this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
172 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

84878 readers
3259 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

An erra is to come to an end as the Eu says enough is enough and introduces new rules and hefty fines.

all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mumblerfish@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago (4 children)

What does it mean to "open up" an operating system in this context? Do they mean something like the possibility to intall other OSes on their devices, or that the app stores needs to be more open? I'm guessing it does not mean they have to start open source:ing parts of the OS... or?

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 47 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Probably to allow proper sideloading of apps, instead of the contrived bullshit they already tried to pull.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 27 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I would love if device makers were forced to open up their hardware to other OSs. Unlockable bootloaders for all as well as allowing users to install their own signing keys so secure boot can remain enabled.

Granted, there would still be black box firmware required to use half the components inside, but that's another battle.

[–] kayazere@feddit.nl 14 points 2 years ago (3 children)

This should be a right of the consumer that purchased the hardware. Same goes for gaming consoles. You used to be able to officially install Linux on a PlayStation.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"But we're selling the hardware at a loss, so letting you own what you paid for would break our crappy business model" /s

[–] kayazere@feddit.nl 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That didn’t force Value to lock down the Steam Deck.

[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'd be okay with it even if it were on a time delay.

Like if device manufacturers had to publish their software in order to no longer officially support the device that would be a welcome compromise and at least a step in the right direction right?

[–] kayazere@feddit.nl 3 points 2 years ago

Yes I think we this in addition to be able to unlock the boot loader. This allows the community to continue to provide security updates after the company abandoned the product through planned obsolescence.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah agreed to an extent but I would say a massive portion of those who installed linux attempted to pirate games. It makes sense to block it.

I'd prefer to mandate that they allow other stores on the consoles or mandate no advertisements or promotions on the console.

[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's a lie.

The original Sony feature did not give access to all the hardware and thus it was not possible to play ps3 games on it.

Their ban actually motivated people to crack Sony's measures and install Linux with full access to the hardware.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Well it wasnt a lie it was an estimation of the use, I ws in that scene then and it was intrinsically linked to homebrew. I am a proponent of piracy and feel that media should be collected and stored to ensure we dont lost content in the years to come. But I emulate and pirate loads of games and consoles.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago

From the last paragraph, it sounds like the intent is to make it easier to switch devices and services, which would be great

[–] Broken_Monitor@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

We are talking about lawmakers making this demand. They don’t have a fucking clue what the difference is between all these possibilities.

[–] LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.org 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Rather than waiting around for the legal system to nanny me, I've gone ahead and committed to only purchase hardware that does not attempt to restrict me.

[–] Rob200@lemmy.autism.place 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Such as Android, (which some these restrictions seem to be coming to Android to to an extent.)

[–] mal3oon@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

The thing with AOSP though, that it has the potential to stand on its own, given a talented dev team behind it. I see this everywhere in the ROM communities. So actually Android is a great example, despite what a lot of people say about Google "monopoly".

I think you and I have different thresholds for what counts as 'not restricting the user'.

[–] Tuxman@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago

Hey EU! Microsoft is not letting me play Mario Odyssey on their closed system!! Fix it!

[–] h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago

Let's make them open up their hardware instead with all the software or documentation needed to run it and have them compete with aftermarket operating systems.

[–] Rob200@lemmy.autism.place 3 points 2 years ago

Hey comment section I forgot to add the URL to this post before posting it earlier today, I added it in now.

[–] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Damn… this is the first time I don’t agree with the outcome of an EU decision regarding Apple.

[–] dosaki@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why not? Opening up a system to competition usually makes it better, no?

[–] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Their stuff is designed to specifically work with their stuff, and that’s a big part of their IP.

[–] claudiop@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

The I in IP stands for intelectual; AKA, the clever things they reached with their thoughts. The artificial limitations are not IP, simply mechanisms they included exclusivity. They needn't be clever. if (!apple) { rejectApp(); hideDocs() } is not IP.

[–] umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago

Apple opening up would makes to mean toward them more. Still, I'm only going to get a new phone after 2026, after the EU's battery mandate in force.