[kelnos]

I see that as a sort of capitulation. What is actually needed is manufacturers who remain responsible and responsive when it comes to the quality of their drivers. They need to support them much longer than they currently do, and they need to release security fixes promptly.

I think having a sandboxed driver model is a great idea in general, but this will only encourage hardware manufacturers to care even less about supporting their drivers beyond the initial more-or-less-working release.

[zepto]

> What is actually needed is manufacturers who remain responsible and responsive when it comes to the quality of their drivers. They need to support them much longer than they currently do, and they need to release security fixes promptly.

That requires a level of investment in engineering competence that they aren’t doing because there is little incentive.

How would you suggest changing that?

[fsflover]

When the support ends, drivers must be open-sourced.

[zepto]

That’s just a wish.

How do you create the incentive for it?

[fsflover]

I think that just must be a law. I see no other possibility.

[zepto]

How would the law define ‘support ends’?

Also seizing source code at gunpoint seems antithetical to the notion of free software.

[fsflover]

This is the question of security, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27387169.

> How would the law define ‘support ends’?

Whenever the company refuses to fix security bugs.