It creates a Hobson's choice of no tinkering and less malware, or tinkering and greater risks from malware. There should be a "maintenance mode", but the onus of responsibility for breakage should be on the user for system update compatibility without the user being held hostage. This is a false choice and ostensible customizability. If the manufacturer wants to add an "OS warranty void sticker" flag because things maybe broken from tweaking, that's cool, but leaving the user less secure as punishment is wrong.

▲

sprinkly-dust 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It is my experience that this is what Google does with their Pixel phones. It is really quite simple to unlock the bootloader and do whatever you want on a Google Pixel you own (i.e unlocked, no carrier). They even give you this really handy Android flash tool which uses WebUSB to fully restore your device when you mess up. Heck, custom ROMs like GrapheneOS and CalyxOS are even able to sign their own images and allow you to lock the bootloader with a non Google OS.

However, all this comes with the caveat that SafetyNet will flay you alive. The cat and mouse game with Magisk and other methods to maintain root undetected is moot when I've used apps these days that make a fuss when you have developer settings enabled. To be honest, that seems acceptable to me, I can do what I want with my device, software vendors like banks and the like have a say in how I choose to access their more convenient services. I can play nice with them if I want, even using a second phone perhaps, but I have a choice.

▲

burnt-resistor a day ago | parent | next [-]

Nice. I wish Pixels (and recent iPhones Pros) were more repairable. Pixels are the least repairable phone around, so don't drop it at least not without a rugged case. ;)

▲

encom 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>banks and the like have a say in how I choose to access their more convenient services

I disagree. I don't understand how it's fine that I can access my banking services with my Gentoo machine, with everything compiled from source by myself, but it's somehow a problem when I'm not using either Apple or Google certified OS on my phone.

I'm sure they want to prevent the first scenario, like various streaming cartels already do, but I hope something like EU throws a fit if they do.

	▲	keyringlight 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		What kind of actions can gentoo do with your financial accounts, and what levels of user authentication does it use to do it? My phone can effectively act as a bank card with contactless payment or I can transfer up to a daily allowance (that would be painful to me if it was misused) of thousands with biometric auth. Similar to the OS if you're doing that with any browser with a web login you could potentially compile it to behave how you like or lie about what it's doing Because it's a bank there's going to be insurance behind the scenes to cover them if something goes wrong, and I assume part of that is ticking off enough points to be confident a transaction is secure or different payment limits on confidence levels.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> There should be a "maintenance mode", but the onus of responsibility for breakage should be on the user for system update compatibility without the user being held hostage

Isn’t this just a second device? How can you hold a manufacturer liable if the user was given unsupervised time as root?

▲

hilbert42 2 days ago | parent [-]

"How can you hold a manufacturer liable if the user was given unsupervised time as root?"

PCs had root access by default, so why wasn't it a significant problem for them? Banking is possible on a PC without a banking app.

As Noam Chomsky has said, as in politics, manufacturers and OS vendors such as Google and Microsoft have been deliberately "manufacturing concent" — a widespread belief in the population of users that benefits them to the disadvantage of many of said users.

▲

burnt-resistor a day ago | parent | next [-]

Manufactured consent requires media complicity to achieve acceptance of Hobson's choice Accept or Don't Use EULAs and corporate, technofeudal non-ownership and the "shame" of specialized knowledge, tinkering, and modifying things. Nerds were frowned upon until electronics and software people became billionaires in the 80's, and technical vocations are still frowned upon in socially most of America.

PS: While he maybe in effectively hospice now, at least he outlived Kissinger.

	▲	hilbert42 a day ago \| parent [-]
		"Manufactured consent requires media complicity to achieve acceptance of Hobson's choice Accept or Don't" Right, I've never fully understood why the media was (and still is) so complicit. There's a long history of the media, especially the tech media, mags etc. ass-licking the likes of Microsoft, Google et al. It's been horrible sight to watch over the decades. Perhaps it's because of kickbacks, fear of exclusion from events, press releases, or handouts—free software etc., or that many had/have shares in such entities—or the belief that those who run such entities are only one step removed from the gods—hero worshiping. We users would now be in a damn side better prosition if the media had done its job professionally. "technical vocations are still frowned upon in socially most of America." Right again, and America is not the only place, such thought is endemic across the anglosphere.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> PCs had root access by default, so why wasn't it a significant problem for them?

They weren't networked. They were notoriously buggy. And most importantly, they weren't warrantied [1].

Root should always be an option. But once you root, it's fair for the warranty to be voided.

