3/8/2026 at 1:10:07 PM
It's sad to me how exciting it is to run <your own software> on <your own hardware>by love2read
3/8/2026 at 4:10:09 PM
And sadly it's only going to get harder and harder. More stuff is going to get locked down - not just PCs and PC-adjacent stuff like PS/XBox/etc.It's already somewhat involved to get new firmware on a lot of network connected home devices you buy, but it'll become even more difficult.
3D printers are about to get pushed over the edge via legislation.
Tractors.... gestures wildly at Deere
You can't fix software problems in your dishwasher or fridge.
Liability lawsuits drive a lot of this :/
by dmoy
3/8/2026 at 6:33:27 PM
More customers need to sue for the right to repair things that have substandard firmware.That should especially include cars and phones, with 10x min damages if a vendor or insurance company falsely claims firmware modifications were at fault if problems arise.
(So, if you turn off unnecessary cabin beeping, and then get in an accident and the insurance company rejects because of “unauthorized modifications”, then they pay you and the other party at least 10x actual damages if they end up losing in court.)
Vendor retaliation (undismissable nag screens, force pushed regressions and compatibility breaks) should have even higher damages.
This would immediately enable people to run secure, open variants of android, and also mod their iPhones.
by hedora
3/9/2026 at 11:17:49 AM
Suing requires to much effort; it's better to delegate it to a non-profit fighting for our rights. Support eff.org, if you care.by fsflover
3/8/2026 at 5:48:18 PM
I think what happens is corporate lawyers know their job is to make the boss happy and look good, so once in a while they have brainstorming sessions where they think of ways to use their toolset (knowledge and authority in legal matters) to accomplish that goal. And that usually takes the form of telling the boss he can screw customers or workers in some way, with a legal pretext as rhetorical cover, to save the company a nickel.> Hey boss, as your attorney I think we should ban employees from ever leaning on things because what if one of them got a spinal injury from leaning too much? We could be liable for permitting leaning when they could be cleaning.
by mikkupikku
3/8/2026 at 10:01:16 PM
> 3D printers are about to get pushed over the edge via legislation.That’s specific to Democrat controlled states, unlike age verification requirements. They’ve decided to treat everyone like prisoners rather than imprison criminals.
by Duwensatzaj
3/8/2026 at 4:35:46 PM
> Liability lawsuits drive a lot of this :/That's the official line a lot of the vendors responsible will push, but the evidence for that is...lacking.
Compare that to the simple reality that doing this is more profitable and devices that can't be easily repaired lead to more consistent sales. Capitalism gonna capitalism.
by wolrah
3/8/2026 at 4:57:46 PM
Yea I don't doubt that capitalist greed goes into it too.And in the case of true fear of liability lawsuits, even that also has capitalist greed undertones:
Imagine you're building random-iot-device-with-a-lithium-battery. You could:
1. Build the whole thing so it's easily hackable
Your lawyers point out prior art in liability cases around exploding/burning lithium-powered-devices and won't really approve release without some precautionary measures
2. Properly isolate and test the battery and related systems, ensure they can't possibly overheat even in the face of arbitrary input from the rest of the system, if modified. Lock down the battery parts, leave everything else open.
3. Do some testing on the whole-ass system to assuage your lawyers, and then lock the whole thing down
3 is typically cheaper, a lot of companies then open door 3 instead of 2.
Capitalism and liability lawsuits tag teaming here imo
Side note, the reason we have a litigious society imo is because most companies reach for door #4
4. Yolo, release unsafe product even with company's own firmware, fires and explosions ensue, people are maimed and die, lawsuits follow. Because lawsuits are the only recourse, we don't hold the companies criminally liable or anything.
by dmoy
3/8/2026 at 5:42:54 PM
You don't have to actually do #3. What most companies do is just get a UL certification (to reassure consumers) and put the label "no user-serviceable parts inside" on the case (to meet UL mandates for safety)That's more than enough to avoid civil liability for user stupidity
Locking shit down is something you do for other reasons entirely
by hapless
3/8/2026 at 6:25:39 PM
> Capitalism gonna capitalism.Then respond with more capitalism and don't buy devices that are not user-serviceable.
