Open source software is not bug free. I’d argue there are more vulnerabilities caused by human error than there are caused by malicious actors. More often than not, malicious actors are just exploiting the errors/gaps left by completely legit designers.
Running those open source apps in a separate computer, isolating infotainment from the more critical software, would be an even stronger safety layer, imho.
While it’s true that Debian installation used to make use of a TUI and it did not have a nice GUI “live-CD” installation image for a long time (I think until 2019), Debian installation process included a default DE for way longer than that (2000). And before they did, the installation offered a choice between different window managers (back in the days before well established DE suites were even a thing).
They don’t customize the DE much, but neither does Archlinux which is a very popular distro nowadays (and the installer on that one is arguably even less friendly than Debian used to be).
Personally, I feel it has more to do with how other distros (like Mint, Ubuntu, Knoppix, etc.) have built on the work of Debian to make their own variants that are essentially Debian + extra stuff, making them better recommendations for the average people (if one thinks of those as Debian variants then I wouldn’t say Debian is “left out”). And for the not-so-average people, rolling release style distros (or even things like Nix/Guix) might be more interesting to experiment in.
Running it through the same computer is a bad practice, imho. Remember the Jeep Hack where researchers were able to dig into the integrated infotainment system and control the brakes?
I wouldn’t want to have critical car functions (or emissions control, regulatory software, ADAS, telematics, etc) depend on the same device that someone might be using to connect to the internet and/or run Android Auto apps. Regardless of whether it’s integrated or not.
I guess it might be ok to share energy and some non-critical capabilities with the infotainment system… but you can do that through a USB-C connection without requiring it be integrated directly in the vehicle. Imho they should be isolated, and what best way of isolating it than being completely different computers?
At least for the German one, it’s essentially a rebranding of existing open source products packaged/adapted to work as a suite.
For example, for editing documents they are using Collabora online (Libreoffice-based), for chat it’s Matrix, for storage Nextcloud, email & calendar from Ox Cloud, etc.
This just applies to the French government, unless you land a public job it’s likely you’d still have to deal with that shit.
Still, it’s good news and lets hope it sets a trend.
Yes, but that’s the point. Why focus on something that does not make them criminals when there are other things that might?
Isn’t CachyOS more of a general purpose distro anyway?
I expected the OGC was mainly targeted to gaming-first distros, which in my mind are meant for an entirely different kind of devices with different interests and goals. I don’t think there should be much value in CachyOS joining it, regardless.
Most people already carry infotainment devices in their pockets that can be attached to holders and charging ports in the car. Even better if you connect a hub with some SSD storage to keep movies/music.
I feel infotainment systems bundled in cars are mostly redundant and explicitly made to be non-modular so that they can get you into their walled garden.
you shouldn’t be adjusting it while driving but, my response is why have it in the first place.
Exactly. If you shouldn’t be adjusting it, then why is the touchscreen even accepting adjustments in the first place? … it should be rejecting all touches whenever the engine is running to prevent people from even trying, which completely defeats the point of having a touchscreen in the first place anyway…
It makes no sense to have an input that explicitly requires you to take your eyes away from the road in order to operate it.
And specially for Microsoft, they would be shooting their own foot if they were to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in the development community over the legality of the use of AI tools like Copilot, which they themselves promote and sell.
They don’t say what tech it’s behind it but according to the article, it would be decentralized in Europe.
Personally I don’t mind if it’s not federated with the fediverse, but imho, at the very least the protocol / basis should be FOSS.
I’d argue it’s more of an issue for them, since they do not get to counter-argument :P
Your reply refuting their argument can be read by everyone that is in an open platform, while their messages only go unchallenged on their own echo chamber anyway.
To me, it would be worse if it was the other way around: them spewing shit and me not even realizing and being unable to respond.
I agree, which is why I think running those open source apps in a separate computer, isolating infotainment from the more critical software, would be a stronger safety layer.
Them being separated should, imho, be a precondition, so that it can minimize accidents and exploits in cars that might be running software that is not immediately up to date as a result from publicly and well known vulnerabilities being discovered as the code evolves.