It hardly matters which ones are fake. The only thing that really matters is whether or not you can get the job done quickly enough. You might be seen for a brief instant by one or maybe two real cameras; but as long as you keep moving all the while you are in the store and make a good getaway afterward, the recording isn't really going to be much good to anyone.
Of course, you could always persuade an under-age kid, or {better} several under-age kids, to wander round the store in the altogether while you were perpetrating your blag..... this now makes the surveillance recordings Child Pornography and the entire security staff nonces.
Perfect crimes get committed all the time. We just don't get to hear about them, because nobody is getting caught. The number one way to get yourself caught is, and always has been, not keeping your trap shut.
Binary packages are an ugly kludge dating back to the days of slow processors and analogue modems. They have been retained long after the need to keep them has expired. Faster processors have reduced compilation times, and ADSL has tenfolded download speeds..... twice.
If you're wanting to build your own distro, you'd probably do as well ditching binary packages altogether; they really are more bother than they're worth. {Except for initial bootstrapping, of course}. Just have your packages download, compile and install themselves from a single command.
Actually there are fewer Source packages {consisting of a.tar.gz = author's tarball, a.diff = Debian/Ubuntu patches and a.dsc = Debian/Ubuntu metadata} than there are binary packages. This is because each source package builds at least two binary packages, main and -dev, and possibly a library package as well. Some programs, such as httpd, have options that are only meaningful at compile-time and hence result in there being several binary packages according to the compile-time options chosen. So from one source package foo you might build binary packages foo.deb, foo-dev.deb and libfoo1.deb. Or if bar is something with extensive compile-time options, you might build bar-common.deb, bar-threaded.deb, bar-nonthreaded.deb, bar-nonthreaded-smp.deb and bar-dev.deb from the same source package.
Wouldn't it make more sense to arrest people if and when they actually harm a child?
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people who just want to look at pictures. Yes, they may well be pictures documenting a crime that was committed..... but so what? The kids in the pictures aren't getting any worse just because other people are looking at them. The harm was already done when the pictures were taken, and it isn't going to be undone.
I say let people jack off into a box of tissues as much as they damn well like. At least once they've spent their pocket money, they're no danger to anyone for a couple of hours. If they're doing more than look at pictures, then by all means go after them. But what a person does within the privacy of their own imagination is nobody else's business.
The entire Catholic Church is founded on child abuse. Presenting mythology as though it were fact, to minds too young to understand the difference, is a form of child abuse in its own right. Of course, just to keep it fair, the Church carries on with other forms of abuse after the kids become adults, such as spreading AIDS across Africa by telling outright lies about condoms.
Well..... obviety is a strange beast. The moment someone mentioned to me that someone had invented {and patented} a refrigerator door that could be opened from either side without needing to be re-hung, I knew how to build one -- even before they had described how it worked. Should I have tried to get the patent struck down for being obvious? {Then again, I always used to know the Countdown Conundrum the instant someone buzzed in, as though the sound of the buzzer rearranged the letters in my head. Maybe this is a supernatural power?}
For my part, I'm behind KSR. All they seem to have done was assemble some standard components as per the instructions. A lot of the defensive patents that coporations have accumulated might now be struck down for obviety, which can only be a good thing in the long term.
I don't know. The thing is, Microsoft's current business practice depends on forcing customers to buy MS Office. What usually happens is that someone receives a Microsoft Office document they can't open, from someone who has a new PC that came with MS Office already installed {which actually costs Microsoft a small amount}. They then get hold of a pirated version of MS Office, and eventually they might -- especially if they're a business -- get a paid-up version of MS Office. Given enough n00bs blindly sending out their space-formatted Word documents and added-up-with-an-idiot-calculator Excel spreadsheets in the newest versions, and enough people and businesses buying software rather than pirating it, this works well for Microsoft.
OpenDocument support would blow this sky-high. With the need to upgrade just to be able to read other people's documents removed, nobody is ever going to buy a paid-up copy of MS Office again.