- Buy a PC instead of a PS5/Xbox
- Buy appliances that are compatible with Home Assistant, or stick to "dumb" devices
- Refuse to connect to the Internet devices such as TVs and cars that do not strictly need it, regardless of "convenience"
- Reject proprietary software and apps
- Only buy phones whose bootloader is unlockable, so that the stock OS can be replaced by something user-controlled
by drnick1
3/9/2026 at 1:47:51 PM
You as an individual are not going to solve a market failure alone, that's the role of regulation.by heavyset_go
3/8/2026 at 6:49:59 PM
I've done all those at some point. But the lions share of people aren't even aware these issues exist. Many when brought up don't care.This isn't really an issue where capitalism prevails in favor of the user like with some privacy issues. We need legislation to pass.
by johnnyanmac
3/9/2026 at 1:12:51 AM
> We need legislation to pass.Laws don't prevent firms from doing illegal things. Without public awareness, nothing will change.
by drnick1
3/9/2026 at 2:07:50 AM
Laws aren't the fine step, but the biggest one. You'd be surprised how many companies comply without any coaxing once they are made aware of new legislator.And for those that don't: we now have a legal channel to report them to. Having the government enforce its laws is more effective than trying to arrange a general boycott.
by johnnyanmac
3/9/2026 at 1:56:47 AM
Do laws serve any purpose? If so, what?by riddley
3/9/2026 at 2:40:41 AM
They do, when they are enforceable and the punishment for violations is credible. But in the tech world, punishment for things such as privacy violations and market abuse most often amounts to a trivial fine, and business then continues as usual.by drnick1
3/9/2026 at 7:10:29 AM
The manufacturers should respond with capitalism:- offer a locked and unlocked version and let the free market decide which is preferred. Provide an unlock option that divorces the device from corporate control and release the hardware to the customer (i.e. a MacBook that can be unlocked and put Linux on, but can never be used for macos again)
- subject to FTC anti-monopolistic regulations just like other industries. In some alternate universe, the FTC decided that sony should not have a monopoly on PS5 games, and competitors should have the ability to enter the market. This is the converse to unlocking, although competitors would still be bound to preventing copyright infringement.
by gosub100
3/9/2026 at 2:03:29 PM
Nobody is gonna buy the unlocked version if it doesn’t include the manufacturer subsidy that’s made back from users buying gamesby rangestransform
3/8/2026 at 9:43:03 PM
> It's already somewhat involved to get new firmware on a lot of network connected home devices you buy, but it'll become even more difficult.We now have the network effect affecting devices too :)
by redbell
3/8/2026 at 10:47:29 PM
> Liability lawsuits drive a lot of this :/Are we sure about this? I always thought that if you modify something and the modification injures you then the OEM shouldn't be liable. This sounds like a shallow dig at liability.
by 2OEH8eoCRo0
3/9/2026 at 12:05:24 AM
It’s unfortunately true. Network equipment vendors were forced to lock down hardware when it was easy to do things like modify transmit power or usable channels.by Aurornis
3/8/2026 at 5:07:32 PM
well, not if this AI stuff pans out. AI will be reversing engineering and making things easy. ;-)by segmondy
3/8/2026 at 5:15:11 PM
If the current trend continues, there won’t be much left to reverse engineer, as your appliances will use the internet for computation, as RAM and processing power are consumed by AI data centers, so…by MrGilbert
3/9/2026 at 11:59:19 AM
nah, if AI dream comes to fruition, then we can rewrite all the code and system to be better. I mean, we are pretty wasteful from resource perspective. We would need 1/20th the CPUs and ram. Your intel 586 cpu will be as good as your computer today with 1gb of ram since everything will be regenerated in the most optimal low level code.by segmondy
3/9/2026 at 3:13:20 PM
But but what if children were to bypass age controls??? Do you not care about children?by Razengan
3/8/2026 at 1:23:41 PM
This has always been the hacker spirit. Make things designed to do one thing do another thing. If it's against the hardware maker's intentions or just completely outside their expectation, even better!by basilgohar
3/8/2026 at 1:27:07 PM
I don't think he's making a comment on the hacker spirit. He's making a comment on the fact that it has somehow become not just commmon, but accepted that a vendor can tell us and force us to use something in the way they want.Imagine, for instance, if you bought a flat head screwdriver, but the manufacturer told you that you could never, ever, under any circumstances use it to pry something open. It was stricly to be used for installing or removing screws.
