3 ms·

This is just absurd to me - there are obvious limitations on the software that can run on a device up and down the stack. An "arbitrary set of software" is not

by hctaw 6y ago

This is just absurd to me - there are obvious limitations on the software that can run on a device up and down the stack. An "arbitrary set of software" is not possible - do you include different instruction sets? What about drivers? APIs? ABIs? Governments shouldn't tell companies what features their products must or must not support. People are free not to buy them. Bundling is a separate issue. > Restrictions on that are strictly artificial and profit-driven. It costs real money to guarantee a piece of software runs on a piece of hardware. The restrictions are not "artificial" - a company has just chosen not to spend time and money on a feature they have figured won't make more money than it costs to support. Call it "profit driven" if you want, everything a company does is profit driven.

varispeed 6y ago
The manufacturer should release any documentation necessary for 3rd party developers to adapt their operating systems or other software. This is to enable e.g. Linux developers to create all necessary drivers by themselves. Nobody asks manufacturers to build any special features. They should not be allowed to prevent 3rd party developers from adapting their software to a new platform. If a platform is not capable of running e.g. Linux and there is no malice, then manufacturer should not be required to add anything to accommodate other operating systems. For example if someone releases an ARM laptop, they should not be required to create a translation API for SPARC just so that an ancient OS could be run, but they should give enough documentation so that someone could adapt an operating system capable of running on that platform by themselves if they wish so.
- hctaw 6y ago
  You are asking manufacturers to build special features - documentation! It costs time and money to put that together and keep it up to date, and documented hardware or software is a commitment to its design that the designer may not want to uphold.
selfhoster11 6y ago
Linux, BSDs, and some other OSes are OK with running on a myriad of disparate architectures and ABIs. The only reason for an open source OS not to run on something is either lack of sufficiently detailed documentation, or code signing that rejects third party code a la trusted boot. Manufacturers should be releasing such documentation, and offering ways to disable trusted boot, change signing keys, or otherwise allow code to boot. Nothing more is required, and nobody is asking for support or assistance in porting anything. > It costs real money to guarantee a piece of software runs on a piece of hardware. The restrictions are not "artificial" - a company has just chosen not to spend time and money on a feature they have figured won't make more money than it costs to support. It also costs money not to include toxic ingredients in our paint and foods, it costs money to dispose of special kinds of waste safely, it costs money to run a warranty service, and it costs money to ensure hardware doesn't electrocute the user. People fought hard to impose those costs, for a reason: they result in a safer end product and benefit the consumer. Hackable hardware costs a tiny bit extra to produce, but the consumer and environmental benefits are significant, just like with those other safety and after-sales measures.

by hctaw 6y ago

varispeed 6y ago

The manufacturer should release any documentation necessary for 3rd party developers to adapt their operating systems or other software. This is to enable e.g. Linux developers to create all necessary drivers by themselves. Nobody asks manufacturers to build any special features. They should not be allowed to prevent 3rd party developers from adapting their software to a new platform. If a platform is not capable of running e.g. Linux and there is no malice, then manufacturer should not be required to add anything to accommodate other operating systems. For example if someone releases an ARM laptop, they should not be required to create a translation API for SPARC just so that an ancient OS could be run, but they should give enough documentation so that someone could adapt an operating system capable of running on that platform by themselves if they wish so.

hctaw 6y ago
You are asking manufacturers to build special features - documentation! It costs time and money to put that together and keep it up to date, and documented hardware or software is a commitment to its design that the designer may not want to uphold.

selfhoster11 6y ago

Linux, BSDs, and some other OSes are OK with running on a myriad of disparate architectures and ABIs. The only reason for an open source OS not to run on something is either lack of sufficiently detailed documentation, or code signing that rejects third party code a la trusted boot. Manufacturers should be releasing such documentation, and offering ways to disable trusted boot, change signing keys, or otherwise allow code to boot. Nothing more is required, and nobody is asking for support or assistance in porting anything. > It costs real money to guarantee a piece of software runs on a piece of hardware. The restrictions are not "artificial" - a company has just chosen not to spend time and money on a feature they have figured won't make more money than it costs to support. It also costs money not to include toxic ingredients in our paint and foods, it costs money to dispose of special kinds of waste safely, it costs money to run a warranty service, and it costs money to ensure hardware doesn't electrocute the user. People fought hard to impose those costs, for a reason: they result in a safer end product and benefit the consumer. Hackable hardware costs a tiny bit extra to produce, but the consumer and environmental benefits are significant, just like with those other safety and after-sales measures.