The reason is, of course, that it's Sony who funded the production, marketing, and distribution of the CD. In turn for investing a significant amount of money, their contract with Shakira states that they are the exclusive distributors of the recording. If Sony doesn't turn a profit, they're out of business.
Some time ago, I paid a plumber to install me a new central heating system. I do not have to pay him every single time I put the heating on or run the hot water. The plumber named a price, which included the cost of the materials plus a certain amount of profit; the work was done; the plumber was paid, and that is the end of the matter. Sony may have invested money; but once they have recouped it and made a certain amount of profit, that should be an end to it too.
The likes of Sony really need to remember who pays their wages.
I think I lost some of my point in the oversimplification. What I am proposing really is a new model for a recording industry of the 21st century. It works like this.
You write a song
You borrow money to record it, using your copyright as collateral. The lender has lien over all unsold copies for the duration of the debt and can restrict distribution.
You use the money you borrowed to hire the wherewithal to record the song
You sell your song
As soon as the loan is paid off -- either by selling copies of your recording or because you obtained some more money elsewhere and bought your way out of the loan -- the bank loses its lien
You are then pretty much free - except that if you allow anyone to copy and/or distribute your work, you must allow everyone to do so on identical terms.
I can see a market for several different kinds of production and distribution services. There would be "package deal" companies, with their own well-equipped studios, instruments, session musicians, mastering and pressing plants and internet distribution facilities, where you literally just turn up, sing, and they do the rest; there would be jobbing producers who would expect you to provide your own band and instruments and give you a master recording; and there would be distribution-only outlets with no studios of their own, expecting you to supply a master recording.
Has any Rock and Roll music actually entered the Public Domain?
The point I'm making is that PD music {and most of it is classical music} is something like an industrial part in the way that you can choose among various suppliers of essentially the same thing. Copyrighted {here implying popular} music isn't, because only one entity is legally allowed to supply you with it.
Basically what I'm saying is that I'd have absolutely no problem with paying a band or artist the same amount of money as they would have got out of me buying the CD, everytime I make my own copy of a CD, if there were a proper infrastructure in place for me to do so. Everyone involved in the manufacture of a CD -- with the notable exception of the performer -- is replaceable. I, as payer of the wages of the record company executives, should have the choice whether to have the CD stamped and packaged for me with a glossy photo booklet containing all the words to all the songs; or do it myself using equipment I already bought and paid for and label it with a magic marker.
The act of "pirating" is not free. Empirical evidence from an unreliable source suggests that in 1999, it was economically viable to sell "pirated" CDs for £3.00 a time -- and that's with magic-marker labelling and a handwritten track list. At some price point, it will be perceived as less bother to buy CDs legitimately than to pirate them; so people, being lazy, will buy them. It's conceivable that this would increase sales to the point where more profit is made than today.
You pay $3.00 for fuel in the USA? And I thought that the UK was expensive -- average price for unleaded today is 95.7p, which according to Google Calculator is $1.77.
Well, I'm not paying it personally; I haven't got a car, I just walk and get lifts. Maybe that means I'm stealing somehow?
Actually, they do have a monopoly on popular music, since with any kind of art there is, by definition, no objective criterion for evaluation.
Industrial components are standardised. If I buy an M6 nut from one supplier, I can be sure that it will screw onto an M6 bolt from any other supplier. If I buy a length of 15mm. copper piping, I can similarly be sure it will fit any 15mm. compression or soldered elbow, tee, reducer or valve. If I need a 10K ohm resistor, or a diode which will handle 6 amperes with a maximum reverse voltage of 400V, I can buy ones which perform identically from any of several suppliers.
If, however, I want to listen to the song "Whenever, Wherever", I can only find this song sung by Shakira, and only on Epic Records -- a label owned by Sony Music. Everytime someone spends several pounds on a copy of the CD, Shakira herself -- the one truly indispensable person in the equation -- receives a few pence out of this money. Logically, anyone should be allowed to make their own copy and send Shakira the same sum of money as she would have received had they bought one from Sony. Yet, for some reason, this is not allowed. If this were allowed, then there would not be a monopoly situation, since various entities would be competing to supply the same music as though it were a standard industrial part, and the market would decide matters for itself.
