←back to thread

We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

(hugotunius.se)
2071 points K0nserv | 4 comments | 31 Aug 25 21:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.65s | source
Show context
tzury ◴[01 Sep 25 01:47 UTC] No.45088695[source]▶
We need both options to coexist:

1. Open, hackable hardware for those who want full control and for driving innovation

2. Locked-down, managed devices for vulnerable users who benefit from protection

This concept of "I should run any code on hardware I own" is completely wrong as a universal principle. Yes, we absolutely should be able to run any code we want on open hardware we own - that option must exist. But we should not expect manufacturers of phones and tablets to allow anyone to run any code on every device, since this will cause harm to many users.

There should be more open and hackable products available in the market. The DIY mindset at the junction of hardware and software is crucial for tech innovation - we wouldn't be where we are today without it. However, I also want regulations and restrictions on the phones I buy for my kids and grandparents. They need protection from themselves and from bad actors.

The market should serve both groups: those who want to tinker and innovate, and those who need a safe, managed experience. The problem isn't that locked-down devices exist - it's that we don't have enough truly open alternatives for those who want them.

replies(23): >>45088735 #>>45088761 #>>45088840 #>>45088846 #>>45088867 #>>45088917 #>>45088924 #>>45088947 #>>45089091 #>>45089098 #>>45089274 #>>45089445 #>>45089853 #>>45090037 #>>45090783 #>>45091788 #>>45091834 #>>45092235 #>>45092332 #>>45092365 #>>45092417 #>>45092508 #>>45094664 #
fellowmartian ◴[01 Sep 25 02:01 UTC] No.45088761[source]▶
I think this is a false dichotomy. Open hardware with open source software would be more protected simply by being more stress tested and vetted by more people. If you need even more protection you can employ zero-knowledge proofs and other trustless technologies. I have long been dreaming about some kind of hardware/software co-op creating non-enshittifying versions of thermostats, electric kettles, EV chargers, solar inverters, etc, etc. Hackable for people who want it, simply non-rent-seeking for everyone else.
replies(2): >>45088783 #>>45089393 #
positron26 ◴[01 Sep 25 02:04 UTC] No.45088783[source]▶
> more stress tested and vetted by more people

Grandma and grandpa aren't reading the source code and certainly not up at a professional level. This is one of the core misconceptions of the "free/libre" formulation of OSS.

replies(2): >>45088824 #>>45089143 #
fellowmartian ◴[01 Sep 25 02:14 UTC] No.45088824[source]▶
I’m not suggesting grandpa reads code, contributors do. We all know that most commercial code is much shittier than open source. Sure, commercial code usually covers more edge cases and has better UX, but is cobbled together from legacy and random product asks.
replies(3): >>45088894 #>>45088972 #>>45089008 #
jen20 ◴[01 Sep 25 02:55 UTC] No.45089008[source]▶
> We all know that most commercial code is much shittier than open source

Citation needed. Seriously.

replies(1): >>45089068 #
1. rmunn ◴[01 Sep 25 03:06 UTC] No.45089068[source]▶
I'm not the one who made that assertion, but... Windows Millenium Edition almost makes his case all by itself.
replies(1): >>45089075 #
2. jen20 ◴[01 Sep 25 03:08 UTC] No.45089075[source]▶
That makes the case that a _single_ piece of commercial code was shitty.

I could make the same argument about MongoDB of a decade ago implying that all open source is trash...

replies(2): >>45089311 #>>45089912 #
3. rmunn ◴[01 Sep 25 03:59 UTC] No.45089311[source]▶
Norton, McAfee, in fact most virus scanners.

Plenty of examples I've heard about but haven't actually used myself so I can't confidently assert the quality of the software. But Windows ME, Norton, and McAfee, I have personal experience with.

Oh, and also Windows Vista.

Plenty of badly-written open source software, too; won't argue against that. But one of the biggest reasons, for me at least, why I prefer to use open-source software rather than commercial if I have a choice is bug fixes. I've reported over a dozen bugs against open-source software I use over the years; most of them have been fixed (in a couple cases I was able to fix it myself). I've rarely even been able to report a bug against closed-source software, let alone get those bugs fixed. So even if if were true that commercial software as a whole has similar or better quality than open-source, my personal experience is the other way around: open-source quality gets better over time while the closed-source software that I have to use (lacking open-source alternatives) doesn't improve the same way.

4. nik282000 ◴[01 Sep 25 06:10 UTC] No.45089912[source]▶
Windows ME, Windows Vista, Internet Explorer, Adobe PDF Reader, Siemens Step7, Norton, McAffe, the list goes on. If you look at it as a function of terribleness * users then corporate ware takes the cake. There are loads of terrible open projects but nobody uses them.