Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 359 posts

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#181

Post by nas »

randomdata wrote: post #152
uuilly wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. I work in Ag and it seems crazy that someone should be able to buy a machine like those Deere sells and be able to modify the controls SW. Can United Airlines update the controls SW on Boeing 747? I'm not sure how tractors are any different.

I also work in ag, and own John Deere equipment. Is anyone truly asking for source code? I've read that narrative here and there, but it seems what is really being sought after is access to the tools and manuals that the authorized dealers have access to. The service techs repairing these machines aren't going to be modifying the code either, and they don't need to. As an aside, I remember the last time I had a John…

I think documentation is the right way to handle this. Require enough documentation that 3rd party repair shops can fix the machines. Even if they can't do much with the embedded controllers, at least document the sensors and the wiring. Otherwise, these machines are completely useless without the manufacturer and their dealers.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#182

Post by kodfodrasz »

michaelmrose wrote: post #142
kodfodrasz wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They lock down the software in their well understood interests: - vendor lock in (this is not good for customers) - safety (testing this stuff is expesive and lengthy. Every change forces a re-test. They are liable for this stuff) - defending the brand value (if there is an accident because of modified software non-hackers will blame the manufacturer for making it possible) This all weill get worse with neural networ…

You are arguing for accepting lockdowns on tractors so that john deere can screw their customers harder based on the safety of systems that don't exist yet. Drivers who cause accidents will end up liable just as they are now.

Except for self driving stuff I was arguing about. We are not yet sure who will be liable for them. Also there is pretty much self driving in some agricultural machines, for use on the fields.

But seeing this topic I'd make it possible for farmers to mod their machinery, with a complete loss of warranty.

Imagine a modded component accidentally sending false or misleading data on the CAN bus, or not yielding the bus, or simply being incompatible with a component. These scenarios can cause serious troubles.

These stuff are not JS frameworks, a page reload does not undo a bad trial and error round.

Also the supporting tools are expensive not only for farmers and machine shos, but also for vendors. I remember the price tags for calibrated instruments from my time in automotive industry...

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#183

Post by oceanghost »

throwaway_jddev wrote: post #92

Hey all, I worked on software for John Deere. This is a throwaway account for obvious reasons. Opinions expressed here are MY OWN. I no longer work for John Deere or am associated with them in any way. I was part of one of the many teams that work on this software. Specifically I was part of John Deere's ISG division also known as the Intelligent Solutions Group. The ISG division (was at the time) responsible for tyi…

Most of the folks on HN haven't worked on anything more complicated than a web app.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#184

Post by kodfodrasz »

plinkplonk wrote: post #174
throwaway_jddev wrote: post #92

Hey all, I worked on software for John Deere. This is a throwaway account for obvious reasons. Opinions expressed here are MY OWN. I no longer work for John Deere or am associated with them in any way. I was part of one of the many teams that work on this software. Specifically I was part of John Deere's ISG division also known as the Intelligent Solutions Group. The ISG division (was at the time) responsible for tyi…

>But trust me on this,... isn't a way to make a good argument. From TFA "Only dealerships have the software to make those parts work, and it costs hundreds of dollars just to get a service call. Schwarting worries about being broken down in a field, waiting for a dealer to show up with a software key." and from a comment above "Plus, many of them don't get any update after the product launch. When you are in rush to…

This may be related to farmers not taking the tractors to repair shops.

The automotive component I worked on was firmware updated every time the customer took the car to a service for eg. to change oil, and an update was necessary.

The tools needed for this were pretty expensive though, and needed some expertise, as the process was somewhat complicated. I understand why this is not trusted to owners.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#185

Post by tzs »

Nilzor wrote: post #158
tzs wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't sound like the farmers are asking to rewrite or replace that software. It sounds like they are just asking to be able to make the same kind of repairs that their local dealer makes.

And what kind of repairs are that? As a software developer I don't understand what equipment is failure needs software change. Software don't wear and tear. Hardware does.

From a different article on this subject [1]:

> "If a farmer bought the tractor, he should be able to do whatever he wants with it," Kevin Kenney, a farmer and right-to-repair advocate in Nebraska, told me. "You want to replace a transmission and you take it to an independent mechanic—he can put in the new transmission but the tractor can't drive out of the shop. Deere charges $230, plus $130 an hour for a technician to drive out and plug a connector into their USB port to authorize the part."

[1] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/why-american-farm...