{Note 1: anyone is free to make recordings of classical music which has entered the public domain.}
{Note 2: in some European countries, you used to be able to buy cheap and cheerful LPs and cassettes -- CDs weren't invented then -- containing poor-to-terrible cover versions of popular British and American chart hits. I suspect this is no longer the case. Any Continentals care to comment?}
I think the parent poster is saying that they would like to pay for their music in the traditional way, using shiny round pieces of metal bearing the likeness of the head of state on one side and an intricate design featuring a prominent number being a multiple of 1, 2 or 5 on the other, and are being prevented from doing so.
Let's say you wanted to buy food, but the only food available was laced with a subtle poison that was going to strip 10 years from your life. If it was worth the tradeoff to you, you'd still buy it. If it wasn't, you'd say "fuck this," and start growing vegetables in your back yard.
But what if it was illegal for you to grow your own vegetables at home?
They could actually do this. This is how I imagine they would spin it:
Fertiliser can be used for bomb making, and its sale must be restricted. Initially you would have to produce proof that you held an allotment or had a large garden. Then, having purchased fertiliser, you would be inspected regularly to make sure you were not growing cannabis, poppies, valerian or any of several other beneficial plants which have been used by humans for centuries, nor making bombs in your shed.
Small-scale growing creates pockets of plant disease capable of affecting large-scale agriculture: without the proper chemical fertilisers and pesticides, pests capable of devastating entire farming districts can flourish. Your little organic carrot crop might wipe out half the carrots in the South West.....
Home-grown food is not subject to the rigorous nutritional analysis that supermarket food has to undergo. However good it looks, it may turn out to be bad for your health, even deadly. It's just come out of the ground, and it's covered in filth, for crying out loud! Are you really prepared to risk your health and your family's health?
A few years of this treatment will turn some home-growers {who already constitute a minority} off, and turn the public mindset against the rest. A law could eventually be passed making home-growing an offence without too much of an outcry.
The computer parts market is not fair or free because there are a few major players who can abuse their dominant position.
In Texas Hold 'em Poker, there comes a point where the chip leader can force other players out of the game, almost no matter how good their hand, just by making it too expensive for them to play on: when you're skint enough, you have no choice save to go all-in. And when one player, or two players working in concert, can afford to keep forcing you all-in, hand after hand and still hang onto the chip lead, you're bound to lose eventually.
A new startup making graphics cards has to face the likes of nVidia and ATI. These players can use dirty tricks; for instance, making their graphics cards cheaper to price the newcomer out of the market, then hiking their prices back up again afterward. Most people are greedy, stupid and shallow and don't look beyond the price tag. If there's a reliable graphics card that will last ten years and comes with programmer's specs, and another one that will last six months, crash your PC every few hours, has no programming information, produces really muddy, blurry pictures but it's £5 cheaper, they'll buy the second one every time, convince themselves the picture is excellent, and gladly pone up for another when the first goes bang. Eventually the first manufacturer will go T.U. This situation doesn't benefit consumers in the slightest. And the crazy thing is nobody seems to care: they'd rather have a shiny new knife complete with loads of accessories that they will never use, than one they can sharpen anytime it gets a bit blunt.
The situation is the same in every field, just with different names. A few dominant players effectively form a cartel and lock out anyone else from entering the market.
That's why I think there should be a Ministry of Information Technology with some real power; and perhaps a Nationalised computer equipment manufacturer selling no-nonsense, field-maintainable, built-to-last kit, pre-loaded with Ministry Approved software. You might have laughed at some of the cars that came out of Eastern Europe in the late 20th Century; but one thing you absolutely can't deny about them is that they were highly field-maintainable.
I would prefer to see a law saying that the interface and specifications of hardware devices must be made available on request to anyone that purchases said device.
Yes, exactly. This information is not secret: it forms a part of the operating instructions for the device {and anyway, even if it were secret, anybody who rightfully owns an example of the device is "in" on said secret, by virtue of Common Law property rights}.
