3 ms·

> this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user supply it instead. I really hope you’re joking. In what way would that be

by rafram 4y ago

> this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user supply it instead. I really hope you’re joking. In what way would that be better for anyone but the most hardcore tinkerers?

snvzz 4y ago
Standardization of boot process, driver availability, ease of install. While at it, erradication of shovelware.
- rafram 4y ago
  How would not shipping with an operating system accomplish those things?
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    If by law you can't ship your own OS then you have an incentive to make it as easy as possible for third-party OS developers to make it work with your device and to make it as easy as possible for the user to install said third-party OS.
enriquto 4y ago
So that you are not betrayed by a software that you just purchased but that you cannot change? In what way allowing this betrayal is better for anyone but the people who benefit from it (e.g. by selling your private data, or whatever their unchangeable proprietary software does)?
- rafram 4y ago
  Of course users should be allowed to install new operating systems, but there’s no reason for the phone not to come with one at all. You don’t need to boot the stock ROM even once if you don’t want to - just boot into recovery mode and flash a new one right out of the box. A phone shipping without an operating system at all would make it unusable for the vast majority of the general public.
  - pengaru 4y ago
    > A phone shipping without an operating system at all would make it unusable for the vast majority of the general public. You're assuming the bootstrapping process is complicated, manual, and failure-prone though. There's absolutely no reason why the initial boot couldn't simply involve plugging an included usb thumbdrive into the usb port and turning the device on. It comes on in an uninitialized state, finds an appropriate image provided by the vendor in a normalized format on the thumbdrive, tosses on the screen some information and a YES/NO option. DONE. When the vendor is providing the phone and the image, the shit should Just Work. But by requiring this be the initial process, we'd ensure that everyone could always easily install another image on their hardware by the same mechanism. It literally just adds a step as difficult as plugging in the phone to charge when first turning it on.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      What prevents that initial image from locking the bootloader to prevent the installation of alternate images (possibly by blowing fuses or another OTP mechanism)? Addressing only the first-boot problem doesn't guarantee down the line ability, which seems more important to me than first-boot ability.
      - pengaru 4y ago
        If we had regulatory consumer protections at this level, I think it goes without saying the same regulations would require any such locking down during the initial provisioning would require opt-in by the consumer. The intended salient point of my previous comment is there's just no reason for this to be something impossible to navigate for the majority of users. Personally I think it's important for the provisioning to be part of the process for everyone to undergo. When it's effectively part of the unboxing process, it ensures manufacturers invest in maintaining and polishing the functionality. It will be less buggy, it will be less error-prone, and it helps educate the public on the otherwise invisible line separating firmware/software from hardware.
        4y ago

by rafram 4y ago

snvzz 4y ago

Standardization of boot process, driver availability, ease of install. While at it, erradication of shovelware.

rafram 4y ago
How would not shipping with an operating system accomplish those things?
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  If by law you can't ship your own OS then you have an incentive to make it as easy as possible for third-party OS developers to make it work with your device and to make it as easy as possible for the user to install said third-party OS.

enriquto 4y ago

So that you are not betrayed by a software that you just purchased but that you cannot change? In what way allowing this betrayal is better for anyone but the people who benefit from it (e.g. by selling your private data, or whatever their unchangeable proprietary software does)?

rafram 4y ago
Of course users should be allowed to install new operating systems, but there’s no reason for the phone not to come with one at all. You don’t need to boot the stock ROM even once if you don’t want to - just boot into recovery mode and flash a new one right out of the box. A phone shipping without an operating system at all would make it unusable for the vast majority of the general public.
- pengaru 4y ago
  > A phone shipping without an operating system at all would make it unusable for the vast majority of the general public. You're assuming the bootstrapping process is complicated, manual, and failure-prone though. There's absolutely no reason why the initial boot couldn't simply involve plugging an included usb thumbdrive into the usb port and turning the device on. It comes on in an uninitialized state, finds an appropriate image provided by the vendor in a normalized format on the thumbdrive, tosses on the screen some information and a YES/NO option. DONE. When the vendor is providing the phone and the image, the shit should Just Work. But by requiring this be the initial process, we'd ensure that everyone could always easily install another image on their hardware by the same mechanism. It literally just adds a step as difficult as plugging in the phone to charge when first turning it on.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    What prevents that initial image from locking the bootloader to prevent the installation of alternate images (possibly by blowing fuses or another OTP mechanism)? Addressing only the first-boot problem doesn't guarantee down the line ability, which seems more important to me than first-boot ability.
    - pengaru 4y ago
      If we had regulatory consumer protections at this level, I think it goes without saying the same regulations would require any such locking down during the initial provisioning would require opt-in by the consumer. The intended salient point of my previous comment is there's just no reason for this to be something impossible to navigate for the majority of users. Personally I think it's important for the provisioning to be part of the process for everyone to undergo. When it's effectively part of the unboxing process, it ensures manufacturers invest in maintaining and polishing the functionality. It will be less buggy, it will be less error-prone, and it helps educate the public on the otherwise invisible line separating firmware/software from hardware.
      - 4y ago