Conversation
Notices
-
"Samsung may only be in the planning stages for its Note7-disabling update in South Korea, but over in the U.S. things are in full swing. The company announced earlier this month that such an update would be sent out to all remaining Note7 units in the US starting on December 19. And now it's time for the first of the big four carriers to push the software to devices it's sold. From a report:
That carrier is T-Mobile, which is starting the rollout today. The update will prevent the handset for charging, and will display a notification with information about Samsung's Galaxy Note7 recall and the steps needed to return the device. The build number for the update is N930TUVU2APL2."
TIL you can brick an Android phone - at least Samsung ones - with a software update.-
@maiyannah One of the many reasons to never update unless needed
Wednesday, 28-Dec-16 15:36:25 UTC from web-
@nerthos There's a reason companies refuse to separate security patches from content patches. If you have that ability to chose which updates you instally, you can avoid the kiwi that they want to force on you.
-
-
@gameragodzilla It's why MS stopped making patches optional, and why they started omnibus patching, so that people could no longer avoid stuff like they did with the "free upgrade" advert update.
-
-
@maiyannah Honestly I plain refuse to update anything that isn't specific software unless new hardware isn't supported anymore or the update is required for some functionality I need. I've had a notification annoying me in my phone for half a year about updating from android 5.11 to 6 and I'll keep ignoring it for another year. Last time I updated my OS was 2012.
Wednesday, 28-Dec-16 18:03:50 UTC from web-
@nerthos I'm much the same these days. Security updates are the only thing I bother with, and only if the security issue affects me.
-
@maiyannah The only things I keep up to date are multiplayer games, firewall and antivirus.
Wednesday, 28-Dec-16 18:11:18 UTC from web-
@nerthos I don't even keep those up-to-date.
Wednesday, 28-Dec-16 18:12:27 UTC from web-
@actualrudolph Well the last two auto-update and have a reason to do so, and the first group can't log in without being on the same version as the server so there's no point in having them otherwise.
Wednesday, 28-Dec-16 18:14:36 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@maiyannah Aren't all software update mechanisms essentially remote code execution vectors? So why be surprised.
Now this particular case is kinda interesting. The battery is unsafe to the point of being potentially life threatening and the update disables charging the battery so it cannot be harmful anymore.
It feels wrong for a carrier/manufacturer to explicitly disable functionality for something you've bought but at the same time this update doesn't prevent you from transferring your files (it doesn't technically brick your phone, it just removes the mobile part from your mobile phone) and from what I understand they're offering some kind of replacement.
So it's not a "screw you, we decided you can't do this anymore" like Sony with the PS3 Linux stuff. But still, the fact that manufacturers are willing to do this in at least some circumstances makes me queasy.-
@verius At the risk of channelling rms, if you let them do it when its "okay", they will keep moving the line of when it's "okay" until its clearly on the line of "never okay". Look at Microsoft, for instance.
-
-
@verius I try to comment more generally on principles in situations like this for just this reason; what you do otherwise is end up constructing elaborate flow-chart-requiring apparatus surrounding what is and is not okay. Look at how complicated it is to actually properly unpack the privilege knapsack for an example of that.
-
-
-
-
