Re: OT: Huge Right to Repair Win for Consumers
Adrian, et alia: Rare it is that I post to this list, but I feel that the comments posted here within impel me to speak up. It is instructive that the very same argument was applied to those that felt the entire open source movement would destroy and wipe out software companies. Yet, companies like RedHat who sell ZERO closed source software were able to be purchased by IBM for $34B dollars, SuSE changed hands several times, and all were profitable companies. Moreover, whence a product stands to be a superlative product as do Macs, iPhones, Androids, they are able to be sold successfully (Android OS is entirely open source). Making service manuals and schematics available to customers so they can repair their own products or hire someone other than authorized dealers to do so is surely a good thing for the market. In fact, the entire PC industry is based on openly available reference specifications from Intel on how to build a "PC", and this has not cut into Dell's, Lenovo's, or anyone else's profits. Very Respectfully, Stuart Quoting: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz On 6/10/21 2:08 AM, Paul Wise wrote: The report and its recommendations may provide a means to pierce the veil of closed platforms, like closed-sourced firmware. It seems unlikely to me that we will ever see a "Right to Repair" for software, firmware or gateware. So, why should laws protect the intellectual property of software companies but not the IP of hardware companies? What supporters euphemistically call a "right to repair" is in reality an initiative against the right of companies to protect their intellectual property. Why should any company take the risk of investment for new hardware developments when they have to fear that every other company in the world will get free access to their blue prints? The claim that hardware companies intentionally make it hard to repair consumer products is a conspiracy theory. In reality, a consumer product is primarily optimized for production costs which implies cheap capacitors or cases that are glued together. Lots of consumers seem to forget that a product sold into the market not only must cover the material costs but also the costs of engineering, marketing, customer support, customs, compliance tests and so on. And in the end, you still want there to be a small profit left which is what makes the whole business model viable in the first place. If law initiatives also now want to take away the exclusive rights of hardware designers over their blueprints and hence the market advantage over competitors that they took an investment risk for, companies will lose the incentive to design and develop new products. Companies aren't charities so in the end they must protect their investments and have to make profits to survive. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 Very Respectfully, Stuart Blake Tener, BScCS, N3GWG (Extra), MROP Computer Scientist / FCC Licensed Radio Operator Las Vegas, NV / Philadelphia, PA (310) 358-0202 Mobile Phone (215) 338-6005 Google Voice
Re: OT: Huge Right to Repair Win for Consumers
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 2:07 AM deloptes wrote: > > John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > > So, why should laws protect the intellectual property of software > > companies but not the IP of hardware companies? > > > > Are patents not enough? > > > What supporters euphemistically call a "right to repair" is in reality an > > initiative against the right of companies to protect their intellectual > > property. > > > > No, it is not correct. > > > Why should any company take the risk of investment for new hardware > > developments when they have to fear that every other company in the world > > will get free access to their blue prints? > > > It is not about the blue prints. If someone wants the blue prints they will > get them anyway. > Exactly. That is covered by patent laws, copyright laws, and laws against reverse engineering. There are, of course, certain countries which are known to copy other's ideas -- their government claims "they need to know what other nations are doing" -- and flood the market with cheaper copies, have their government protect those national copycats, but also have that same government be very aggressive on copying the IP of its nationals. But that is a different topic. This is about the centuries-old tradition of having independent shops working on other manufacturers' products, be it due to the lack of dealerships within a reasonable distance, quality of service and employee attitude (I am staring at you Mercedes, Toyota, and specially John Deere), and on a very far last place, price. If you take a vehicle/computer to a shop, you should find one that earns your trust. And let others know of your experience so people who do a great job are rewarded. Same goes with parts: there are manufacturers who only sell to OEMs, some which will make different versions (sometimes just the part number, other times with different firmware) for the aftermarket, and yet some who will supply both chains. All of them may face other companies pirating their parts, but the latter makes it much easier for buyers to get the original item. I can walk to the Honda dealership today and walk out with Honda-branded manual transmission oil, which is cheaper than all but the Wal Mart housebrand. I can