We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by marcus_holmes » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 2:14 AM UTC

serf wrote: post #53

marcus_holmes wrote: post #47

I know I'm going to get downvoted to hell for this, but I genuinely think it's OK for a device manufacturer to say: "we are building this device to run this software. If you don't want to run this software, then don't buy this device. There are plenty of other devices out there that will run other software, you can buy one of those if you want to run other software - our devices are designed to only run our software,…

>There are plenty of other devices out there that will run other software, you can buy one of those if you want to run other software - our devices are designed to only run our software, and we're only going to support tha except in about a hundred million examples where the niche software that is running on the niche hardware has no viable alternative. In The Real World when you have a component that breaks somewher…

I agree that there's a difference between just not supporting the device running other software, and actively preventing the device from running other software. The latter doesn't serve anyone.

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

#112

Post by lukan » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 2:16 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #100

idle_zealot wrote: post #4

This makes the point that the real battle we should be fighting is not for control of Android/iOS, but the ability to run other operating systems on phones. That would be great, but as the author acknowledges, building those alternatives is basically impossible. Even assuming that building a solid alternative is feasible, though, I don't think their point stands. Generally I'm not keen on legislatively forcing a deve…

> Google and Apple have more power than most nations. And that is what is wrong here. Even the smallest nation should be far more powerful than the largest corporation. But corporations are now more powerful than most nations, including some really big ones. So the only way to solve this is to for an umbrella for nations that offsets the power that these corporations have. The first thing you notice when you arrive a…

"And that is what is wrong here. Even the smallest nation should be far more powerful than the largest corporation"

Since nations can be really small, I don't agree.

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

#113

Post by fijiaarone » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 2:16 AM UTC

We’ve got a solution to that.

What makes you think you can own hardware, you fascist capitalist pig dog!

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

#114

Post by mitthrowaway2 » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 2:17 AM UTC

Almondsetat wrote: post #96

paulryanrogers wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that even the 'safe' devices should at least be open enough to delegate trust to someone besides the original manufacturer. Otherwise it just becomes ewaste once the manufacturer stops support. (Too often they ship vulnerable and outdated software then never fix it.)

If the user cannot be trusted to maintain the hardware and software, then the only responsible thing is to rely on the manufacturer to do so. In those cases, if the support is dropped you buy the newest device.

What if that is the newest device?

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

#115

Post by mjevans » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 2:17 AM UTC

tzury wrote: post #84

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 s…

Incorrect.

Choice 2. Empowered user. The end user is free to CHOOSE to delegate the hardware's approved signing solutions to a third party. Possibly even a third party that is already included in the base firmware such as Microsoft, Apple, OEM, 'Open Source' (sub menu: List of several reputable distros and a choice which might have a big scary message and involved confirmation process to trust the inserted boot media or the URL the user typed in...)

There should also be a reset option, which might involve a jumper or physical key (E.G. clear CMOS) that factory resets any TPM / persistent storage. Yes it'd nuke everything in the enclave but it would release the hardware.

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

#116

Post by stale2002 » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 2:19 AM UTC

tzury wrote: post #84

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 s…

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

Thats fine! Just make sure it is possible for someone to take the same device and remove the locked down protections.

Make it require a difficult/obvious factory reset to enable, if you are concerned about someone being "tricked" into turning off the lockdown.

If someone wants baby mode on, all power too them! Thats their choice. Just like it should be everyone else's choice to own the same hardware and turn it off.

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

#117

Post by fijiaarone » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 2:20 AM UTC

dwattttt wrote: post #49

bsder wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary problem is that we can't build a phone and run it on a cellular carrier network. This is where legislation is needed. Apple and Google are still a problem, but they are a secondary problem.

You'll run into a variant of the tragedy of the commons; without any kind of regulation or provable assertions from people taking part in common communication infrastructure, it'd be quite easy to ruin it for everyone.

Monopolists always talk about the tragedy of the commons, but don’t see anything wrong with the tragedy of the monopoly and don’t want you to think anything can exist in between.

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

#118

Post by jerbearito » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 2:21 AM UTC

This feels like an arbitrary level of abstraction for how much control a user should have. When you buy a phone, you're buying a combination of components designed and paired for that manufacturer's software. Can the user potentially replace that software? Sure, but should they be expected to?

If they just wanted hardware, they could buy their own and piece something together, if we're exploring those kinds of hypotheticals. But buying an Apple or Android device is a different choice and I think, within that context, a user should be able to run the software they want.

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

#119

Post by fijiaarone » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 2:22 AM UTC

fastball wrote: post #71

saurik wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It being difficult is different from it being possible. If a company wants to raise $50m to read all the documentation and build an alternative OS to run on this crazy piece of hardware, as the consumer I still benefit. If you'd prefer, let's stick with repair? I also need all of that information to be able to repair my phone, but again, it wouldn't necessarily be ME who repairs my own phone: I take it to a third-par…

> $50m to build a modern OS from scratch heh.

Nobody would invest $50 million to enter a trillion dollar market.

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

#120

Post by nickthegreek » Mon, Sep 01, 2025, 2:22 AM UTC

Almondsetat wrote: post #96

paulryanrogers wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that even the 'safe' devices should at least be open enough to delegate trust to someone besides the original manufacturer. Otherwise it just becomes ewaste once the manufacturer stops support. (Too often they ship vulnerable and outdated software then never fix it.)

If the user cannot be trusted to maintain the hardware and software, then the only responsible thing is to rely on the manufacturer to do so. In those cases, if the support is dropped you buy the newest device.

Paul knows that. He is arguing for a different future. google is about to remove my ability to remotely control my thermostat. Not even local control. Imagine a world where they would have to choose between continued device support or unlocking… or maybe just building out the local control and cleaning their hands of it. Having corpos as the arbiter of a consumers buying schedule and creating unnecessary easter is pretty undesirable.