"Right to Repair" - Potentially great news for DIY!

[lowwall]

Farmers can repair 90% of their tractor now, including parts. What they want access to by this legislation is the proprietary source code firmware. I'm not advocating for or against this, but can see both sides of the argument. After all, the farmer agreed to purchase the tractor with the proprietary code loaded on it. This code no doubt helps the farmers productivity (GPS navigation, site specific settings....) so they get a benefit from it (otherwise they would just use an Ox towed plow). The tractor companies put R&D money into their code development for this reason.

Think about Microsoft Windows OS. You can't have windows OS source code. But, if you want to "repair" your own source code, you're welcome to download and use Linux. Will you get the same productivity benefit from Linux windowsows? Maybe.

But this is all well beyond the philosophical scope of buying a baggie of orings for your regulator or an air filter for your truck...

No they can't repair 90% of their tractor. The biggest issue is fault codes. If the software decides anything is out of bound, it throw an error which at best results in an annoying alarm and at worst shuts the tractor down completely. Even if the farmer can figure out what is wrong (which is not easy because Deere no longer publishes what the fault codes mean) and fix the problem, clearing many of these codes can only be done by a factory tech.

If you want an accurate Windows analogy, it's not that they want to tinker with the source code. They just want to be able to restart after a system crash without paying Microsoft for a tech visit. Taking this further, they want to be able to install third party applications without paying Microsoft or go to the Services Manager and kill unwanted processes.

 

[greeniguana]

No they can't repair 90% of their tractor. The biggest issue is fault codes.

Or.... A Bloomberg article you've read says the issue is fault codes.

 

[lowwall]

Or.... A Bloomberg article you've read says the issue is fault codes.

You may not know what a strawman argument is, but thanks for the example of the ad hominem fallacy.

Don't like Bloomberg? Here's another article

Why American Farmers Are Hacking Their Tractors With Ukrainian Firmware

Or just look around the web. There are lots of third party sites providing fault code info where Deere doesn't and the forums are full of questions about how to get these tractors running.

Do you really think the thousands of farmers that are pushing right to repair want to edit tractor source code?

 

[formernuke]

The question is will they let us take there class and get the free parts.

 

[greeniguana]

Do you really think the thousands of farmers that are pushing right to repair want to edit tractor source code?

YES! That's what I've been saying all along.

Do you work in ag? Do you know that farmers are flashing their own arduino chips for 3d seed planting? They also hack the source code to circumvent emissions and install unsafe/questionable add on parts.

A large segment of the media makes it sound like they're just some poor bumpkins who need to change a spark plug. It's way more complicated than that. Not to mention, the farmers complaining about not being able to chip their tractors undoubtedly signed a license agreement when they bought it....

But like I said this is far afield from scuba and I don't wish to belabor it.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

You may not know what a strawman argument is, but thanks for the example of the ad hominem fallacy.

Don't like Bloomberg? Here's another article

Why American Farmers Are Hacking Their Tractors With Ukrainian Firmware

Or just look around the web. There are lots of third party sites providing fault code info where Deere doesn't and the forums are full of questions about how to get these tractors running.

Do you really think the thousands of farmers that are pushing right to repair want to edit tractor source code?

As someone that writes embedded firmware and worked on the first release of Bitlocker, I found that pretty interesting as John Deere could turn around and make it harder to hack (can never stop it, as there are always exploits).

The extent to which John Deere and similar control their products is insane. On the spectrum of outrageousness, I don't see dive regulators the same end as farming equipment.

Just out of curiosity. Do people want firmware for dive computers to be available to modify? For those who say yes, have you ever seen code of any dive computers?

Unlike farming equipment where farmers would pay someone to make modifications, are you willing to do the same?

Farming is their livelihood. Is your livelihood dependent on modifying your dive computer?

 

[The Chairman]

Or.... A Bloomberg article you've read says the issue is fault codes.

OBDII had to be mandated for cars in order to make a level playing field for auto shops. Imagine buying a Saab and finding that only the dealer could reset the "Oil Change Required" light? Every auto maker had their own interface and ODB/OBDII solved all this. Companies are still free to keep their source code, but now the average Joe mechanic doesn't have to buy an over $1000.00 resetting tool for just one make. It's like setting a standard for TCP/IP. Yes, OBDII is becoming a worldwide automotive standard and I can see it being applied to tractors in the not too distant future.

On-board diagnostics - Wikipedia

 

[SlugLife]

As someone that writes embedded firmware and worked on the first release of Bitlocker, I found that pretty interesting as John Deere could turn around and make it harder to hack (can never stop it, as there are always exploits).

The extent to which John Deere and similar control their products is insane. On the spectrum of outrageousness, I don't see dive regulators the same end as farming equipment.

Just out of curiosity. Do people want firmware for dive computers to be available to modify? For those who say yes, have you ever seen code of any dive computers?

Unlike farming equipment where farmers would pay someone to make modifications, are you willing to do the same?

Farming is their livelihood. Is your livelihood dependent on modifying your dive computer?

As predicted, the slippery slope of a not-carefully-defined "right to repair" is forcing persons & companies to publish source-code.

As you note, even as a "Senior Software Engineer" it typically took me many months to somewhat understand the part of the source-code I'm working on, when I had coworkers I could ask about the source-code. If the goal is DIY repair, or avoiding products being bricked by companies - forcing companies to open-source their code would generally not be useful. It might allow shady individuals to rip off the products.

If people actually want to fix a problem, focus on the actual problem.

For example:

• Companies which deliberately sabotage products, to make them difficult to repair, can be sued or fined.
• Companies with prevent customers from using their products in reasonable ways (i.e. Apple forcing everyone to use the app-store) can be sued or fined.

By focusing on tangential solutions, you invite abuse, fail to address the problem, and undermine potential support.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

As predicted, the slippery slope of a not-carefully-defined "right to repair" is forcing persons & companies to publish source-code.

As you note, even as a "Senior Software Engineer" it typically took me many months to somewhat understand the part of the source-code I'm working on, when I had coworkers I could ask about the source-code. If the goal is DIY repair, or avoiding products being bricked by companies - forcing companies to open-source their code would generally not be useful. It might allow shady individuals to rip off the products.

If people actually want to fix a problem, focus on the actual problem.

For example:

• Companies which deliberately sabotage products, to make them difficult to repair, can be sued or fined.
• Companies with prevent customers from using their products in reasonable ways (i.e. Apple forcing everyone to use the app-store) can be sued or fined.

By focusing on tangential solutions, you invite abuse, fail to address the problem, and undermine potential support.

The devil is always in the details. I'm curious as to what the final legislation will be and its effect in different markets.

Oh, and try supporting code written for WEC7 where no one is around who worked on it. And Microsoft has ended support and pulled a lot (but not all) documentation. Good times!

 

[The Chairman]

It might allow shady individuals to rip off the products.

If someone wants your code and has the requisite skills, they will have your code. Same thing with a reg. If another manufacturer wants to know the secrets, they'll just buy a few and reverse engineer it. But this is a general directive. No laws have been passed to force this.