Source: Apple will fight 'Right to Repair' legislation
-
[Edit] Yes it does. Not quite. A good service record on a car is an important detail. On most cars scheduled service and repairs by authorised agents is probably the best way to judge a car. That statement can be deconstructed also but as a general principle it holds up.
Peter Wasser "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
:) fair enough. I was assuming, as I've never owned one. But you're definitely right that things like that _should_ be made known, but often aren't.
TTFN - Kent
-
Motherboard[^]:
Apple representatives plan to tell Nebraska lawmakers that repairing your phone is dangerous.
Because you'll disturb the pixies inside the machine
I was just wondering, could / would this also apply to software? Because companies with closed sources would then have to develop their software with clearly defined, and identifiable components (as dlls / libs) with api we documented so, maybe in case I see a bug or a missing feature, i could rewrite that particular component and sort of 'fix' or 'repair' my instance of the software instead of having to go to the software company that created the product for a fix. EDIT: I understand there are a bunch of arguments against this like it's best to have the company fix it because they'd have a tested product etc... but consider open source communities built around developing component fixes for, say, excel?
"It was when I found out I could make mistakes that I knew I was on to something." -Ornette Coleman "Philosophy is a study that lets us be unhappy more intelligently." -Anon.
-
Works (or should, IMO) that way with cars, doesn't it?
TTFN - Kent
In the UK there's no need to let anyone know the repair history of a car when you sell it on, unless they ask. I've never been asked when PartEx-ing a car for example, and private used car sales are sold as seen. If there's been an insurance claim there will be a record, but otherwise unlikely. There might be a service history but there's no mandatory requirement to have it done at a garage, you can do the service yourself if you want.
-
In the UK there's no need to let anyone know the repair history of a car when you sell it on, unless they ask. I've never been asked when PartEx-ing a car for example, and private used car sales are sold as seen. If there's been an insurance claim there will be a record, but otherwise unlikely. There might be a service history but there's no mandatory requirement to have it done at a garage, you can do the service yourself if you want.
OTOH, there is an MOT certificate that, theoretically at least, guarantees a car is road worthy.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
-
I was just wondering, could / would this also apply to software? Because companies with closed sources would then have to develop their software with clearly defined, and identifiable components (as dlls / libs) with api we documented so, maybe in case I see a bug or a missing feature, i could rewrite that particular component and sort of 'fix' or 'repair' my instance of the software instead of having to go to the software company that created the product for a fix. EDIT: I understand there are a bunch of arguments against this like it's best to have the company fix it because they'd have a tested product etc... but consider open source communities built around developing component fixes for, say, excel?
"It was when I found out I could make mistakes that I knew I was on to something." -Ornette Coleman "Philosophy is a study that lets us be unhappy more intelligently." -Anon.
There's no end of third-party add-ins for MSO and graphics programs, for example, so the "right to add improvements and external fixes" isn't impaired in any way. And isn't a bug-fix update pretty much the same thing as replacing a defective part on a tractor? I don't think anyone's got much room for complaint -- except maybe hackers, who would just love to get their hands on source code.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I was just wondering, could / would this also apply to software? Because companies with closed sources would then have to develop their software with clearly defined, and identifiable components (as dlls / libs) with api we documented so, maybe in case I see a bug or a missing feature, i could rewrite that particular component and sort of 'fix' or 'repair' my instance of the software instead of having to go to the software company that created the product for a fix. EDIT: I understand there are a bunch of arguments against this like it's best to have the company fix it because they'd have a tested product etc... but consider open source communities built around developing component fixes for, say, excel?
"It was when I found out I could make mistakes that I knew I was on to something." -Ornette Coleman "Philosophy is a study that lets us be unhappy more intelligently." -Anon.
I wonder if this will essentially break down into two paths, depending on whether the end user owns or licences/leases the product. If you own somethign you should be able to do what you want with it, if it's licenced then it's determined by whatever is stipulated in the agreement in place. Software is often licenced so I'd assume there's no real right to repair there, although maye a right to extend. Hardware could be either, and the same for vehicles [which I guess are a type of hardware].
-
Motherboard[^]:
Apple representatives plan to tell Nebraska lawmakers that repairing your phone is dangerous.
Because you'll disturb the pixies inside the machine
...and they claim the right to ripoff.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.2.2 Beta
I told my psychiatrist that I was hearing voices in my head. He said you don't have a psychiatrist! -
:) fair enough. I was assuming, as I've never owned one. But you're definitely right that things like that _should_ be made known, but often aren't.
TTFN - Kent
-
Kent Sharkey wrote:
I was assuming, as I've never owned one.
Wait. You can't just get away with saying something like that without a lot of splainin'. Are you actually saying you've never owned a car?
Yup, never owned one, never learned how to use one (other than the stereo). Walk, bike, transit (which I will admit is a pain, especially now that I'm in a backwater), cabs.
TTFN - Kent
-
Yup, never owned one, never learned how to use one (other than the stereo). Walk, bike, transit (which I will admit is a pain, especially now that I'm in a backwater), cabs.
TTFN - Kent
-
Why are you in a backwater? Is it a Canadian backwater or some other European backwater? (Yes, Canada is Europe. :-D ) It's illegal to not own a car, here where I'm from.
You're in Indianapolis? ;) (I was there training one week - not a sidewalk to be found) I'm a backwater kinda guy, plus I get to look at a pretty glacier[^] every day.
TTFN - Kent
-
Yup, never owned one, never learned how to use one (other than the stereo). Walk, bike, transit (which I will admit is a pain, especially now that I'm in a backwater), cabs.
TTFN - Kent
Kent Sharkey wrote:
Yup, never owned one, never learned how to use one
No more listening to you! Next thing you'll reveal is that you don't actually own a computer!