Source Code would be just one manifestation of this. I apologise for not making myself clearer.
First, do you really trust the legislative process to meaningfully define (for actual, real-world use in an industry moving 5000mph) terms like "device" and "driver?" It's bad enough when a judge decides to get involved in discussing what is, and is not part of an operating system, as if such things weren't ever going to change.
You appear to be mixing Parliament with the Courts. Beside which, it would be easy enough to provide a catch-all "if in doubt, supply the source". I think the test is something like "could a sufficiently competent programmer use the information presented to write a program for a computer enabling the use of all the device's features?"
I'd rather let demonstrably crappy manufacturers get the reputation they deserve, and let the market sort it out. Don't buy hardware from people whose practices your don't like.
That would require a fair and free market. The current market for computer hardware and software is neither fair nor free.
Further: what possible guarantee is there that drivers, having been open-sourced, will go out the door without any vulnerabilities? The concern here isn't whether the bug(s) will be fixed (it/they will), but whether everyone will patch.
The various Linux distributors and the BSD teams pore over driver code to greater or lesser extents. Sure there have been a few high-profile cases of driver troubles {Mandriva with a driver that killed one model of LG CD-ROM drive that did not conform to spec, and only because it did not conform to spec; and more recently, Ubuntu with that flaky aic7xxx driver} but these are the exception rather than the rule.
Also, there is a lengthy QA process before any driver enters the Linux kernel tree, involving at least two developers vowing never to speak to each other again:) which ought to ensure that driver code remains high-quality.
The alternative to Mandatory Open Source is Mandatory Guarantee backed by Source Code Escrow. If a manufacturer wants to hide Source Code from "ordinary" users, they should still be required to submit a copy of the Source Code to the Ministry of Information Technology. This would normally be locked in a vault until the expiration of its copyright; however, in the event of any dispute reaching a court of law, it would be unsealed and admitted as evidence. Manufacturers who disclosed the Source Code directly would of course not have to supply a guarantee of performance, since the Source Code is in effect its own guarantee.
Again we hear of a vulnerability and again it is one which need never have existed in the first place.
We know a song about that!
It's time that access to source code for device drivers was mandated by law: if hardware manufacturers will not supply the source code for their drivers, then they simply should not be allowed to sell the product. It has to be demanded from above, because of the {false, and patently so} perception that releasing driver source code or specifications might benefit competitors: if everyone has to do it then no-one will benefit unfairly.
Now, in the case of wireless devices, there is a definite possibility that the device could be reprogrammed to operate in a different way to that for which type-approval was granted. So it should be made clear that the approval covers the hardware and software as a combination, and altering the software may cause the device to operate in a non-approved manner. Just by the general principle of "innocent until proven guilty", anyone using a modified version of a device driver would only be liable for prosecution if they actually caused undesirable interference. Anyway, this is how it works in industry: type-approval procedures are published, you can certify your own products, but if at a later date they are discovered not to meet the requirements, then it's your responsibility to deal with it.
Slashdot Mirror
It hardly matters which ones are fake. The only thing that really matters is whether or not you can get the job done quickly enough. You might be seen for a brief instant by one or maybe two real cameras; but as long as you keep moving all the while you are in the store and make a good getaway afterward, the recording isn't really going to be much good to anyone.
..... this now makes the surveillance recordings Child Pornography and the entire security staff nonces.
Of course, you could always persuade an under-age kid, or {better} several under-age kids, to wander round the store in the altogether while you were perpetrating your blag
Perfect crimes get committed all the time. We just don't get to hear about them, because nobody is getting caught. The number one way to get yourself caught is, and always has been, not keeping your trap shut.
I wonder whether the fake cameras would have been so effective if people knew they were fake?
The thing about rule-by-fear is that it is always going to be temporary. People can, and do, overcome their fears.
Binary packages are an ugly kludge dating back to the days of slow processors and analogue modems. They have been retained long after the need to keep them has expired. Faster processors have reduced compilation times, and ADSL has tenfolded download speeds ..... twice.