email supermicro's support and they will tell me which server motherboard they have that fits my needs and could not care less where I buy its CPU -- as long as it is supported, but actually they are flexible -- and even the motherboard; other vendors will only sell a motherboard with a complete server wrapped around it. Yes, people need to learn that while cheap may be low quality, price is not an indicator of quality. But now you have companies -- I am not going to mention Apple, VW, and John Deere but I am thinking on them -- who make products whose replacement parts can only be installed at the dealership because you need access to a dealer-only computer which will tell the computer/car/tractor/sex toy that not only that is an original item but also that they give their blessing. One of these went one level up to require yearly licensing or their tractor will just stop working. >From a business standpoint -- read the history of the Gillette disposable blade -- it makes sense to make products that have a somewhat short life and cannot be repaired, so customers have to buy a new one.[2] I do not know about you but I like to keep things running until the replacement is superior enough or has the right new features to warrant me buying it, which is why I am now shopping for a new motherboard. About giving stuff away, there are companies who have been known to make their old versions' information available to third parties. Toyota for instance has given royalty-free access to its hybrid-vehicle patents[1]. Don't think they are doing that for the goodness of kumbaya only; I doubt they are including their latest tech, and there is financial wisdom in making your way of doing things the de facto one. > > The claim that hardware companies intentionally make it hard to repair > > consumer products is a conspiracy theory. In reality, a consumer product > > is primarily optimized for production costs which implies cheap capacitors > > or cases that are glued together. > > John Deere > > You are also a conspiracy. The most highly payed engineers are those that > construct (mostly the enclosure) of the product in such a way that it can > not be opened without breaking. > I wonder from which universe you are coming now. > > > Lots of consumers seem to forget that a product sold into the market not > > only must cover the material costs but also the costs of engineering, > > marketing, customer support, customs, compliance tests and so on. And in > > the end, you still want there to be a small profit left which is what > > makes the whole business model viable in the first place. > > > I wonder from which universe you are coming now (again). > This is not true since products are made in China or Asia an
Re: OT: Huge Right to Repair Win for Consumers
On 6/10/21 12:53 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 6/10/21 2:08 AM, Paul Wise wrote: The report and its recommendations may provide a means to pierce the veil of closed platforms, like closed-sourced firmware. It seems unlikely to me that we will ever see a "Right to Repair" for software, firmware or gateware. So, why should laws protect the intellectual property of software companies but not the IP of hardware companies? What supporters euphemistically call a "right to repair" is in reality an initiative against the right of companies to protect their intellectual property. Adrian, When you are bringing the question of property up, just ask yourself what happens when you buy an item. Who is the owner of the item you've just bought? Who decides from that point on how are you going to use the item? Is it you, or somebody else? Has your property been protected? Do you have any rights? Milan
Re: OT: Huge Right to Repair Win for Consumers
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 11:54 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz < glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > On 6/10/21 2:08 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > >> The report and its recommendations may provide a means > >> to pierce the veil of closed platforms, like closed-sourced firmware. > > > > It seems unlikely to me that we will ever see a "Right to Repair" for > > software, firmware or gateware. > > So, why should laws protect the intellectual property of software companies > but not the IP of hardware companies? > > What supporters euphemistically call a "right to repair" is in reality an > initiative against the right of companies to protect their intellectual > property. > > Why should any company take the risk of investment for new hardware > developments > when they have to fear that every other company in the world will get free > access > to their blue prints? > > The claim that hardware companies intentionally make it hard to repair > consumer > products is a conspiracy theory. In reality, a consumer product is > primarily optimized > for production costs which implies cheap capacitors or cases that are > glued together. > > Lots of consumers seem to forget that a product sold into the market not > only must > cover the material costs but also the costs of engineering, marketing, > customer > support, customs, compliance tests and so on. And in the end, you still > want there > to be a small profit left which is what makes the whole business model > viable in > the first place. > > If law initiatives also now want to take away the exclusive rights of > hardware designers > over their blueprints and hence the market advantage over competitors that > they took an > investment risk for, companies will lose the incentive to design and > develop new > products. > The financial payoff would shift from post production to pre production. There is still demand for hardware - thus supply would exist in some form. Companies would set up kickstarter-like agreements/contracts with customers. Companies that fail to produce would get weeded out similarly to companies that produce inferior products in the current legal and market economy. The government is of, by, and for the people - not the corporations. Laws that protect us are fundamental. -m
