| ▲ | When hardware goes end-of-life, companies need to open-source the software(marcia.no) |
| 264 points by Marciplan 9 hours ago | 83 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | abetusk 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Do you know what the single, most effective way to ensure end-of-life projects open sources the software and hardware? It's if it's *open source*. Not assurances that if they meet their funding goal they'll open source. Not a pinky promise to open source in the future. Not magnanimous decision by upper management to open source if the business fails. It's open sourcing from the outset so that people who invest in their technology can be assured they've fulfilled their promise to the community. Pay for products that produce open source software and hardware. Pay artists that put out libre/free work. Demand projects that ask for money and "will open source in the future" open source now before taking your money. In my view, finger wagging at corporate entities not open sourcing their products after end-of-life amounts to posturing. |
| |
| ▲ | goku12 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Pay for products that produce open source software and hardware. Pay artists that put out libre/free work. Demand projects that ask for money and "will open source in the future" open source now before taking your money. This is the most important part. The markets can be shifted in our favor if the consumers unite and vote with our wallets. Even the biggest MNCs can't resist the demands by a united consumer front. Well known brands have been disappeared after they offended their customer base. This is very difficult in practice, but not impossible. It will need a cultural shift among consumers and that will need a lot of grassroots work by a group of dedicated individuals. But it has been done before - for example, consider the role FSF played in making free software so common. To begin with, consumers have to be taught to believe in and rely on our collective bargaining power, instead of reluctantly accepting exploitative corporate bs. The next will be to take smart decisions on each product. Obviously, only a small group within the society would know what is harmful and what we really need. We should develop a culture where the concerns and recommendations of the subject experts are quickly disseminated among the larger consumer community. I know the above sounds too ambitious. But it's not nearly the hardest goal anyone has achieved through sheer will. Whenever I raise this point in relation to any specific topic on HN, someone always replies with a cynical, dismissive and defeatist take, often arguing that the consumer-hostile product has the 'market demand'. They rarely address the market manipulation that the manufacturers resort to, and the fact that those poor product choices are the result of missing consumer vigilance. Besides it's easy to sound smart by scoffing at someone else's suggestions. But it takes hard work to make a positive impact on society with an original idea. | | |
| ▲ | butvacuum 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > This is the most important part. The markets can be shifted in our favor if the consumers unite and vote with our wallets. have you even glanced at what touching hardware manufacturing involves? The amount of NDAs alone ends this. anything with a smidge of processor performance requires it, same for virtually every method of manufacturing anything. also, FSF did jack squat. |
| |
| ▲ | CivBase 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In most cases the market rewards closed source. You can't reasonably expect that to change by pressuring consumers. We need regulation here. | | |
| ▲ | abetusk 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't claim there's any easy answer. To your point, market rewards are complex and doesn't always reward closed source. I would say the markets can reward companies that add value, and companies can add value by servicing a demand at reduced costs. One cost reduction measure is to use FOSS. For example, if you're building a data center, one cost saving measure is to use Linux as the underlying operating system over MS Windows. I partially agree that pressuring consumers has issues, but the consumers we're talking about in this context are programmers, software developers, electrical engineers and other technically minded folk. Many projects only target dozens or hundreds "consumers" and, for those, advocating for purchasing FOSS might be a valid strategy. I'm open to regulation but it's a coarse tool that favors large corporations. In my opinion, one way to larger regulation is to start small, show value from a growing community adoption and then try to push bigger. Linux was a toy operating system until it wasn't. One minor point on regulation: From what I understand, there are some stipulations for (US) government grants to ensure FOSS artifacts get produced. I think violations of these conditions is common place. So we needed regulation in this area, we successfully got it and now we see that it's only as good as enforcement. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kogepathic 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > What I am asking for: publish a basic GitHub repo with the hardware specs and connection protocols. Let the community build their own apps on top of it. This concept works fine for the author's example of a kitchen scale, but fails when the device in question is something like a router that has secure boot with one key burned into e-fuses. In that case we need both open software and a requirement that the manufacturer escrow signing keys with someone so that after EOL any software can be run. |
| |
| ▲ | Aurornis 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Forcing the release of signing keys would be a security disaster. The first person to grab the expired domain for the auto update server for a IoT device now gets a free botnet. The only real way to make devices securely re-usable with custom firmware requires some explicit steps and action to signal that the user wants to run 3rd-party firmware: A specific button press sequence is enough. You need to require the user to do something explicit to acknowledge that 3rd-party software is being installed, though. Forcing vendors to release their security mechanisms to the public and allow anyone to sign firmware as the company is not what you want, though. | | |