If you're wanting to build your own distro, you'd probably do as well ditching binary packages altogether; they really are more bother than they're worth. {Except for initial bootstrapping, of course}. Just have your packages download, compile and install themselves from a single command.
Actually there are fewer Source packages {consisting of a .tar.gz = author's tarball, a .diff = Debian/Ubuntu patches and a .dsc = Debian/Ubuntu metadata} than there are binary packages. This is because each source package builds at least two binary packages, main and -dev, and possibly a library package as well. Some programs, such as httpd, have options that are only meaningful at compile-time and hence result in there being several binary packages according to the compile-time options chosen. So from one source package foo you might build binary packages foo.deb, foo-dev.deb and libfoo1.deb. Or if bar is something with extensive compile-time options, you might build bar-common.deb, bar-threaded.deb, bar-nonthreaded.deb, bar-nonthreaded-smp.deb and bar-dev.deb from the same source package.
Of course "obviety" is a word ..... being -ious means having -iety.
You'll be saying "breathed" instead of "brothe" next!
Wouldn't it make more sense to arrest people if and when they actually harm a child?
..... but so what? The kids in the pictures aren't getting any worse just because other people are looking at them. The harm was already done when the pictures were taken, and it isn't going to be undone.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people who just want to look at pictures. Yes, they may well be pictures documenting a crime that was committed
I say let people jack off into a box of tissues as much as they damn well like. At least once they've spent their pocket money, they're no danger to anyone for a couple of hours. If they're doing more than look at pictures, then by all means go after them. But what a person does within the privacy of their own imagination is nobody else's business.
The entire Catholic Church is founded on child abuse. Presenting mythology as though it were fact, to minds too young to understand the difference, is a form of child abuse in its own right. Of course, just to keep it fair, the Church carries on with other forms of abuse after the kids become adults, such as spreading AIDS across Africa by telling outright lies about condoms.
Well ..... obviety is a strange beast. The moment someone mentioned to me that someone had invented {and patented} a refrigerator door that could be opened from either side without needing to be re-hung, I knew how to build one -- even before they had described how it worked. Should I have tried to get the patent struck down for being obvious? {Then again, I always used to know the Countdown Conundrum the instant someone buzzed in, as though the sound of the buzzer rearranged the letters in my head. Maybe this is a supernatural power?}
For my part, I'm behind KSR. All they seem to have done was assemble some standard components as per the instructions. A lot of the defensive patents that coporations have accumulated might now be struck down for obviety, which can only be a good thing in the long term.
Except that people don't download the viewer. They just buy Word. Or, if they want something that's free-as-in-beer, then they pirate Word.
And the source code, so people who are not using Windows can compile it for their own setup, is where exactly?
I don't know. The thing is, Microsoft's current business practice depends on forcing customers to buy MS Office. What usually happens is that someone receives a Microsoft Office document they can't open, from someone who has a new PC that came with MS Office already installed {which actually costs Microsoft a small amount}. They then get hold of a pirated version of MS Office, and eventually they might -- especially if they're a business -- get a paid-up version of MS Office. Given enough n00bs blindly sending out their space-formatted Word documents and added-up-with-an-idiot-calculator Excel spreadsheets in the newest versions, and enough people and businesses buying software rather than pirating it, this works well for Microsoft.
OpenDocument support would blow this sky-high. With the need to upgrade just to be able to read other people's documents removed, nobody is ever going to buy a paid-up copy of MS Office again.
If enough people did this then they might just take notice .....
The likes of Sony really need to remember who pays their wages.
- You write a song
- You borrow money to record it, using your copyright as collateral. The lender has lien over all unsold copies for the duration of the debt and can restrict distribution.
- You use the money you borrowed to hire the wherewithal to record the song
- You sell your song
- As soon as the loan is paid off -- either by selling copies of your recording or because you obtained some more money elsewhere and bought your way out of the loan -- the bank loses its lien
- You are then pretty much free - except that if you allow anyone to copy and/or distribute your work, you must allow everyone to do so on identical terms.
