3 ms·
> What is actually needed is manufacturers who remain responsible and responsive when it comes to the quality of their drivers. They need to support them much l
by zepto 5y ago
> What is actually needed is manufacturers who remain responsible and responsive when it comes to the quality of their drivers. They need to support them much longer than they currently do, and they need to release security fixes promptly.
That requires a level of investment in engineering competence that they aren’t doing because there is little incentive.
How would you suggest changing that?
- fsflover 5y agoWhen the support ends, drivers must be open-sourced.
- zepto 5y agoThat’s just a wish. How do you create the incentive for it?
- fsflover 5y agoI think that just must be a law. I see no other possibility.
- zepto 5y agoHow would the law define ‘support ends’? Also seizing source code at gunpoint seems antithetical to the notion of free software.
- fsflover 5y agoThis is the question of security, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27387169 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27387169. > How would the law define ‘support ends’? Whenever the company refuses to fix security bugs.
- zepto 5y agoWhat if they don’t refuse - but are just slow or inefficient or produce bad fixes?
- fsflover 5y agoThere exist more or less standard times for fixing security bugs. Let's say 90 days. If a company cannot provide security for their customers in a reasonable time, they must be held accountable.
- zepto 5y agoSure - typically the remedy for negligence would be compensation for the impact. Seizing property at gunpoint doesn’t seem related to this.