| ▲ | Retr0id 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The OTA firmware update keys ideally shouldn't be the same as the secure boot keys. | |
| ▲ | kogepathic 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Forcing the release of signing keys would be a security disaster. The first person to grab the expired domain for the auto update server for a IoT device now gets a free botnet. Have you seen the state of embedded device security? It is already an unmitigated disaster. Since you bring up botnets, there are far more exploited security vulnerabilities because a vendor EOLed support (or went bankrupt) and their firmware contained bugs that cannot be fixed because a signed firmware is required, or the source code was not provided than because their signing keys were leaked and someone is distributing malicious updates. > Forcing vendors to release their security mechanisms to the public and allow anyone to sign firmware as the company is not what you want, though. Yes, it is what I want. I am perfectly aware of the potential downsides and what I am proposing is worth it. The product is already EOL. In our current era of enshittification, vendor pinky promises to implement a user-bypass in their signed boot chain is not good enough. Look at the Other OS controversy on the PS3 if you want an example of this in practice, or Samsung removing bootloader unlocking in their One UI 8.0 update. > The only real way to make devices securely re-usable with custom firmware requires some explicit steps and action to signal that the user wants to run 3rd-party firmware: A specific button press sequence is enough. You need to require the user to do something explicit to acknowledge that 3rd-party software is being installed, though. The vendor has implemented an internal pad on the laser-welded, weather sealed, IP-rated smart watch that must be shorted to disable secure boot. Opening the device to access this will essentially destroy it, but we preserved the vendor's secure boot signing keys so missioned accomplished! | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Have you seen the state of embedded device security? It is already an unmitigated disaster. If security was an unmitigated disaster on every device then it would be trivial to root them all and install your own software, wouldn’t it? | |
| ▲ | IgorPartola 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But you can still do both. Put a key into escrow that unlocks the device fully, but the key can only be used if the device is physically manipulated. This could mean holding down a button as it boots ups to put it into “enter the unlock key” mode. The mode is useless until the key is published and the key is useless without physical access to the device. And you don’t need to open anything. This could be a purely software thing. As long as you can somehow externally communicate with the device via a button, Bluetooth, Ethernet, etc. you can create a system that would allow this. Hell, you could use a magnet to trigger it. I agree that devices shouldn’t be locked by the manufacturer AND I think that silently unlocking all devices all at once could do harm. |
|
| |
| ▲ | razighter777 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How about just allowing key enrollment with a physical button? | | |
| ▲ | kogepathic 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is very much not an option on most embedded devices. They allow one key to be burned once. IIRC, a certain Marvell SoC datasheet says multiple key slots are supported, but the boot ROM only supports reading the first entry (so really, only one key is supported). | | |
| |
| ▲ | realusername 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Locked bootloader should just be competely forbidden, even for brand new devices. Hardware and phone owners have the right to make any change they see fit on their device, no matter if the manufacturer thinks it's ok or not. | | |
| ▲ | goku12 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree with you fully on this. Unfortunately, the odds are stacked very unfavorably against us. It's not just the manufacturers who resort to these underhanded profiteering tactics. Even the regulatory agencies are for locking down the firmware. Their argument is that an unlocked firmware would allow us to override regulatory restrictions like the RF output power or the IMEI number. That argument has some merit. However, my opinion is that such restrictions should be implemented as hardware interlocks that are unchangeable through software. Thus, we would be free to change the software as we like. Sadly, both the manufacturers and the regulatory agencies tend to completely ignore that solution, so that they can retain their excess control. | | |
| ▲ | realusername 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I always found this claim completely bogus, you can always do something illegal with your phone, there's no way to prevent everything with software. This is the goal of law enforcement and justice in general and in this argument, a hardware manufacturer is having this role, even with this argument, we can see the overreach |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | herf 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Most systems now "fail closed" because they are based on a code signing chain of trust that has no exceptions. It would be better if some portion of these systems were made to "fail open" - you don't want a botnet to take over in this situation but you should be able to delegate code signing duties to a new party when the original one goes under or stops supporting a device. |
|