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#186

Post by michaelmrose »

kodfodrasz wrote: post #182
michaelmrose wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are arguing for accepting lockdowns on tractors so that john deere can screw their customers harder based on the safety of systems that don't exist yet. Drivers who cause accidents will end up liable just as they are now.

Except for self driving stuff I was arguing about. We are not yet sure who will be liable for them. Also there is pretty much self driving in some agricultural machines, for use on the fields. But seeing this topic I'd make it possible for farmers to mod their machinery, with a complete loss of warranty. Imagine a modded component accidentally sending false or misleading data on the CAN bus, or not yielding the bus,…

You can't void the warranty unless the modification/repair results in the damage we already made a law for this even.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#187

Post by kodfodrasz »

RowanH wrote: post #179
rando832 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a team of hundred of engineers struggle with their codebase internally, Joe Farmer isn't going to have a fucking clue how to repair their software correctly. > But trust me on this, locking this down is a very good idea. Joe Farmer may not know, but Joe farmer has "the internet", and ability to pay an independent software engineer. And people would absolutely find and fix bugs that john deer is missing. Honestly…

So semi related, been in software for 20 years and contemplated getting a Motec w e-throttle for my (road legal) race car "no f-king way" is my thought process, I've got a race engine management system but no way I'm having anything other than a cable between me and the throttle body. I love software, I love engineering, I love what an e-throttle can do for traction control. But there will always be bugs with softwar…

I have worked in automotive and the testing of a software release took about 1 month for a ~150 member team. Yes, documentation because legal requirements was as much as 10% of the human labor, but the tests ran for a month in simulated environment.

This was not a particularly large software, about .5MLOC total with 3rd party RTOS as well (not in our test scope).

The tests did find unexpected bugs, as the dynamic behaviour of the system was much harder to reason about than about the single components, and sometimes pretty weird system effect kicked in.

I'd also not trust this to small teams, this is simply way more complicated than one presumes prior to experiencing it personally.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#188

Post by foepys »

goodplay wrote: post #171
foepys wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If deaths become endemic, then consider locking them down. As much as I dislike John Deer's strategy, your statement is just stupid. Waiting for people do die before you regulate to make it safer doesn't work. Look at Ford who calculated that saving $x on a component was worth it if only y people die and their relatives sue.

That component you refer to was necessary for the safe usage of the vehicle. If it fails, bad things would happen (and they did). Having control over your tractor does not necessarily kill people. Death is not inherently implied by farmers merely having access. Apples and oranges. Equating the two is silly. Most people won't be adding in gotos and if statements, they'll be replacing borken parts and getting their tra…

> Those few who actually do end up writing code for it, and those who opt to run it, will do so with the full knowledge that it'll be their asses on the line when something goes wrong.

In a world where extremely dangerous phone chargers are getting bought just because they are cheap, I cannot imagine that your views are correct. People are putting active fire hazards into their homes and other people are building them in full knowledge that the components used are inadequate.

Yes, people should be able to repair their machines and change single components but it should be guaranteed that basic safety functionality is working. I'm not talking about something where a farmer personally modifies their own machine. I'm talking about manufacturers that build cheap replacement parts.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#189

Post by lawnchair_larry »

oceanghost wrote: post #183
throwaway_jddev wrote: post #92

Hey all, I worked on software for John Deere. This is a throwaway account for obvious reasons. Opinions expressed here are MY OWN. I no longer work for John Deere or am associated with them in any way. I was part of one of the many teams that work on this software. Specifically I was part of John Deere's ISG division also known as the Intelligent Solutions Group. The ISG division (was at the time) responsible for tyi…

Most of the folks on HN haven't worked on anything more complicated than a web app.

Although that comment is unconstructive and probably wrong, I'll just point out that pretty much all of Google is a "web app".

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#190

Post by MichaelBurge »

michaelmrose wrote: post #144
stagbeetle wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. This applies solely to stock market speculation, due to a perfect amalgamation of human psychological biases and fallacies. In consumer economics we use utility value (iirc, it's been far too long since I've opened a textbook). Consumers will definitely drop their JD's if a "no-bullshit," almost as good option comes along, because the utility v…

This assumes consumers actually rationally assess the value and don't value emotional brand attachments.

We're talking about farmers, not porn viewers. We not only can assume they're rational, but have spreadsheets for financial modeling and a dedicated capital expenditures budget. And if they don't do any of these, it would be easier to buy them out and replace them with someone who does.
Post reply on HN