We would all laugh that vendor out of the room and tell them they're insane. Somehow we stopped doing that with all sorts of newer technologies.
by tw04
3/8/2026 at 2:52:39 PM
But this has always been the case. The circumvention protections certainly became more sophisticated as hardware and software evolved.by lopis
3/8/2026 at 3:44:12 PM
Yes, now they involve calling the cops to enforce a law that microsoft lawyers wrote and then sent lobbyists to bully or trick most of the world into signing. The corruption of the rule of law in modern nation-states into effectively brutal mafia-style enforcement of otherwise untenable business models certainly has facilitated quite a shift in the hardware multinationals use to secure their various unfathomably excessive bagsby advael
3/8/2026 at 1:37:41 PM
I totally understand. But I think these artificial restrictions inspire that rebellious spirit in hackers to circumvent and see what's possible.by basilgohar
3/8/2026 at 1:29:11 PM
> Imagine, for instance, if you bought a flat head screwdriver, but the manufacturer told you that you could never, ever, under any circumstances use it to pry something open. It was stricly to be used for installing or removing screws.Try filing a warranty claim if it bends, the manufacturer will go and tell you to kick rocks.
by mschuster91
3/8/2026 at 1:36:35 PM
That is fine, they're not required to support unexpected use cases. Not the same as forbidding you from using it as you see fit. It's simple really, they can do what they want with their resources, you can do what you want with yours, especially those you paid for.by figassis
3/8/2026 at 2:23:09 PM
Isn’t OP doing just that? A few more hoops through, but it’s not like Sony is going to sue… oh, wait, if he tells anyone else how to do it they might.by jonhohle
3/8/2026 at 2:03:09 PM
But you only have a license to use the screwdriver, it's still their property. You aren't entitled to free use of someone else's property, of course. Just because it's in your possession doesn't mean it's yours!(This is supposed to be satire but feels scarily accurate anyway.)
by LoganDark
3/8/2026 at 2:26:52 PM
Everytime I use an Autodesk product (6days a week) I lament this court case.The whole set of software IP rules seems like mental gymnastics to justify a career (that I like, support, and benefit from) rather than rules that come from axioms or ethics that make sense.
by knollimar
3/8/2026 at 1:29:05 PM
Clearly, no “we” did not, as evidenced by running Linux on a ps5.by irishcoffee
3/8/2026 at 1:56:44 PM
So society laughed at Sony for restricting the OS on the PS5 and refused to buy it? Because I'm pretty sure one person going through a ridiculous effort to install linux isn't reflective of society rejecting the restriction.92.2M units sold, as of today 1 unit? running Linux.
by tw04
3/8/2026 at 3:25:28 PM
> as of today 1 unit? running Linux.I think you are misinterpreting that number. It would be better read as "as of today, the first PS5 running Linux". There were people running racks of PS3s as Linux servers back in the day not as gaming stations but compute using its hardware. People will do crazy things. Do not write them off.
by dylan604
3/8/2026 at 3:55:22 PM
Those PS3s were sold with official Linux support, so running racks of them wasn't quite as crazy as it might have sounded at first.by Uvix
3/8/2026 at 5:06:05 PM
Until Sony revoked the ability to do that, so people went back in to hack them so they could go back to running Linuxby dylan604
3/8/2026 at 8:42:37 PM
They shut it down due to (likely valid) concerns that it could potentially be leveraged to jailbreak the regular PS3 OS and/or run unlicensed commercial games.by musicale
3/8/2026 at 2:01:53 PM
“Society rejecting the restriction” huh? Someone proved you wrong, you need more than one person to do it now? Goal posts, moved.Not everything needs to have political, teenage angst applied to it.