| ▲ | palata 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I totally agree with the frustration of having hardware I would like to keep using but can't because it got EOL. Like a smart speaker or something. But I don't know if there is a pragmatic way to approach that. I mean, I could also say "it should be illegal to produce e-waste", but what does that mean and how do we actually do it? |
| |
| ▲ | cogman10 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you aren't looking at capturing 100% ewaste, then simple laws around liability and penalties for reduced functionality is all you'd need. Simple things like "if an electronic device, through no fault of the owner, can no longer perform it's main function, then the owner is due a full refund. A company may escape the refund by placing all software required to run the product in the public domain." It'd miss cases like fly by night companies, but you could catch big players like google disabling their thermostats for non-hardware reasons. | | |
| ▲ | fermuch 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The only thing you'd achieve doing that is to change the "main function" of a device to somethings silly, like a thermostat being sold as an art decor with the optional additional of functioning as a thermostat too. | | |
| ▲ | evil-olive 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > change the "main function" of a device to somethings silly, like a thermostat being sold as an art decor that seems like it can be addressed by making sure that the regulators who enforce these laws have more object permanence than a 6 month old baby. like, if I try to sell a "metal sculpture" that by sheer coincidence is capable of firing 9mm ammunition, I'm going to have the ATF knocking on my door real quick, and they're not going to be fooled by me claiming "no that's art" | | |
| ▲ | BobbyTables2 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Probably much easier when the seller is in China and selling the product in the US on Amazon. Why would the ATF go after them instead of YOU? |
| |
| ▲ | SchemaLoad 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is why the legal system is run by people with brains and reasoning and not python scripts. A real person will see that a thermostat is actually a thermostat. |
|
| |
| ▲ | hsbauauvhabzb 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Where does it end, should EOL windows be open sourced because some software/games/hardware do not work on newer windows versions? Open source windows 10 would cannibalise Microsoft’s long term objectives. | | |
| ▲ | godzillabrennus 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Given that Microsoft currently intends to productize Windows users' data to build AI that replaces their users' jobs, it seems reasonable to cannibalize those long-term objectives... | | |
| ▲ | hsbauauvhabzb 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh no I’d love to watch Microsoft burn, but I’m pointing out that any open sourcing abandonware is not in any businesses corporate interests. They’d sooner ‘support’ software forever by a yearly pointless update. Let’s all not forget the ones who wouldn’t want this to happen are the same ones who hold all the power. No government will ever force this. |
| |
| ▲ | ezst 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If that's one way to get to Microsoft abusive planned obsolescence and absurd e-waste, I take it | |
| ▲ | SchemaLoad 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Windows isn't hardware. If the laptops were only capable of running a particular version of Windows XP, then yes they should either be unlocked or their firmware open sourced to allow running something else. | | |
| ▲ | bruce511 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Linux will run on "anything" and is especially good on old OSS. So I feel like MS is the least affected by this whole proposal. Equally, nothing stops you running XP on the device forever. (There are plenty devices out there that are.) So this whole line of comments is somewhat off-topic to when hardware is bricked. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Aurornis 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Now, I'm not asking companies to open-source their entire codebase. That's unrealistic when an app is tied to a larger platform. What I am asking for: publish a basic GitHub repo with the hardware specs and connection protocols. Let the community build their own apps on top of it. The actual proposal in this blog doesn’t make much sense. Having the specs of a device isn’t going to change much because they can be determined by anyone examining the PCB. Most devices don’t have a simple connection protocol, like the Spotify Car Thing used as an example. |
| |
| ▲ | palata 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I understand the idea as "provide what is necessary for someone to reuse the hardware". Just the bare minimum, like how to flash a firmware and a minimal firmware. Now for many products, nobody would spend the time needed to make it actually work, but for some it may be nice. But I agree that it is more complicated than it seems, and realistically that would be on a case by case basis. | | |
| ▲ | buildbot 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Honestly between the ability to flash firmware, interface specs, and maybe PCB schematics that should be enough to use an old device for a motivated individual. My personal pet example of this is old cameras, lenses, and digital backs. Plenty of great hardware out there that currently requires very extensive reverse engineering to use that would be made a lot easier with firmware & schematics. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | protocolture 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I actually think this is a great idea. Not even for "Open Source". Can you imagine if UBNT had to open source its EOL boot chain, so that Cambium was legally entitled to roll its firmware for old Unifi kit? And Vice Versa? The result might not be "Old hardware supported by the community" the result might be "Eternal product updates so we can legally prevent Cambium from taking our customers" |
| |
