Technology

59756 readers

2800 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

510

First Router Designed Specifically For OpenWrt Released (sfconservancy.org)

submitted 3 days ago by schizoidman@lemm.ee to c/technology@lemmy.world

75 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/123708

Comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] lime@feddit.nu -9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Industry “conventional wisdom” often argues that FCC requirements somehow conflict with the software right to repair. SFC has long argued that's pure FUD.

i mean, it is at conflict with right to repair. having to accept harmful interference to be certified means that repairability suffers simply because the device needs to be made to break.

[–] planish@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't think that's what accepting harmful interference means. It means more like, if there is noise in the channel, the device won't just up its own power to clobber the noise, even if not doing that will somehow break it or otherwise make it not work right. It doesn't mean you have to build the device so that some kinds of interference will cause it to break.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 2 days ago

i have always interpreted it as you cannot block signals that will break you. like if the us military drops an emp on you, you can't design for that.

now that i type it out i realize how weird it sounds though.