by irishcoffee
3/8/2026 at 3:19:28 PM
Political teenage angst? Is English not your native language? One person taking an action isn’t reflective of society collectively rejecting something. This isn’t an opinion up for debate.90M+ consoles sold is proof society has completely accepted the idea of a locked ecosystem with hardware they don’t get to control.
by tw04
3/8/2026 at 3:37:48 PM
You’re bitching about society accepting something. Teenage angst. You’re nailing it.by irishcoffee
3/8/2026 at 3:40:50 PM
> it has somehow become not just commmon, but accepted that a vendor can tell us and force us to use something in the way they want.The PS5 is a games console and is marketed as such, not a general-purpose computer. Of course they want, and "force", you to use it to play PS5 games. I have a hard time seeing this as coercive when computers still exist, even if architecturally a PS5 is virtually identical to a general-purpose computer in most of the ways that matter, because at least since the Fairchild Channel F, it's always been the case that consoles are just constrained computers.
> Imagine, for instance, if you bought a flat head screwdriver, but the manufacturer told you that you could never, ever, under any circumstances use it to pry something open. It was stricly to be used for installing or removing screws.
> We would all laugh that vendor out of the room and tell them they're insane. Somehow we stopped doing that with all sorts of newer technologies.
Imagine, for instance, if that flat head screwdriver had a means to prevent you from using it to pry things open. Some kind of magical negative mass in the handle that kicks in to cancel out leverage but not torque, or an explosive charge that blows your hand off if more than a certain amount of force is applied non-rotationally, or something. It might seem a little less risible then, and you would probably just opt to buy a screwdriver that doesn't have such restrictions (especially if those restrictions were explosively enforced).
Like, I get it. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the argument that we should be able to do whatever we want with hardware that we own. At the same time, being upset about the PS5 making it impossible to run arbitrary software without hacking feels a little like being upset that your washing machine doesn't clean your dirty dishes as well as it cleans your dirty laundry: it's not made for that, and it's not really reasonable to expect it to be able to do that well if at all.
by TurkTurkleton
3/8/2026 at 4:25:42 PM
> At the same time, being upset about the PS5 making it impossible to run arbitrary software without hacking feels a little like being upset that your washing machine doesn't clean your dirty dishes as well as it cleans your dirty laundry: it's not made for that, and it's not really reasonable to expect it to be able to do that well if at all.Except that's so completely not like what's going on with modern hardware. They're taking general purpose computers and restricting you from doing general purpose computing on them. Like, a dishwasher is made to wash dishes. It has a shape and a design made for washing dishes. You would need to make physical modifications to get it to wash clothes. This is like taking a machine that could wash both dishes and clothes and intentionally stopping it from washing clothes.
This is not OK. This needs to stop. Soon they'll come for our general-purpose computing with "features" for DRM.
by MarsIronPI
3/8/2026 at 9:03:18 PM
Most appliances have fairly general-purpose microcontrollers inside them, but expose a fixed-function interface. Hopefully things like safety interlocks for microwave oven doors are implemented in hardware rather than software.> Soon they'll come for our general-purpose computing with "features" for DRM.
You... haven't noticed all of the existing DRM features?
by musicale
3/8/2026 at 9:58:50 PM
Not on my computer. I'm worried that there's a chance that someday general-purpose computing hardware will be locked down to the same degree that mobile or console hardware is today.by MarsIronPI
3/9/2026 at 6:17:35 AM
I see. So no intel CPUs with secret microcode and internal VMs. No ASICs with opaque internal functions and control software. No machine-readable serial numbers. Certainly no NVIDIA GPUs, and probably no AMD or Intel either. No hard-coded MAC addresses for Ethernet, Bluetooth, or Wi-Fi. No USB. No secure boot or signed firmware. No secure enclaves. And of course no DRM-encumbered software like common web browsers or media playback systems. No Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, Steam, etc. So basically a system that regular people would not want to use.by musicale
3/8/2026 at 6:58:01 PM
> They're taking general purpose computers and restricting you from doing general purpose computing on them.But so much tech hardware is commodified. A pregnancy test probably isn't using hardware dissimilar to your laptop. It just has less of it.