| ▲ | SchemaLoad 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's the bare minimum but not good enough imo. If your smart home products rely on an external server which no longer exists, the average person will never install a 3rd party firmware and self host the servers. They will just throw it in the bin. Ideally we should just be designing products so they don't have external dependencies. A smart speaker should be able to stream over the local network on a standard protocol which doesn't rely on an external server existing. A lightbulb should be able to be paired using a generic standard without running through the OEMs servers. Thankfully for some devices this does seem to be the trend. Matter over Thread smart devices are not dependent on proprietary hubs, apps, or external servers. | | |
| ▲ | protocolture 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >the average person will never install a 3rd party firmware Heres a kicker. I really dont care about the average person. I care about multimillion dollar stacks of hardware that have support rug pulled on them, leaving millions of customers stuck. I care about small businesses that invest in their communities and find themselves locked into a single vendor without the cost to overhaul their network to move to another one. Throw your Dlink home router in the bin every 3 years. I literally dont care. >Ideally we should just be designing products so they don't have external dependencies. This is good too. But even then, I would apply this logic to stuff like Meraki, where major features go away if you dont buy the license. Lightbulbs are beneath my notice/contempt. |
| |
| ▲ | bigfatkitten 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Open source isn’t going to happen on any real scale, because pretty much any non-trivial commercial product is going to have a ton of third party IP that the manufacturer has no right to give you. What manufacturers should be required to do, at a minimum, is remove any impediment to you running whatever alternative software you choose. |
|
|
| ▲ | teo_zero an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Since the article is about open-sourcing the interface and not the software itself, why only when the product goes end of life? Also, "end of life" is hard to define. Does it mean not being produced, ordered or sold? After how many days, months, etc.? |
| |
| ▲ | mc3301 an hour ago | parent [-] | | I guess it depends?
-Software updates no longer available
-Customer support no longer exists
-End of legal (or voluntary) obligations to stock replacement parts and offer repair services for the hardware |
|
|
| ▲ | fithisux 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Should be a law. But also sell hardware with extensive documentation and if possible conform to a standard. Moreover if the hardware is composite, that should apply to its components. |
|
| ▲ | lacker 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In my experience, whenever you mandate open source software, you get software so unusable that it might as well be closed-source. Like, it doesn't compile, and they ignore all bug reports. |
| |
| ▲ | burnt-resistor an hour ago | parent [-] | | That's a chicken-little, FUD argument because if it were required by law, then everyone would have to do it and be held to the same standard. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | wmf 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Dumping responsibility on "the community" could backfire in a big way. It sounds good at small scale but it becomes a form of entitlement if the whole industry does it. |
| |
| ▲ | wang_li 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s pointless anyway because there is always someone in the community who comes along and rips out support for old hardware. Because, you know, EOL, doesn’t matter that it’s a stationary target. |
|
|
| ▲ | JimDabell 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A huge feature of copyright is that it is time-limited. When the copyright period expires, it passes into the public domain and belongs to everybody. There are two major things that undermine this for software: copyright durations, and lack of source code. Software copyright durations should be at most a few years, and to be eligible for copyright, software should have its source code published or at minimum held in escrow, so that when the copyright expires it is still useful. We already require patents to be published in exchange for the protection we give them; software copyright needs to be the same. |
| |
| ▲ | galangalalgol 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Llms are getting quite good at decompiling things to idiomatic code. How much better do they have to get before open source is a moot point? | | |
| ▲ | IgorPartola 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Open source is as much about the source as it is about the license. Having a source you don’t have the rights to is not worth much. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | drnick1 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Instead of trying to regulate everything, perhaps it would be better if consumers educated themselves and did not buy devices that do not run locally using open protocols in the first place. For me, it's a hard requirement -- I will not buy a "smart" anything device that isn't supported offline by Home Assistant. This restricts my choice set, but so be it. Sometimes, it means doing more work. I won't buy a Ring camera, so I had to build my own system using generic RTSP cameras, some hard drives and a PC. |
| |
| ▲ | goku12 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm pleasantly surprised to see this opinion gain popularity on HN. When I raise the same point, someone usually replies with a cynical and sometimes snarky dismissal. I just wrote a long rant about it [1] in support of somebody else who made the same point. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46612531 |
|
|
| ▲ | chasil 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Phones that don't get updates for 12 months also should be required to unlock their bootloaders, so a 3rd party ROM can be installed, or at least Magisk can be loaded. Mediatek devices are beyond hope, but some could be saved this way that are otherwise trash. |