I can see a market for several different kinds of production and distribution services. There would be "package deal" companies, with their own well-equipped studios, instruments, session musicians, mastering and pressing plants and internet distribution facilities, where you literally just turn up, sing, and they do the rest; there would be jobbing producers who would expect you to provide your own band and instruments and give you a master recording; and there would be distribution-only outlets with no studios of their own, expecting you to supply a master recording.Has any Rock and Roll music actually entered the Public Domain?
The point I'm making is that PD music {and most of it is classical music} is something like an industrial part in the way that you can choose among various suppliers of essentially the same thing. Copyrighted {here implying popular} music isn't, because only one entity is legally allowed to supply you with it.
Basically what I'm saying is that I'd have absolutely no problem with paying a band or artist the same amount of money as they would have got out of me buying the CD, everytime I make my own copy of a CD, if there were a proper infrastructure in place for me to do so. Everyone involved in the manufacture of a CD -- with the notable exception of the performer -- is replaceable. I, as payer of the wages of the record company executives, should have the choice whether to have the CD stamped and packaged for me with a glossy photo booklet containing all the words to all the songs; or do it myself using equipment I already bought and paid for and label it with a magic marker.
The act of "pirating" is not free. Empirical evidence from an unreliable source suggests that in 1999, it was economically viable to sell "pirated" CDs for £3.00 a time -- and that's with magic-marker labelling and a handwritten track list. At some price point, it will be perceived as less bother to buy CDs legitimately than to pirate them; so people, being lazy, will buy them. It's conceivable that this would increase sales to the point where more profit is made than today.
You pay $3.00 for fuel in the USA? And I thought that the UK was expensive -- average price for unleaded today is 95.7p, which according to Google Calculator is $1.77.
Well, I'm not paying it personally; I haven't got a car, I just walk and get lifts. Maybe that means I'm stealing somehow?
Actually, they do have a monopoly on popular music, since with any kind of art there is, by definition, no objective criterion for evaluation.
Industrial components are standardised. If I buy an M6 nut from one supplier, I can be sure that it will screw onto an M6 bolt from any other supplier. If I buy a length of 15mm. copper piping, I can similarly be sure it will fit any 15mm. compression or soldered elbow, tee, reducer or valve. If I need a 10K ohm resistor, or a diode which will handle 6 amperes with a maximum reverse voltage of 400V, I can buy ones which perform identically from any of several suppliers.
If, however, I want to listen to the song "Whenever, Wherever", I can only find this song sung by Shakira, and only on Epic Records -- a label owned by Sony Music. Everytime someone spends several pounds on a copy of the CD, Shakira herself -- the one truly indispensable person in the equation -- receives a few pence out of this money. Logically, anyone should be allowed to make their own copy and send Shakira the same sum of money as she would have received had they bought one from Sony. Yet, for some reason, this is not allowed. If this were allowed, then there would not be a monopoly situation, since various entities would be competing to supply the same music as though it were a standard industrial part, and the market would decide matters for itself.
{Note 1: anyone is free to make recordings of classical music which has entered the public domain.}
{Note 2: in some European countries, you used to be able to buy cheap and cheerful LPs and cassettes -- CDs weren't invented then -- containing poor-to-terrible cover versions of popular British and American chart hits. I suspect this is no longer the case. Any Continentals care to comment?}
I think the parent poster is saying that they would like to pay for their music in the traditional way, using shiny round pieces of metal bearing the likeness of the head of state on one side and an intricate design featuring a prominent number being a multiple of 1, 2 or 5 on the other, and are being prevented from doing so.
They could actually do this. This is how I imagine they would spin it:
- Fertiliser can be used for bomb making, and its sale must be restricted. Initially you would have to produce proof that you held an allotment or had a large garden. Then, having purchased fertiliser, you would be inspected regularly to make sure you were not growing cannabis, poppies, valerian or any of several other beneficial plants which have been used by humans for centuries, nor making bombs in your shed.
