- nix23 parentHaving fun and making a cool product is more worth then more money and having to optimize a shitty ad-algo...for example at meta/google.
- >Customers have been conditioned to blame themselves for any device/product shortcomings, and consider themselves rather unworthy
That's something no one can solve for them, never.
But at least they should be capable going into a "Printer-Forum" and ask.
One then will say: Get a refund or roll back the update, i have the same printer...they do that (the asking) with, for example car's all the time.
- >The punishment should be blunt, uniform, and intimidating! This is absolutely a situation for fines!
To cover refund is a much bigger "fine" and the money flows directly back to those who suffered, that's not the case with fines, and fines are mostly small change for big-corps.
Just extend the rights of Customers and everything could be fine.
- >The onus is on the customers to realize that the has been an issue,
If the customer has no issues there are no issues right?
>Then there are shipping costs, likely the customers bought it from a local retainer, that may or may not be in business...
Again it's an HP and you send it directly to them, the MANUFACTURER has to cover all costs. Your retailer has not made the update so he should have nothing to do with it.
>The endless emails and phone calls.
One email: My printer (serial-number) worked for two years with that toner, since your update it's not working anymore (error blablabla), roll back that update or send me a shipping label.
>Overall the customers are not in any position of power without a forced recall.
Time to change that then right? Restore the functionality of my device or take it back.
You are making a problem where no are.
- >Only government regulations can keep capitalism in check
That's what i mean, a customer is allowed to return a device/car/whatever and get fully refunded if the initial function of a device changes with no technical advantage for the customer.
Fines brings the Customer nothing (aka you don't get your money back) and is mostly small change for the company, no need to change anything...but paying full refunds for let's say a 4yo device, that could hurt allot.
- >Every manufacturer that abuses this mechanism for anything other than actual security updates should be fined in a way that registers on their stock price and if they do it twice they should be fined out of existence.
No fines, just allow the customer to send back the devices and get a full refund plus all costs covered by the manufacturer...it could be so easy.
Give back the HP and buy a Brother....that would be called a self regulating Market.
- >Linux Security Modules (LSM) is a framework allowing the Linux kernel to support without bias a variety of computer security models. LSM is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License and is a standard part of the Linux kernel since Linux 2.6. AppArmor, SELinux, Smack, and TOMOYO Linux are the currently approved security modules in the official kernel.
- >I was asking which one, and the only one I know of is SEBSD, which is not at all massive.
SEBSE is a Framework, MAC is an implementation, those are two different things on different levels.
>MAC framework, but I've never heard of it. What is it called?
It's called MAC...you still don't see the difference?
https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/mac/
Look i stop here you have obviously no knowledge of MAC.
>I've been dealing with MAC for 20 years
Yeah no you don't since you don't even know the difference of SELinux and the/a MAC implementation.
- >What massive MAC framework does FreeBSD has?
That's NOT what i said, the FreeBSD MAC implementation is big and pretty much feature complete, NOT SEBSD.
>The 'different/other/ ways to secure the system are inferior since they offer no protection if root is compromised.
There is no such thing as "inferior" but different approaches, from completely deleting root as a user to using Container/Jail/Zones, Sandbox's, VM's etc. MAC is one of just many methods and OpenBSD voted against it and went another route (and that is totally fine and understandable).
>I don't think MAC is as hard to use as it was
MAC is still very hard, you are talking about SELinux that is just one implementation called FLASK/TE.
Try to implement Brewer-Nash MAC-policy on a Fileserver and i will see you sweating ;)
But as you can see, there is you and me (in this thread) who understand what a MAC even is, and that on HN....that just tells you how many people really have even a understanding what it even is.