| |
|
| ▲ | gregsadetsky 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| One great example/case for this would be Aura Frames (recommended to me by a few folks here when I posted an Ask HN) [0] If the company disappears... what happens to the devices and the cloud storage? I've been really enjoying the product (it's really well done, the mobile app works perfectly well) but it's a scary thought. I also found this Reddit thread [1] with some language from the company supposedly saying they would do their best to launch alternative tooling if they disappeared, but I can't find this language anywhere else online. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45341781 [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/homeautomation/comments/1b8vei3/wha... |
| |
| ▲ | baaron 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I have had an itch to disect an Aura frame and do something akin to the Tonie Box jailbreak. But I am too afraid of being responsible for bricking our frame and I can't justify spending the money on one just for R&D. | | |
| ▲ | gregsadetsky 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you’re confident that you can reverse it, happy to throw $50 at this. It would be extremely great if you did this. Anybody else want to crowdfund? :) P.s. if you end up absolutely bricking it, but at least get one great blog post out of it, it’s still worth it ha |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 0xbadcafebee 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| One time I worked at a non-SV megacorp and they estimated the cost of open sourcing one project. It would've taken between 2 and 6 months and cost mid-six figures. Even if they wanted to pay for this when the product is about to be abandoned, they literally can't if they licensed some non-free IP. |
| |
|
| ▲ | vivzkestrel 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| - my opinion is going to sound very controversial here - this also extends to software - when it has been 25 yrs since a game has released, you are no longer making money from your game big time - companies should be forced to open source their games at this point in time - so that we can revive games that companies like ubisoft keep shutting down and removing from steam libraries completely |
| |
| ▲ | bruce511 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This might be true for games, but its not universally true for software. Clearly the Windows NT kernel is older than 25 years, and is still making money. And it's not alone. My own company is still actively developing and selling a program first released in 1998. Even if we wanted to Open Source every build 25 years after it's release, it might be difficult to figure out how to store the code that long. We originally backed up on tape. Good luck restoring that now. Then writable CDs; those have likely degraded (and we'd need to find an old CD Drive to read them.) Even most hard drives of the era are no longer usable - MFM, SCSI ,ATA none of those interfaces exist, and drives were tiny. If you had to choose a media today, that you'd be confident would work in 25 years, what would you pick? Sure, our active code survives because we simply clone the archive every time we replace the server, but we don't have a history if every build ever. Seems like a million years ago I wrote some games. The source code is long gone. (Well it's on 5.25 floppy disks in my garage for 30 years, so functionally gone.) The compiler to make it is long gone. The OS and physical hardware is long gone (although emulators exist. ). I'm sorry to say, but making laws for old software is basically pointless. | | |
| ▲ | snvzz an hour ago | parent [-] | | >Clearly the Windows NT kernel is older than 25 years, and is still making money. Not the one from 25 years ago. >Seems like a million years ago I wrote some games. The source code is long gone. (Well it's on 5.25 floppy disks in my garage for 30 years, so functionally gone.) Legal requirement would have ensured great care in preservation of said source. >I'm sorry to say, but making laws for old software is basically pointless. If it's pointless, then copyright should expire much earlier. |
| |
| ▲ | realusername 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We can indeed see the benefit of releasing game source code with the old Mario and GTA recompilations. |
|
|
| ▲ | natas 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "EOL hardware should mean open-source software" It is if you buy carefully: I don't buy hardware that can't be used with linux or whatever I deem necessary. And then, there's the car... |
|
| ▲ | drpixie 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How about requiring all APIs to be open? Companies are free to run/maintain/drop servers and apps, but we'd have the ability to use the hardware we bought, if we write our own apps. That might actually be good for security. If APIs must be public, proper cloud security becomes necessary (rather than relying on obscurity). |
|
| ▲ | seemaze 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I disagree. The average consumer needs to be educated that if a remote server can brick a device you have already paid money for, you do not own it. It has been leased. The economics of leasing vs buying are well understood by the general public. Allow them to make an honest decision at the time of purchase. |
| |
| ▲ | jen20 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The average consumer needs to be educated that if a remote server can brick a device you have already paid money for, you do not own it. It has been leased. This isn't even the case: generally leased things have to work for some defined period of time ("the least period"). I also think a distinction should be drawn between things bricked because they require a server connection, vs devices bricked because the rightful owner has chosen to do so because they have been stolen. |
|
|