- Small-scale growing creates pockets of plant disease capable of affecting large-scale agriculture: without the proper chemical fertilisers and pesticides, pests capable of devastating entire farming districts can flourish. Your little organic carrot crop might wipe out half the carrots in the South West
..... - Home-grown food is not subject to the rigorous nutritional analysis that supermarket food has to undergo. However good it looks, it may turn out to be bad for your health, even deadly. It's just come out of the ground, and it's covered in filth, for crying out loud! Are you really prepared to risk your health and your family's health?
A few years of this treatment will turn some home-growers {who already constitute a minority} off, and turn the public mindset against the rest. A law could eventually be passed making home-growing an offence without too much of an outcry.The computer parts market is not fair or free because there are a few major players who can abuse their dominant position.
In Texas Hold 'em Poker, there comes a point where the chip leader can force other players out of the game, almost no matter how good their hand, just by making it too expensive for them to play on: when you're skint enough, you have no choice save to go all-in. And when one player, or two players working in concert, can afford to keep forcing you all-in, hand after hand and still hang onto the chip lead, you're bound to lose eventually.
A new startup making graphics cards has to face the likes of nVidia and ATI. These players can use dirty tricks; for instance, making their graphics cards cheaper to price the newcomer out of the market, then hiking their prices back up again afterward. Most people are greedy, stupid and shallow and don't look beyond the price tag. If there's a reliable graphics card that will last ten years and comes with programmer's specs, and another one that will last six months, crash your PC every few hours, has no programming information, produces really muddy, blurry pictures but it's £5 cheaper, they'll buy the second one every time, convince themselves the picture is excellent, and gladly pone up for another when the first goes bang. Eventually the first manufacturer will go T.U. This situation doesn't benefit consumers in the slightest. And the crazy thing is nobody seems to care: they'd rather have a shiny new knife complete with loads of accessories that they will never use, than one they can sharpen anytime it gets a bit blunt.
The situation is the same in every field, just with different names. A few dominant players effectively form a cartel and lock out anyone else from entering the market.
That's why I think there should be a Ministry of Information Technology with some real power; and perhaps a Nationalised computer equipment manufacturer selling no-nonsense, field-maintainable, built-to-last kit, pre-loaded with Ministry Approved software. You might have laughed at some of the cars that came out of Eastern Europe in the late 20th Century; but one thing you absolutely can't deny about them is that they were highly field-maintainable.
Source Code would be just one manifestation of this. I apologise for not making myself clearer.
Also, there is a lengthy QA process before any driver enters the Linux kernel tree, involving at least two developers vowing never to speak to each other again
The alternative to Mandatory Open Source is Mandatory Guarantee backed by Source Code Escrow. If a manufacturer wants to hide Source Code from "ordinary" users, they should still be required to submit a copy of the Source Code to the Ministry of Information Technology. This would normally be locked in a vault until the expiration of its copyright; however, in the event of any dispute reaching a court of law, it would be unsealed and admitted as evidence. Manufacturers who disclosed the Source Code directly would of course not have to supply a guarantee of performance, since the Source Code is in effect its own guarantee.
Again we hear of a vulnerability and again it is one which need never have existed in the first place. We know a song about that!
It's time that access to source code for device drivers was mandated by law: if hardware manufacturers will not supply the source code for their drivers, then they simply should not be allowed to sell the product. It has to be demanded from above, because of the {false, and patently so} perception that releasing driver source code or specifications might benefit competitors: if everyone has to do it then no-one will benefit unfairly.
Now, in the case of wireless devices, there is a definite possibility that the device could be reprogrammed to operate in a different way to that for which type-approval was granted. So it should be made clear that the approval covers the hardware and software as a combination, and altering the software may cause the device to operate in a non-approved manner. Just by the general principle of "innocent until proven guilty", anyone using a modified version of a device driver would only be liable for prosecution if they actually caused undesirable interference. Anyway, this is how it works in industry: type-approval procedures are published, you can certify your own products, but if at a later date they are discovered not to meet the requirements, then it's your responsibility to deal with it.