Re: OT: Huge Right to Repair Win for Consumers
On 6/9/21 10:53 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 6/10/21 2:08 AM, Paul Wise wrote: >>> The report and its recommendations may provide a means >>> to pierce the veil of closed platforms, like closed-sourced firmware. >> >> It seems unlikely to me that we will ever see a "Right to Repair" for >> software, firmware or gateware. > > So, why should laws protect the intellectual property of software companies > but not the IP of hardware companies? Copyright (for software, firmware, etc.) provides all the protection that's needed. > > What supporters euphemistically call a "right to repair" is in reality an > initiative against the right of companies to protect their intellectual > property. > > Why should any company take the risk of investment for new hardware > developments > when they have to fear that every other company in the world will get free > access > to their blue prints? Maybe not everything should be for sale. The public Internet wouldn't be what it is today if the original developers of http had decided to monetize the new invention. If BSD hadn't decided to give away their TCP/IP network stack for free, companies like Microsoft wouldn't have been able to connect their proprietary operating systems to the Internet. > > The claim that hardware companies intentionally make it hard to repair > consumer > products is a conspiracy theory. In reality, a consumer product is primarily > optimized > for production costs which implies cheap capacitors or cases that are glued > together. Until just a few years ago, people in the United States weren't even permitted to unlock their own paid-off cell phones so they could switch to a different provider. One had to jailbreak an iPhone to install non-Apple-approved software. When I buy a car, a phone, a computer, or a DVD, it's mine -- I'm not simply leasing it from the company that built it or designed it, and I should be able to do whatever I want with that product. Here's a more recent example: I've been trying to figure out how to install a more modern Linux kernel on a PowerMac 6100. More than 20 years ago, Apple teamed up with the now-defunct OSF to use the Mach 3.0 microkernel along with Apple's customized version of a 2.0.33 Linux kernel to bring Linux to Nubus PowerMacs. This worked until Apple gave up on the project, and though there was a successful effort to bring a few 2.4.x Linux kernels (without Mach) to Nubus PowerMacs, that too died. The thing about Apple's involvement with MkLinux was that they had no problem modifying Linux kernels, but they weren't willing to make their "MkLinux Booter" open source (or document how it worked), and that's really what killed Linux (and NetBSD) for Nubus PowerMacs. > > Lots of consumers seem to forget that a product sold into the market not only > must > cover the material costs but also the costs of engineering, marketing, > customer > support, customs, compliance tests and so on. And in the end, you still want > there > to be a small profit left which is what makes the whole business model viable > in > the first place. Fortunately, Apple was still able to eek out a $13.7 billion profit on a revenue of 64 billion USD in its fiscal 2019 fourth quarter: https://www.macrumors.com/2019/10/30/apple-4q-2019-results/ > > If law initiatives also now want to take away the exclusive rights of > hardware designers > over their blueprints and hence the market advantage over competitors that > they took an > investment risk for, companies will lose the incentive to design and develop > new > products. > > Companies aren't charities so in the end they must protect their investments > and have to > make profits to survive. Companies that make useful products don't need to "protect their investments" by failing to provide hardware and software documentation. Simple copyright is sufficient to prevent mass scale copying (of Mac ROMS, for example). Apple used to know that providing detailed hardware information would actually help them sell more products (remember the Apple II?). Remember the Lexmark printer cartridge lawsuit? Lexmark tried to lock customers into buying only Lexmark cartridges. And SCO sued Novell (with Microsoft's backing) in an effort to destroy Linux in a misguided attempt to protect SCO's so-called "intellectual property." > > Adrian >
Re: OT: Huge Right to Repair Win for Consumers