| ▲ | Retr0id 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > And here's the thing: with vibe-coding making development more accessible than ever, this isn't just for hardcore developers anymore. Regular users can actually tinker with this stuff now. Have you tried pointing an LLM agent at a decompiled apk? It could probably write you protocol docs for it. |
|
| ▲ | burnt-resistor an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Vintage hw is even harder to find drivers, BIOSs, SDKs, schematics, manuals, and such for because there's no assurance of proper archival. This is almost always seen whenever downloads were hidden behind Flash, CGI, JS, or other dynamic / link-rotten URI or were on an ftp server which IA failed to mirror. There must be international legal minimum standards of post-sales support and EOL archival caretaking to really reduce e-waste and allow things people paid for to endure rather than forced planned obsolescence like cloud-side or update-based bricking. The corrosive consumer mindset of "new, new, new"; fragile, undocumented, closed-source, short-life tech; and throwing away expensive things is absurd. |
|
| ▲ | j16sdiz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| with most of the electric are just oem stuff from china, how are you going to enforce it? |
|
| ▲ | m463 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think bose did a wise thing with their speakers. Turns "company makes my purchase worthless" to "my purchase now has open source software". ...although it could be "no more product support, talk to random people on github" actually, don't know why there couldn't be legislative or tax support for these kinds of things. |
| |
| ▲ | 0xbadcafebee 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Bose didn't open source anything, the stories' titles were false. | |
| ▲ | irjustin 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > tax support for these kinds of things What are you hoping for with tax support? | | |
| ▲ | m463 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | write-off product if open sourced, or make it charitable or ... nevermind, government rarely does this right. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ktallett 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is where I hope EU do their magic |
|
| ▲ | ellisd 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Dear EU Santa, please force Meta to open source the Facebook Portal as well so I can repurpose relatively decent hardware for something useful and fun, rather than e-waste. |
|
| ▲ | walterbell 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Is there an RSS feed? |
|
| ▲ | wilg 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think you should be allowed to stop supporting a hardware device without open sourcing the software, full stop. I just think that's the least bad option. I'd be fine if manufacturers had to have some kind of standard "nutrition facts" label of what will happen to its functionality if support is ended. |
|
| ▲ | shmerl 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| More like drivers should be open source to begin with. |
| |
| ▲ | skewbone 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | This would be fantastic. I'm trying to write an audio driver for my HT|Omega eClaro PCIe soundcard for Linux by leveraging kernel modules for cards with a similar BOM. It is mostly working, but the main hurdle is the inability to increase the volume to >= 50% of the volume in Windows. I'm setting attenuation correctly to the correct DAC registers and I can hear the opamp relay click on, but can't adjust the final gain. It sure would be great to have the Windows driver source. Worse yet, the company is unresponsive to my requests for any info (schematics, gain setting sequence, anything). | | |
| ▲ | userbinator 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Run Windows driver in a VM and pass-through your device, then dump the registers and compare. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | userbinator 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| but because the app is no longer in development, it's essentially useless the app used to store data for up to 5 users to keep track over time. I miss that! What? Was it storing the data on a cloud server? In that case it's a different story, but a local app should continue working essentially indefinitely. All this focus on source code is IMHO missing the point. RMS also missed this point when he started the GNU project. Source code is neither necessary nor sufficient for (legal) freedom. They just need to relinquish the copyright and release any keys and such getting in the way. Lots of examples otherwise --- I'll refer you to the cracking scene, game modding, etc. In the physical world, products can be "EOL" for decades and the aftermarket will fill in the void if there is demand, often even when the original product is still in production. The original manufacturer never released blueprints and other comparable-to-source-code information; they just don't try to stop the aftermarket. Mid-century cars are a great example of this. tl;dr: stop demanding source code, start demanding freedom. |
|
| ▲ | robomartin 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Nice concept, yet, this isn't realistic but for a few special cases. In simple terms, if a company has a continuum of products of a certain category over time, the designs (hardware, software, manufacturing, testing, etc.) are typically evolutionary in nature. This means that product B inherits from product A, C from B, etc. When product C goes to market, A and B might be EOL. Open sourcing anything related to product C means relinquishing their intellectual property. Nobody in their right mind would do that unless a unique set of conditions are in place to have that make sense. In general terms, this does not happen. |
|
| ▲ | tonyhart7 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| if EOL hardware become open source and community can support it then community would extend that EOL product and making it extensively harder for older customer to buy new product I love to see this future but knowing this, company would never do this |
