet connection. We really have not thought this IOT stuff through.

lstamour 6y ago
Inevitably the long-term solution is going to be more layers of abstraction. Web application firewalls for every wifi device in your router, for example, or operating systems maintained by cloud vendors (for “edge devices”). If always transmitting connectivity isn’t required, maybe HomeKit-style app-based (offline or app-based updating) devices that use other devices as repeaters which can then be reverse engineered from their apps (largely illegally in many countries). I don’t think we’ll see open specs unless Apple or Google or government make a significant push, or a future large-scale chipset manufacturer uses open source as a way to both get customers and maintain long-term support for their chips. But we know how well GPL works with most hardware (poorly, unusably, etc.)
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  What worries me is not layers of abstraction, but layers of control. Who owns that WAF? Who owns the apps? And if it's not user that owns it in practical (control) sense, then I hate it already and personally won't buy it.
dcow 6y ago
Or, maybe the whole impetus behind the free software movement isn't wacko bullshit after all... We had a solution and everyone pissed on it because the misinformed and perhaps intellectually lazy lawyers and leaders and yes even engineers convinced everyone that the GPL was unfit for a capitalist society. “Was” is admittedly unfair because free software is not actually dead. It’s just popularly dead. If this type of crap actually outrages you, it’s not GDPR that we need (it makes no sense if you think about it, too), it’s smarter consumers and more courageous engineers/leaders. Go speak with your feet and use free software products. And help breath life into a culture that has been wounded by greed.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  At the risk of repeating the "Stallman was right" meme, Stallman really was right about this stuff. The more I work in and with tech, the more I'm appreciating GNU/FSF philosophy. Some time ago I finally understood what's the point of GPL vs. just Open Source - the former is written with end users in mind, not developers. And unfortunately, these days not only developers aren't end users, they're very often working against end users.
  - smichel17 6y ago
    Yep. Permissive licenses (MIT et al) maximize freedom for developers. Copyleft licenses place sometimes-frustrating restrictions on developers in order to guarantee more freedom for end users. I like to compare it to laws against slavery. Yes, they impose restrictions on would-be owners, but society is freer as a result. or any abuse of power imbalances.
    - skinkestek 6y ago
      > Yes, they impose restrictions on would-be owners, but society is freer as a result. I'm still going to prefer MIT but this is probably the best rhetoric I've seen in favor of copyleft.
- ohazi 6y ago
  We need a free hardware movement.
  - dcow 6y ago
    Hardware is, in fact, exactly how the free software movement was born. Stallman couldn't service his Xerox copier due to proprietary software and license restrictions. Sound familiar? It has always been about combatting the artificial control companies have individually and collectively to dictate how users interact with hardware they own due to proprietary unfree software.
- sukilot 6y ago

lstamour 6y ago

Inevitably the long-term solution is going to be more layers of abstraction. Web application firewalls for every wifi device in your router, for example, or operating systems maintained by cloud vendors (for “edge devices”). If always transmitting connectivity isn’t required, maybe HomeKit-style app-based (offline or app-based updating) devices that use other devices as repeaters which can then be reverse engineered from their apps (largely illegally in many countries). I don’t think we’ll see open specs unless Apple or Google or government make a significant push, or a future large-scale chipset manufacturer uses open source as a way to both get customers and maintain long-term support for their chips. But we know how well GPL works with most hardware (poorly, unusably, etc.)

TeMPOraL 6y ago
What worries me is not layers of abstraction, but layers of control. Who owns that WAF? Who owns the apps? And if it's not user that owns it in practical (control) sense, then I hate it already and personally won't buy it.

dcow 6y ago

Or, maybe the whole impetus behind the free software movement isn't wacko bullshit after all... We had a solution and everyone pissed on it because the misinformed and perhaps intellectually lazy lawyers and leaders and yes even engineers convinced everyone that the GPL was unfit for a capitalist society. “Was” is admittedly unfair because free software is not actually dead. It’s just popularly dead. If this type of crap actually outrages you, it’s not GDPR that we need (it makes no sense if you think about it, too), it’s smarter consumers and more courageous engineers/leaders. Go speak with your feet and use free software products. And help breath life into a culture that has been wounded by greed.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
At the risk of repeating the "Stallman was right" meme, Stallman really was right about this stuff. The more I work in and with tech, the more I'm appreciating GNU/FSF philosophy. Some time ago I finally understood what's the point of GPL vs. just Open Source - the former is written with end users in mind, not developers. And unfortunately, these days not only developers aren't end users, they're very often working against end users.
- smichel17 6y ago
  Yep. Permissive licenses (MIT et al) maximize freedom for developers. Copyleft licenses place sometimes-frustrating restrictions on developers in order to guarantee more freedom for end users. I like to compare it to laws against slavery. Yes, they impose restrictions on would-be owners, but society is freer as a result. or any abuse of power imbalances.
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    > Yes, they impose restrictions on would-be owners, but society is freer as a result. I'm still going to prefer MIT but this is probably the best rhetoric I've seen in favor of copyleft.
ohazi 6y ago
We need a free hardware movement.
- dcow 6y ago
  Hardware is, in fact, exactly how the free software movement was born. Stallman couldn't service his Xerox copier due to proprietary software and license restrictions. Sound familiar? It has always been about combatting the artificial control companies have individually and collectively to dictate how users interact with hardware they own due to proprietary unfree software.
sukilot 6y ago