• aramova@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    It works on some Samsung devices. The entire reason it doesn’t work on more devices is because the manufacturers don’t release the kernel source. Or did you miss that in the docs?

    Better question is, why would the courts not order the kernels to be open for open firmwares?

    “Let’s order a for-profit company to eliminate their profit method, and ignore the actual problem” is a specialty of ignorant courts… And commenters.

    So the courts, instead of addressing the real problem of phone makers only making hardware that for-profit partners can write software for, they just order the for-profit software makers to… remove the profit?

    The fuck kind of ass-backwards thinking is that?

    • turmacar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      The last supported Samsung device was the S4.

      Because ordering someone to develop something is more complicated and nuanced than saying what they’re currently doing is unacceptable and they need to do something else. Courts are a reactive body. Legislature is who would need to push for open kernels/hardware/firmware.

        • turmacar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          13 hours ago

          When watching the plumber work it’s unhelpful to complain that they aren’t fixing the electrical.

          If you want to be part of a team attempting vast sweeping changes with no oversight or nuance maybe DOGE is still hiring.

          Granted that’s not in Japan.