I don't think there's an expectation that every electronic is user programmable. But anything that is general phrpose should be punished as such for trying to put in excessive restrictions. There are arguments for game consoles on both aisles, but I don't agree with the mentality of "anything with general hardware needs general programming ability"
by johnnyanmac
3/8/2026 at 7:21:41 PM
To me, the difference between a pregnancy test and a PS5 is that the pregnancy test isn't programmable at all, whereas a PS5 is programmable by people who have paid Sony for the privilege, and only at the pleasure of Sony. That's the problem.by MarsIronPI
3/8/2026 at 9:10:46 PM
It sounds like you don't like Sony's (and Nintendo's etc.) business model, which involves charging licensing fees to amortize R&D expenses and make money generally.Sony has had this business model since the original PlayStation (1994), but it doesn't seem to have destroyed the ability to run Linux on your PC, or to have a Linux-based game console like the Steam Deck or Steam Machine.
by musicale
3/8/2026 at 9:57:42 PM
Yup, I don't like their business model for the same reason that I don't like the business model of Facebook or TikTok. Just because consumers should be able to choose something harmful to themselves doesn't mean that the companies should offer it.by MarsIronPI
3/8/2026 at 10:20:29 PM
Is Mario really harmful?You may also be surprised that some people consider the fixed-function design of game consoles to be a positive thing.
by musicale
3/8/2026 at 3:10:36 PM
I get what you are saying. But this always would have been exciting.This is like a post saying someone got Apple Basic running on their Commodore 64.
by LeFantome
3/8/2026 at 3:25:11 PM
More like if Commodore used to sell an official Apple Basic package and then stopped:by andai
3/8/2026 at 3:48:53 PM
PlayStation 3 similarly had the option to run alternative operating systems, virtualized [1]. I remember running Yellow Dog Linux on a couple of PS3s. (edit. just found the YDL 5.0, 6.0, and 6.2 buried somewhere on my NAS).by buran77
3/8/2026 at 3:24:58 PM
Agree with both you and OP.Hardware we buy should be open to be modified easily with a common open source scheme - but any modifications should void warranty.
At the same time, we don't live in that world and so this post and the work done is still cool and exciting.
by SecretDreams
3/8/2026 at 6:35:05 PM
It's unfortunately par for the course for something like a console to be like this. Consoles are often subsidized by licensing and publishing costs of games, so preventing you from running your own software is within their best interest.by 6SixTy
3/8/2026 at 1:32:24 PM
We need to bring back this culture.by jsemrau
3/8/2026 at 3:15:24 PM
Did it go somewhere?by LeFantome
3/8/2026 at 4:48:12 PM
Witness all of the people who, when you suggest that there is demand for open hardware products, show up to tell you that ordinary people don't care about that so STFU nerd. As if they're afraid someone would actually offer it.The problem, of course, is that ordinary people don't care at first, because at first the collar is only installed around your neck and not yet used to shock you, and people with no eye for the future say, what's the big deal? It's just a collar.
It's only after they're around enough necks that people start getting zapped for modifying the OS, but even then some people will say, it's for your own good, why are you defending "hackers"?
Then people start getting shocked for trying to compete with the incumbents or expressing unpopular opinions, but by that point every device without a collar is some kind of obscure Linux Phone with a high price and low specs.