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 06:53:57AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > So, why should laws protect the intellectual property of software companies > but not the IP of hardware companies? Ideally it shouldn't. > What supporters euphemistically call a "right to repair" is in reality an > initiative against the right of companies to protect their intellectual > property. There are plenty of other things that protect that (or fail to do so either way). > Why should any company take the risk of investment for new hardware > developments > when they have to fear that every other company in the world will get free > access > to their blue prints? There are plenty of companies (often in China) that have no problem copying a product without the schematics. So at best that would save them a tiny bit of work. So that argument is nonsense. > The claim that hardware companies intentionally make it hard to repair > consumer > products is a conspiracy theory. In reality, a consumer product is primarily > optimized > for production costs which implies cheap capacitors or cases that are glued > together. Apple has made TI not sell power management chips to anyone but apple. So if a laptop stops charging because that chip broke, rather than solder on a new chip, Apple wants you to replace te entire board (which conviniently has the SSD soldered on, so goodbye to your data). Or clever people will take that chip of a broken board where that chip still works and save the owner a lot of hassle and money. Never mind the insanity that is John Deere. There is no conspiracy theory, but clearly plenty of clueless people. > Lots of consumers seem to forget that a product sold into the market not only > must > cover the material costs but also the costs of engineering, marketing, > customer > support, customs, compliance tests and so on. And in the end, you still want > there > to be a small profit left which is what makes the whole business model viable > in > the first place. They can still do that. But they better not rely on insane repair costs or early replacements as part of making it profitable. The product as originally sold should cover that. > If law initiatives also now want to take away the exclusive rights of > hardware designers > over their blueprints and hence the market advantage over competitors that > they took an > investment risk for, companies will lose the incentive to design and develop > new > products. Strangely companies had no problem making and selling products in the past when it used to be common to include repair schematics with products (like stoves, fridges, washing machines, furnaces, etc). > Companies aren't charities so in the end they must protect their investments > and have to > make profits to survive. Some of them seem to be making plenty and certainly not paying their share of taxes for society to function properly. -- Len Sorensen
Re: OT: Huge Right to Repair Win for Consumers
Milan Kupcevic wrote on 6/10/21 6:10 AM: > On 6/10/21 12:53 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> On 6/10/21 2:08 AM, Paul Wise wrote: The report and its recommendations may provide a means to pierce the veil of closed platforms, like closed-sourced firmware. >>> >>> It seems unlikely to me that we will ever see a "Right to Repair" for >>> software, firmware or gateware. >> >> So, why should laws protect the intellectual property of software >> companies >> but not the IP of hardware companies? >> >> What supporters euphemistically call a "right to repair" is in >> reality an >> initiative against the right of companies to protect their intellectual >> property. >> > Adrian, > > When you are bringing the question of property up, just ask yourself > what happens when you buy an item. Who is the owner of the item you've > just bought? Who decides from that point on how are you going to use > the item? Is it you, or somebody else? Has your property been > protected? Do you have any rights? At this point, you have effectively no protection. Here's a real-world example. I have two 1080p, Wi-Fi enabled HD security cameras that worked great for years, until FLIR Corporation decided they didn't want to be in that business sector anymore, sold the business unit to Lorex, and suddenly I have two 1080p doorstops instead of cameras. And incidentally, Lorex wants me to buy their new shiny cameras. These sorts of business practices are antithetical to good planetary stewardship. Any company who makes firmware for a device can abandon it, hope that a majority of the customers of the previous, abandoned (but not technically obsolete) product generation/line. IP Law is important, but it _should not trump all other considerations_, which, Adrian, seems to be what you're arguing for. If a manufacturer is going to abandon suport for a product mere years after they've introduced it, it should be their responsibility to ensure the majority of those devices do not end up in landfils, or scrapped for plastic and eWaste.
Re: Bug#989645: /usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig: dpkg: error processing package linux-image-powerpc (--configure):
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, at 9:42 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 6/10/21 12:14 AM, Rick Thomas wrote: > > So the only remaining question is "why was hfsprogs not automatically > > install on a G5 PowerMac?" > > See: https://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2021/04/msg00129.html > > and: https://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2021/05/msg00012.html Thanks. Now I understand the situation. I'll just add "install hfsprogs" to my list of things I have to do after installing on a PowerPC Mac. Enjoy! Rick
