MacBook Air owner?

2018/2019 models are losing #Apple support.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/06/the-case-for-and-against-macos-15-sequoia-being-the-final-release-for-intel-macs/

#OptGreen with #GNU/#Linux to keep your device in use! These machines will run beautifully for many years to come.

Not only wallet friendly, #upcycling keeps CO2 emissions out of the atmosphere. Ca. 75% of Apple’s emissions comes from production alone (details in alt text).

Sustainable, independent #FreeSoftware: Better for users, best for the #environment.

@kde

#KDE #KDEEco #FOSS #OpenSource #MacBook

  • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
    18·
    9 days ago

    On the other hand, I can put an open OS on my Android and get security updates long after the manufacturer has abandoned it. Can’t do that with an iPhone. (But honestly, few Android devices make it easy, and none that I know of allow every little part of the system to be supported this way.)

    It’s about time we started legally requiring manufacturers to unlock our hardware when support ends, and release the driver specs ahead of time, so the open software community can take over support. The unending accumulation of e-waste due to nothing more than abandoned software is unforgivable.

    This goes hand-in-hand with the right to repair.

    • Grimpen@lemmy.ca
      5·
      9 days ago

      100% agree. You’re not selling the hardware anymore, leave it in an unlocked state. Same with games.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      1·
      9 days ago

      You can format the Mac and put Linux on it and get updates forever as well.

      Edit: or you could when it was x86… not sure where Mx stand on that.

    • manualoverride@lemmy.world
      1·
      9 days ago

      That would be nice for iPhone, I’ve got a perfectly fine iPX that I’m only going to upgrade because my banking apps are going to drop support for iOS 16 soon

    • Brahms@chaos.social
      0·
      9 days ago

      @mox @manualoverride while I absolutely agree with your position, also keep in mind that this has security implications.

      Beside the fact that most vendors dont even use all the patches available from AOSP, no custom ROM project can backport all patches. Sooner or later this means there are devices that cant be securely used anymore, unless someone does the effort.

      a vendor concept with a subscription could solve this I guess or enough support for an open project e.g. @GrapheneOS

      • GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
        0·
        9 days ago

        @brahms @mox @manualoverride

        OEM support for the device is needed because an alternate OS cannot provide firmware updates otherwise. In practice, driver updates also come from the OEM. Providing the Android Open Source Project backports is nowhere close to full security patches. It’s unfortunate that most alternate operating systems mislead users about this by setting an inaccurate Android security patch level field, not being honest about what’s missing and downplaying the importance of it.

        • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
          1·
          8 days ago

          OEM support for the device is needed because an alternate OS cannot provide firmware updates otherwise.

          Firmware and drivers can be made open, just as other software can be made open. It’s really just a matter of incentives. In my experience, law tends to be a pretty effective incentive.

          If the bill of materials included the legal requirements discussed here, then a component supplier would either start producing open firmware/specs, or they would lose that market to another supplier.

          Obviously, Android would not be the only project/product affected by such a legal change.