Now you're at the point where all someone has to do is make a competitive device which is otherwise identical to the one they were going to make anyway but it doesn't come with a shock collar and ordinary people will want it because they're tired of getting screwed. But the same critics will show up to say that ordinary people don't care about that and point to the fact that they didn't when it was first being rolled out and nobody was getting electrocuted yet.
by AnthonyMouse
3/8/2026 at 11:07:00 PM
Where did Fry's Electronics go? Where can I go an buy robot parts or even used tech parts?Let's say I want to build a drone from scratch.
by jsemrau
3/9/2026 at 2:56:03 PM
Have you heard of this thing called the internet?by jaapz
3/8/2026 at 3:27:36 PM
Right? They're asking that question on a forum dedicated to the subject that has been around for nearly two decades. The entirety of Silicon Valley was born in people's garages. Not really sure where it's meant to come back fromby dylan604
3/8/2026 at 5:07:48 PM
The problem is that the 'developers' you are seeing today are not the same from the 90s that have that hacker mindset and curiosity.Instead, it has been hijacked by those who have never opened a PC before or were never interested in the field to begin with and saw it as a VC vehicle get-rich-quick scheme infiltrated by tons of grifters.
Once the money dries up post-extraction then they (grifters) abandon the field to the true 'hackers' still in the field doing clever projects like this one.
by rvz
3/8/2026 at 5:31:48 PM
To me, the difference is that "hackers" has become focused on software. The early days in SV they had to invent the hardware. Now, hardware is commodity, and it has a novel idea for a hardware hacker to make the news. The Zuck hacked his first iterations of what became Facebook together. Apps like Snapchat and what not are just software hacked together using the hardware in novel ways. Things like Flipper0 are interesting hardware from hackers. Some interesting things find their way to the crowd funding sites that ultimately die on the vine. Sites for 3D printing show there are still some mechanical hardware types that still tinker.Overall, it just shows that the hacker ethos never went any where. It's just younger people being exposed and thinking it's something new.
by dylan604
3/8/2026 at 11:09:23 PM
Most "hackers" now are build to sell (i.e., micro-entrepreneurship), not build for intellectual curiosity.by jsemrau
3/8/2026 at 7:00:03 PM
Society took away a lot of the free time enjoyed decades earlier. We're working harder and longer hours for less pay than we have in some 50 years.I'd love to do stuff like this but am still looking for a job. Let alone one with proper work life balances.
by johnnyanmac
3/8/2026 at 9:31:03 PM
I absolutely hate the design of the "app store" which means that you can't revert to an older version when you find out the new one changes a critical feature that you used previously.by whycome
3/8/2026 at 1:27:55 PM
It's sad to see someone running doom on a pregnancy tester?by pkilgore
3/8/2026 at 1:39:01 PM
No, people might be misreading his comment.(To me) it seems that, he is saying how bad the situation of hardware/lock-in is that we are being excited over being able to run our own software on said hardware in the first place (Aka the reason why we are here)
Being able to run doom on pregnancy tester is actually good. If I paid for the tester, I am gonna use the whole tester to run doom (LOL)
So I think this is what they meant.
by Imustaskforhelp
3/8/2026 at 2:13:01 PM
Or to put it more concretely in this context: Sony used to let you run Linux on PlayStations! There were all kinds of interesting uses for PS3s outside of gaming that they (initially) supported.by threetonesun
3/8/2026 at 4:08:29 PM
Actually it was a bit more nuanced.After Yaroze, Sony thought PS2Linux would bring some indies into PS2, instead it got full of MAME and other emulators, hence why PS3 no longer offered graphics acceleration.
by pjmlp
3/8/2026 at 3:14:58 PM
I do not own any Sony products and I am not a corporate cheerleader.But “we” have to own that the reason that Sony stopped selling/supporting Linux in their machines is because “we” used it to circumvent copyright on closed-source games. It is the problem with “our” ethics, not theirs that led to Linux getting pulled.
by LeFantome
3/8/2026 at 3:32:00 PM
That's BS. Linux/OtherOS on the PS3 only existed so that Sony could evade European tariffs on pure gaming consoles that were markedly higher than on general-purpose computers. Once the tariffs went, so went OtherOS support.In any case OtherOS didn't have access to the full system resources and, on top of that, Sony actually lost money on PS3s because it was priced as a loss-leader, with game purchases being supposed to earn the actual money.
