←back to thread

2071 points K0nserv | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
tzury ◴[] 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 #
qmr ◴[] No.45088947[source]
You're wrong.

My hardware. My decision.

replies(1): >>45089037 #
makeitdouble ◴[] No.45089037[source]
I don't think it will convince you in any way, but the whole point is/will be that it's not your hardware, you're paying for a perpetual license to use a terminal bound to someone else's service.
replies(1): >>45090905 #
1. plst ◴[] No.45090905[source]
And it really shouldn't be this way. Everyone is tricked into believing that they own devices they bought. And we are somehow supposed to accept that the abilities of the device can be reduced after we bought it just because the vendor said so. Same with (lack of) right to repair. It's really not ok, nobody (especially here) should accept that.
replies(1): >>45091405 #
2. makeitdouble ◴[] No.45091405[source]
Yes. Also, it is a crazy hard battle to fight.

The first step needs to be people moving out of the denial phase and realizing that we're already there. Our current laws are written that way.

That's the prerequisite to have any significant initiative to move the needle in the right direction. Most people won't care about fighting hard to secure rights they assume they still have in full.