On 04/05/17 20:32, Brian May wrote:

Andrew McGlashan writes:

...

I would like for any device that is manufactured in huge quantity, like all these flagship devices, to get updates for 6 years, unless the number of currently active users drops down too low (perhaps down to million users); anything longer than 6 years would probably be too long (I'll admit that), but anything shorter, well, again, they sell 100s of millions of these devices, so giving support for up to 10 years shouldn't cost them much and it would make the devices worth much more before ending up in landfill, as well as getting more life out of them.

I had originally had the idea of 10 years, I later dropped it back to 6 years -- one of the references above still had 10 years. For computers and mobiles, 10 years is probably too long, excepting of course the massive screwup of Intel that is in the news now.... does it make every second hand machine worthless now, or just worth less? With only recent machines possibly getting updates and only if the owner does them if or when they become available whilst they have access to the updates. HP bar anyone from getting updates these days unless they have an existing support contract! A great reason to avoid HP going forward. It's a rotten mess. If we are to reduce, re-use and recycle, what will become of all the millions of machines sold? That's an awful lot of landfill. On a positive note, if a new machine is more efficient and is properly patched, then it could easily last the next 10 years and may pay for itself in other ways, that is provided we don't need to ask too much of the hardware with VR / AR / AI or the like.

In my imaginary dream world, the manufacturer wouldn't have to provide updates, because everyone would use the same builds of the same OS - stock Android.

Yes, but stock Android is, perhaps, only good for a limited time as well. It is the binary blobs and other hindrances that stop us using pure Android on everything (easily or otherwise).

Imagine if every brand of every desktop computer you purchased required a customized version of XYZ* - probably without access to source code - that was only supported for one or two years before being declared obsolete.

True, some of the equipment these days has been doing bad things to get updates; Lenovo anybody? Leaving a great big hole to penetrate without proper security protection. Then the "BIOS" let's Windows load stuff from it that supposedly "fixes" things or puts permanent malware in the system that a re-install of the OS won't fix, other than replacing it with Linux or some other OS, but sometimes those newer machines are locked down these days and what you get is a ... Windows Appliance. :(

Imagine if every brand had to replace the XYZ UI with their own custom UI, in order to make their product "unique" is some way.

The situation we have with phones and tablets right now is crazy. These devices are just small computers, so the user should be free to install whatever OS they want on them.

Yes.

In actual fact, we seem to be heading the opposite direction if anything of making computers more like phones and tables.

* For XYZ insert one of Windows, Debian, Ubuntu, Redhat, etc.

Yes. but we also need every manufacturer of every component to co-operate and make open drives or at the very least fully support their hardware for the life of the hardware, not the life of a limited warranty period. And if they go out of business, they need to either sell whatever patents might limit future use to someone to take on the responsibility or end the patents completely and make a gift to the world. Cheers A.

On 05/05/17 15:08, Ben Finney wrote:

Another example is the ZeroPhone, which is a hell of a lot more open than most Android phones because it's built on a Raspberry Pi Zero.

URL:https://www.crowdsupply.com/arsenijs/zerophone

The Raspberry Pi has binary blobs, does the Zero have none? Oh and I agree with the rest of your post, but we need the better alternatives to go close to what is available otherwise in features, specs and performance; or at least enough to make the devices still useful. Thanks A.

On 07/05/17 15:07, Ben Finney wrote:

Andrew McGlashan I don't know. Given the number of devices in most smartphones that require binary blobs, I would think it safe to say what I did: that the ZeroPhone is a hell of a lot more open.

Fair.

...

Oh and I agree with the rest of your post, but we need the better alternatives to go close to what is available otherwise in features, specs and performance; or at least enough to make the devices still useful.

Yes. Those alternatives only get better by sustained, widespread, vocal demand and funding, from people who say in public they're demanding and funding a device *because* it is more open.

Waiting for them to get better *before* deciding whether to support them, is just leaving it to the existing market. Which is what gets us where we are today, so is not a solution.

True. It is an awful catch 22 situation, but you still don't want to throw away money on things that aren't going to be useful enough to you unless you are doing it simply to make a donation AND you can afford to do so. A.