by mschuster91
3/8/2026 at 2:07:06 PM
That entailed overcoming inherent technical problems, not roadblocks placed by the manufacturer with the intent of making it harder than it needs to be. It’s like the difference between climbing a mountain and breaking into a locked building.by wat10000
3/8/2026 at 5:16:36 PM
It’s pretty rare that you actively cant, but it makes sense a lot of businesses wouldn’t bother to try and assist you with doing that. But some definitely don’t want you to, and I get that that’s sad. Always makes space for a competitor though!by jama211
3/8/2026 at 5:03:18 PM
Why sad?by RobRivera
3/8/2026 at 5:30:20 PM
Because it should be a given and super boring.by stavros
3/8/2026 at 6:33:32 PM
Particularly when we were already doing this in the late 90s with the original Xbox. I ran debian on mine.I would have thought we'd have soft-mods to allow this within a couple weeks of any new console launch, and perhaps the hardware vendors would even be supporting it by now.
by sejje
3/8/2026 at 6:46:35 PM
Yeah, but alas, since they sell the hardware at a loss, they really don't want you using it for anything that's not "buy games from us".I was really looking forward to the Steam Machine but the RAM shortage ruined their plans.
by stavros
3/8/2026 at 10:05:53 PM
Same. I'm still going to get one someday.I want to support gaming on linux, and the steam machine was what made it great.
by sejje
3/8/2026 at 10:19:42 PM
Oh I'm definitely getting the whole suite, just to support them. I don't even game that much (though the Steam deck made me game much more).by stavros
3/8/2026 at 8:42:00 PM
I mean, the hardware is sold at a loss so it makes perfect sense.by nickysielicki
3/8/2026 at 1:58:09 PM
Most computers in the world don't need the ability to have their operating system changed or run custom user built software. Consumers will be fine with the preexisting software and such a feature is unneeded complexity that almost no one will use.by charcircuit
3/8/2026 at 3:44:13 PM
> Most computers in the world don't need the ability to have their operating system changed or run custom user built software.That's not true? Nearly every laptop, desktop, and server can trivially run whatever OS+software, of course, but also currently at least virtually all Android devices can run arbitrary user built/supplied software (I grant that, unfortunately, replacing the OS is often harder). Embedded stuff varies, but frequently anything capable of running a general purpose OS (which IMHO is generally the line to call it a "computer") can have it replaced.
by yjftsjthsd-h
3/8/2026 at 9:57:14 PM
Being able to play Doom on a microwave has novelty because microwave manufacturers don't support running random software on their microwaves since they are optimizing the product to be a microwave.by charcircuit
3/8/2026 at 11:02:33 PM
As I said,>> Embedded stuff varies, but frequently anything capable of running a general purpose OS (which IMHO is generally the line to call it a "computer") can have it replaced.
A microwave isn't generally viewed as a computer. In particular, if not even the manufacturer isn't running arbitrary code on it (only a tiny little program to do... microwave stuff...) then I view it as out of scope to an argument about artificially-restricted computers.
by yjftsjthsd-h
3/8/2026 at 4:02:14 PM
I HATE this argument. If the PC had been locked down like smartphones are today, we would never have had Linux on the desktop.Also, replace "consumers" by "people" who might need to control their devices to do things that may be against the interests of the manufacturer, like removing ads and surveillance.
by ulrikrasmussen
3/8/2026 at 10:50:43 PM
we would never have had Linux at allMaybe sco and similar would have managed to fight against windows, but i suspect online would be decades behind what it is without the freedom we knew in the 80s and 90s that so many HN pundits are salivating to grow away.
