3 ms·

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 init

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).

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).