3 ms·

Allow me to play devil's advocate here. I used to work for a company that produces measurement equipment for professional technicians. It's big, complicated,

Allow me to play devil's advocate here. I used to work for a company that produces measurement equipment for professional technicians. It's big, complicated, dangerous, and expensive equipment that is comparable in cost to the tractors discussed in this article. The products employ a number of measures to prevent end-users from tampering with things that shouldn't be tampered with (especially the firmware). Partly this is to discourage piracy. But mainly this is done because the equipment is quite complicated and there are not many people in the world who understand the technology well enough to make repairs on their own. It's very easy to cause unintentional errors that can cause much more serious damage than the original minor problem. And when the failure of your equipment can cause serious property damage, injury, or death are you going to make it easy for people to modify your product's firmware?

Igglyboo 12y ago
Provide the entirety of the source for free yet lock down the machine from modifications. If the user wants to modify their machine they can contact you for an unlock code at the cost of their warranty.
ffn 12y ago
Considering literally anything can be used to harm, kill, or maim (I actually have a friend who was severely injured by a pineapple) if used incorrectly, I say it's better to have open-source knowledge so we learn how to properly use something rather than sit in proprietary ignorance and hope nothing bad happens. Besides, knives, cars, guns, indoor plumbing, house wiring, etc., are all just as if not more dangerous than farming equipment. Just slap a good ol' MIT license agreement somewhere on your product so that it's clear to the user "if you do X, you void the warranty and you're solely responsible for whatever damage you might cause."
Xorlev 12y ago
Make it open. Then add warnings and void the warranty. If someone has a legitimate need to modify it they should be able. If it's that dangerous one would hope the care used in operating goes goes tenfold for any modifications. If it is big and complicated, your users probably don't want to modify it for fear of causing damage. If they do, the risk is on them. If someone wants to modify it they will. Wouldn't you rather they have all the information rather than trying to obscure it?
- rjdagost 12y ago
  You are assuming that users are making rational assessments of both their skill level and also of the difficulty of the modifications they are seeking to perform. Often the most overly optimistic people are some of the most unskilled. I dealt with these folks for years and unfortunately there are many scenarios when you just have to protect the user from himself for his own good. And no, slapping a "changing firmware voids the warranty" clause to the product sale will not protect you from legal liability when the users hacks your system and loses an arm. There are many real-world scenarios where the Silicon Valley motto of "fail fast, fail often" is just not acceptable.
Zigurd 12y ago
There are alternatives to making your machine unmaintainable (which has it's own risks) after your company goes bust, like monitoring it and adequately documenting it. Repair-ability is often underestimated. SMT was going to be the end of repairable electronics, for example.
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
>But mainly this is done because the equipment is quite complicated Magic! >And when the failure of your equipment can cause serious property damage, injury, or death are you going to make it easy for people to modify your product's firmware? Yes. Everyone has a disclaimer "not to be used on life-support systems, you're responsible when you screw the pooch". >are you going to make it easy for people to modify your product's firmware? It's not always about customizing someone's OEM product; sometimes it's about getting two pieces of equipment to work together. ie: John Deere tractor + implement that John Deere doesn't even make, or customized implement, or even, customized JD tractor for a special purpose.

Igglyboo 12y ago

Provide the entirety of the source for free yet lock down the machine from modifications. If the user wants to modify their machine they can contact you for an unlock code at the cost of their warranty.

ffn 12y ago

Considering literally anything can be used to harm, kill, or maim (I actually have a friend who was severely injured by a pineapple) if used incorrectly, I say it's better to have open-source knowledge so we learn how to properly use something rather than sit in proprietary ignorance and hope nothing bad happens. Besides, knives, cars, guns, indoor plumbing, house wiring, etc., are all just as if not more dangerous than farming equipment. Just slap a good ol' MIT license agreement somewhere on your product so that it's clear to the user "if you do X, you void the warranty and you're solely responsible for whatever damage you might cause."

Xorlev 12y ago

Make it open. Then add warnings and void the warranty. If someone has a legitimate need to modify it they should be able. If it's that dangerous one would hope the care used in operating goes goes tenfold for any modifications. If it is big and complicated, your users probably don't want to modify it for fear of causing damage. If they do, the risk is on them. If someone wants to modify it they will. Wouldn't you rather they have all the information rather than trying to obscure it?

rjdagost 12y ago
You are assuming that users are making rational assessments of both their skill level and also of the difficulty of the modifications they are seeking to perform. Often the most overly optimistic people are some of the most unskilled. I dealt with these folks for years and unfortunately there are many scenarios when you just have to protect the user from himself for his own good. And no, slapping a "changing firmware voids the warranty" clause to the product sale will not protect you from legal liability when the users hacks your system and loses an arm. There are many real-world scenarios where the Silicon Valley motto of "fail fast, fail often" is just not acceptable.

Zigurd 12y ago

There are alternatives to making your machine unmaintainable (which has it's own risks) after your company goes bust, like monitoring it and adequately documenting it. Repair-ability is often underestimated. SMT was going to be the end of repairable electronics, for example.

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago

>But mainly this is done because the equipment is quite complicated Magic! >And when the failure of your equipment can cause serious property damage, injury, or death are you going to make it easy for people to modify your product's firmware? Yes. Everyone has a disclaimer "not to be used on life-support systems, you're responsible when you screw the pooch". >are you going to make it easy for people to modify your product's firmware? It's not always about customizing someone's OEM product; sometimes it's about getting two pieces of equipment to work together. ie: John Deere tractor + implement that John Deere doesn't even make, or customized implement, or even, customized JD tractor for a special purpose.