> OS vendors such as Google and Microsoft have been deliberately "manufacturing concent"

Nitpick, the propaganda model [2] attempts to describe traditional mass media. Two of its five pillars (ownership and sourcing) fall apart in a world with smartphones and social media.

[1] https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/university-of-rizal-syst...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model#Criticism

▲

burnt-resistor a day ago | parent | next [-]

My PCs were homebuilt and networked in 1994. All warranties void, except the hardware. Windows 3.1 and Netscape over 28.8 sucked, but it worked.

▲

hilbert42 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Uh? My PCs and corporate PCs I've been responsible for are networked including the internet (they always have been). Moreover, they were warranted with no conditions about what software was run on them.

Where on earth did you get that notion from? Just because some vendor [your links] has conned the unfortunate client into an unacceptable contract doesn't mean it's commonplace or ever was.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Were on earth did you get that notion from?

Literally cited the source.

> My PCs and corporate PCs I've been responsible for were networked including the internet

These came later, in the mid 90s. If you have a source for any PC having been "warranted with no conditions about what software was run on them," I'd love to see it. Practically every warranty for PCs voided if you e.g. overclocked the CPU. And almost all PC warranties were limited warranties, not the no-questions-asked up-to accidental-damage common today.

▲

hilbert42 a day ago | parent [-]

Deliberate abuse and misuse of a product is not covered under any normal warranty, and overclocking the CPU could fall into that category depending on the specific warranty (some CPUs could not be overclocked for that reason so it was irrelevant).

User software is another matter altogether. Users could always install whatever they wanted.

It seems you are not old enough to remember that the PC was originally designed to be modular and flexible and that applied to both the hardware and software.

The whole raison d'être from the S-100 bus of the 1970s and the IBM PC† of the '80 was to provide users with a computer system that was flexible and that users could adjust and alter to suit their needs. This meant that users were actually required to alter the configurations of their PCs. No one would have questioned such action, it was considered completely normal.

Moreover, warranties took this into account and it was a normal procedure to add RAM, disk drives and video cards etc. without voiding the warranty. What's more, one could even upgrade the CPU (and if necessary its clock speed) and the rest of the hardware would still remain in warranty—that's why CPUs until recently were 'socketed' and not soldered into place. Of course, the third-party CPU wouldn't be warranted—not on the PC's warranty anyway.

What you are referring to is a sleight-of-hand by some sleazy ratbag manufacturers to change the PC from an open system and make it proprietary. Any system administrator or corporate buyer (at least until recently) would have objected to any clauses in the warranty that would have forbidden modifying equipment as mentioned. I know, I was head of a government IT department for years and contacts that included such punitive warranties would never have been awarded—they would never have passed my desk. Not that I ever saw any mind you. (BTW, there some were warranty claims, altering the equipment was a non issue.)

What we are seeing now (and this whole discussion) is about reclaiming the open nature of the PC—and our computing equipment in general, our phones, etc.

Fortunately, the Right to Repair movement and the Right of Ownership—people like Louis Rossmann and iFixit—are beginning to make inroads into keeping these sleazy carpetbaggers in check. As we've seen Right to Repair laws are getting enacted.

† The original IBM PCs had full service manuals that included electronic circuit diagrams and even the BIOS source code! To suggest we weren't meant to alter things is sheer nonsense. (I still have my copies of these manuals.)

▲

JumpCrisscross a day ago | parent [-]

> warranties took this into account and it was a normal procedure to add RAM, disk drives and video cards etc. without voiding the warranty

Again, very limited warranties that only covered manufacturing defects. Not the warranties integrated products have today. In most cases, a manufacturing-defect warranty is not voided by rooting your device. (It may become more difficult to prove it’s a manufacturing defect, however. The law varies state to state.)

What fundamentally changed is warranties expanded as products became more integrated and the market expanded beyond power users. You cannot provide accidental-damage insurance for a user adjusting their BIOS.

	▲	hilbert42 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"You cannot provide accidental-damage insurance for a user adjusting their BIOS." Rightly so because adjusting the BIOS won't cause harm! PS: if you are referring to damage caused by oveclocking (if perchance it's available in the BIOS), then this is a user-accessible feature. As such, it'd be covered under warranty. If a manufacturer played hardball and tried to dishonor the warranty then they wouldn't stand a chance against most consumer legislation in most parts of the world. They'd be toast where I am, not only would they have to honor the warranty but they'd be fined in the process. Perhaps you're in a part of the US where consumer legislation is essentially nonexistent then things might be different. (The US is known worldwide for having the worst consumer legislation in the Western world.)