Maybe a minitel system would be better - we would t have the problems of social media at least.
by hdgvhicv
3/9/2026 at 8:00:12 AM
Well, sure. But being free *from* a few bad things is rarely worth it when the price is giving up being free *to* do a lot of other good things.by ulrikrasmussen
3/8/2026 at 9:55:10 PM
>we would never have had Linux on the desktop.In such an alternate timeline there may be another operating system even better than Linux.
by charcircuit
3/9/2026 at 7:58:22 AM
I highly doubt that. Monopolies do not tend to develop what is best for consumers, but what is best for their bottom lines.It also depends on the criteria on which you judge it. I may be better in terms of compatibility because everything would be an expensive walled garden like Apple's. It would be worse in terms of choice because niche peripheral makers might not be able to enter the market at all. And it would certainly, almost guaranteed, be much much worse in terms of personal freedom because no-one would be allowed to modify any parts of any piece of software without some cryptographic hardware module stopping them. Imagine that situation, and then imagine how a government would use that to impose surveillance on all personal computing devices.
by ulrikrasmussen
3/9/2026 at 8:15:09 PM
There is no monopoly on operating systems. Anyone is free to implement one and anyone is free to implement the APIs of another to support the other's apps on their own.by charcircuit
3/8/2026 at 3:12:49 PM
If consumers are fine with the pre-existing software and will never try to use anything else, why do we lock them out though?Something doesn't add up.
by realusername
3/8/2026 at 9:44:13 PM
>why do we lock them out though?It reduces security, expands attack surface, reputational damage from people complaining about their phones bricking doing something unsupported.
by charcircuit
3/8/2026 at 10:42:31 PM
That's how all these vendors justify their actions once they decide it's time to kill off their competition and impose arbitrary limitations. But how real is this "damage", actually? How big do you think the overlap between 'users who want to install custom operating systems', 'users who have no idea what they're doing' and 'users who would loudly complain after an obvious mistake on their own part' is? The #1 source of reputational damage for vendors is people breaking something within their controlled environments. The bar to run a custom OS is already so high for average people that it will never matter or be a social engineering attack vector, just because of how niche it is. We've been able to run anything on PCs for over 40 years, custom firmware for phones goes back at least 25 years, and despite all of this, the world hasn't gone up in flames yet. The security pressure exists, but it's minimal compared to everything else. The real reasons are profit-driven.by tavavex
3/9/2026 at 12:35:13 AM
>The bar to run a custom OS is already so high for average people that it will never matter or be a social engineering attack vector>We've been able to run anything on PCs for over 40 years
And the PC platform has had terrible security. Do not use it as an example of everything being fine. You are forgetting the malware for PCs which would spread by writing a custom operating system on a removal media. Then that removable media is plugged into another PC and when that PC boots up it boots that operating system which goes ahead and infects the OS installed to the hard disk along with any other removable media.
by charcircuit
3/9/2026 at 8:24:19 PM
I'm using PCs as an example precisely because they're not absolutely secure, yet despite this, everything is going fine, because the vectors of attack are so esoteric. Tell me, when's the last time you've heard of an attack like what you described? Would you say that these attacks are equal in scale and threat to the countless times when millions of people were endangered through a botched OS security update, sandbox escape exploits, and other normal ways of doing malware? Is this a scalable attack that actually happens day-to-day? Is this something you worry about as much as securing your PC from normal exploits from the internet?And your example is ignoring two things that make it even more absurd. One, I've never seen a computer that will auto-boot into removable media, the default is always existing media first, and changing that requires user input. But also, if you have direct physical access to the PC, you don't need these complex basically-nonexistent boot exploits. If you have physical access, it's already over. You can invisibly MitM the network, monitor, keyboard/mouse inputs even if the device doesn't allow custom systems. You can wait for the system to be logged in, then take any data you need. If you're a government actor, you may even have devices that extract unencrypted data from almost anything using zero-days, even the most 'secure' computers or phones.
by tavavex
3/9/2026 at 7:19:47 AM
Do they even care about reputational damage?Since you picked the phone as an example, right now when I search for ChatGPT in the Play Store, the top app is a fake app with a counterfeit logo. Is it really this platform which was supposed to improve security?
by realusername
3/9/2026 at 8:17:52 PM
Play Store moderation is imperfect and adversarial. That is a harder problem then protecting the boot chain.by charcircuit
3/9/2026 at 8:45:12 PM
It's not even moderation, the Play Store manually put results before of the actual results in exchange of money.It's a harder problem for sure but harder because Google earns money from the problem.
by realusername