I mean, I sort of get what you are saying but it also feels a little like Grimes’s boots thing from Terry Pratchet. Like, I can spend $200- $300 and get a phone that will stop getting security updates in 2-3 years… Or I can spend $700-$1000 to get a phone that comes with 7-10 years of security updates. Money per year, you are the same or better off if you can afford the up-front cost of the more expensive product, and we are generating a lot less techno-garbage clogging up the planet.

Generally, I hate the hard limit of use of these things. Coming from desktop computers, if you spend more money the machine is faster, but if you don’t need the speed you can use the cheap machine just as long (or longer if you really don’t need performance). All phones feel like they are just a subscription model.

Yea, except you aren’t getting security updates either… Basically anything connected to the internet should be getting security updates…

You keep saying that, but nothing about it is carved out specifically one way or the other for FOSS. As it is worded, any network sysadmin is considered the “OS Provider” exactly the same under Windows or Linux as they “control the operating system software on a computer”. They don’t “develop” or “license” the software in either case, windows or Linux. They control the OS the same amount under either windows or Linux.

Maybe it could be argued they are more likely to choose windows since the people developing and licensing the software are a big corporation and is therefore more likely to be compliant? But it isn’t like Canonical and RedHat are just some guy in a basement - these are commercial entities developing and licensing software just like Microsoft.

I agree the definitions in this bill are absolutely insane - the idea that the developer, licensor, and administrator of a computer’s OS would ever be the same person is astronomically unlikely. Maybe they mean something different by “control”, but it isn’t defined so that makes it up to the courts to decide with no direction.

I love the definitions section… So, first it defines the 4 age brackets a user can be: Under 13, 13-16, 16-18, or over 18. Then they define “Child” as anyone under 18. Then, and this is where it gets good, they define a “User” as a “Child”. So by these definitions, no one can be considered a user if they are over 18. (which, then, why is there an “over 18” age bracket defined earlier??)

Not only do these people not seem to understand technology, they also don’t understand that people over 18 use technology, or maybe exist?

Nothing about it specifically changes if it is Windows or Linux. By the definitions in the bill, they are just as much the “OS Provider” under Windows as they are Linux.

My biggest concern is the life cycle of the device. I almost went with Motorola for my last phone, but saw that you were lucky to get 3 years of OS updates. Is that likely to be better on GrapheneOS? If so, that is a huge win imo. If not, it still isn’t ideal because I don’t want to have to buy a new phone every 2 years…

AI is the new fan boy following since it became official that nfts are all fucking scams. They need a new technological God to push to feel superior to everyone else…