4 ms·

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

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.
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        If you had a strong regulatory framework, it seems like it would suffice for the law to include "it must be possible to install an alternate OS image without the use of tools [other than cables supplied with the device]; completely wiping the device may be required to prepare it for an alternate OS." I don't see it being a good tradeoff to make hundreds of millions of users take the action and wait out the delay of an OS installation so that tens of thousands of users can feel more smugly guaranteed that they'll be able to install an alternate OS. If you're willing to guarantee an install is possible, allowing a default OS installation seems consumer-friendly on balance to me.
        trasz 4y ago
        It could be argued that not being able to boot alternate software, which might be necessary to diagnose the hardware, goes against the right to repair.
        pengaru 4y ago
        > It could be argued that not being able to boot alternate software, which might be necessary to diagnose the hardware, goes against the right to repair. We really need to amend Right to Repair with explicit concepts WRT programmable devices. If the software/firmware isn't strictly immutable (think a ROM in a microwave or fancy digital scale or thermometer type thing), the owner should have an ensured and reasonably facilitated Right to Reprogram (perhaps with additional clauses regarding reproducibility, i.e. ensuring owner's ability to reproduce the original mutable state as delivered at first-sale).

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.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      If you had a strong regulatory framework, it seems like it would suffice for the law to include "it must be possible to install an alternate OS image without the use of tools [other than cables supplied with the device]; completely wiping the device may be required to prepare it for an alternate OS." I don't see it being a good tradeoff to make hundreds of millions of users take the action and wait out the delay of an OS installation so that tens of thousands of users can feel more smugly guaranteed that they'll be able to install an alternate OS. If you're willing to guarantee an install is possible, allowing a default OS installation seems consumer-friendly on balance to me.
      - trasz 4y ago
        It could be argued that not being able to boot alternate software, which might be necessary to diagnose the hardware, goes against the right to repair.
        pengaru 4y ago
        > It could be argued that not being able to boot alternate software, which might be necessary to diagnose the hardware, goes against the right to repair. We really need to amend Right to Repair with explicit concepts WRT programmable devices. If the software/firmware isn't strictly immutable (think a ROM in a microwave or fancy digital scale or thermometer type thing), the owner should have an ensured and reasonably facilitated Right to Reprogram (perhaps with additional clauses regarding reproducibility, i.e. ensuring owner's ability to reproduce the original mutable state as delivered at first-sale).