Is it possible to install my own OS on a "smart" TV? Is that a thing?
Is it possible to install my own OS on a "smart" TV? Is that a thing?
How do I free my television?
You're viewing a single thread.
It should be a thing because most (all?) "smart TVs" run some variety of Linux, which, as Free Software, is supposed to guarantee the device owner's right to modify the software running on the thing. However, in most (all?) cases, the practical ability to do that has been destroyed by subverting encryption functions against the owner in a process called Tivoization.
In other words:
- No, it isn't really a thing,
- It's wrong for it not to be a thing, and
- You should be pissed off about it.
The Free Software Foundation explicitly forbade tivoization in version 3 of the GNU General Public License. However, although version 3 has been adopted by many software projects, the authors of the Linux kernel have notably declined to move from version 2 to version 3.
How come Linux doesn't use GPL v3?
Linux copyrights are owned by many different people, so it would be prohibitively difficult to ask every person to agree to a GPLv3 change. Even if you could, Linus Torvalds is not a fan of the v3 license.
Even if you could, Linus Torvalds is not a fan of the v3 license.
Why not?
Thanks for teaching me a new concept to be angry about, I guess.
I mean, they did it with phones too. Android is just Linux. That was one of the main attractions, for me at least.
At first, many people and groups supplied their own phone OSes. There was a whole thriving community ecosystem. Then they started to make it really hard, locking bootloaders and including critical pieces of hardware that didn't or couldn't have open source drivers (look up WinModems for a very early example of this technique, it remains really effective) or otherwise required extremely convoluted methods to access and the phone might function marginally without some of these fully functional, but at least you could still install a custom ROM on it if you were stubborn enough.
But even that wouldn't last. Nowadays they've made it literally impossible to defeat the security on most phones, in the name of keeping hackers and criminals out, but really a big part of their motivation is blocking these pirate OSes that let you actually control the hardware and software in your phone, doing criminally nefarious things like stopping them from downloading ads (the horror!) and preventing them from funneling all your data and activities back to Big Brother (how rude!) and worst of all updating it with modern functionality after they've declared it "obsolete". The goal going forward is to sell you things that you don't and can't control, so they can shut them down or make them gradually more and more useless and make you buy new ones forever. They want you to have a subscription for everything including physical objects without realizing that you've been forced to subscribe to their regularly-scheduled-disposable-device-replacement-plan for no actual reason.
They're coming for computers too, or at least they'll try. They want control of everything we interact with. For profit, mostly, but I wouldn't rule out other motives. It's a powerful thing when you have control of everything people see and do.
STOP IT!! I WAS ABOUT TO HAVE A GOOD DAY TODAY!!
I could be wrong (I haven't really paid attention lately), but I think the state of Linux on "smart" TVs is considerably more dire than the state of Android phones. At least with the latter, projects like LineageOS and GrapheneOS are a thing, whereas I know of zero third-party community firmware projects for TVs.
Oh absolutely. Smart TVs are completely under the control of the technology and media companies with very little hope for freeing them, except that you can still plug a computer into them to bypass all the "smart" features and just use it as a dumb screen with a smart computer instead. But they always seem to put a few new stumbling blocks in the way of both those options every year. That loophole will eventually get closed, it won't happen overnight, but they will keep eroding the functionalities and convenience of doing so until few if anyone wants to do that anymore.
Cars are nearly a lost cause too, except where regulations say they must use some standard like OBD2 for "emissions reasons", although that is obviously a limited scope and manufacturers try to find any ways they can to sabotage it or otherwise avoid it. Appliances and "smart homes", all the way down to the light bulbs and LEDs, have plenty of proprietary, locked down, unrepairable technology in them too despite reliable open standards being available. The war for total control over our digital devices is in full swing and there's no area of our lives from large to small that isn't a battleground. People need to keep prioritizing the freedom of their devices because once they get these technologies and features entrenched it's going to be very hard to work around them.
Woah woah woah, slow down partner, you're not done yet.
- you should absolutely make as much headway on this project as you can, then share the results so we can all benefit.
It's interesting to see some of the back-and-forth on this topic between different proponents of free software.
I listened to this talk by Linus Torvalds a while back and it relates to the GPL license used by the Linux kernel and why the kernel hasn't changed to GPLv3. Apparently Linus doesn't find this practice by Tivo and other hardware manufacturers to be an issue.
Yes, it's a damn shame that Linus is weak on property rights.
Because that's what this actually is, by the way: violating the device owner's property rights in order to prioritize the manufacturer's temporary monopoly privilege over the software -- which was only created for the sole and express purpose "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" in the first place -- above them.
Linus is kinda infamous for being a dick.
That really doesn't contribute anything to the merits of his remarks or not though.
I think he needs to work with HW manufacturers and chip designers/manufacturers to get drivers. They're always going to have some proprietary HW and FW and communication protocols somewhere in their stuff. I think if he pisses them off too much he has to to bit-bash or reverse engineer all drivers for loads of stuff - which is never going to happen.
Linux would need overwhelming market share in the consumer end to force chip makers to play, whether they like it or not.
Windows might be finally doing a bad enough job again, to drive Linux adoption, but it’s hard to tell if that’s just Lemmy talking.
Linux doesnt "force" chip makers. It tries to collaborate , that's the point of what Linus has been saying and doing for several years. I don't know which market you're talking about though, embedded - which is relevant here, or consumer PC. I don't even think MS gives a shit about consumer PC, it's worth next to nothing to anyone - maybe apple does.
Force is the wrong word, I meant more difficult to ignore.
Count me in for #3.