There’s a pretty vibrant open source diabetes community in Germany. Some tools such as AndroidAPS and xDrip have been existing for a long time and work together with many pump and CGM models available through the health insurance. GPL-3.0 licensed.
At least these were very beneficial for me, A1c went down from 7.5 to 5.5% without many hypos. You have to compile AndroidAPS by yourself due to distributing binaries would not be legal. It requires some knowledge, but for my partner not needing to call an ambulance ever again when I have a nightly hypo, that is a big win.
No nightly hypos for the past five years I’ve been using these tools…
Damn this is scary. How are we so dependent on the distribution (control) of software, especially healthcare related, through two corporations: Alphabet and Apple. I am not so naive as to believe the open internet or freeware is free of nefarious actors, but the testing and checks and balances would play out far safer than this for-profit stranglehold.
I have no idea how people who aren’t tech-interested, but dependent on these systems, stay sane. What a miserable way to live life.
The article didn’t go in the direction I expected. Theoretically, open source software can be fixed by experts outside of the main company, but it would be very niche. The expert would need to be familiar with the specific hardware at least, have varying degrees of medical knowledge and have access to the individual in need in some cases.
Forced updates and treating medical software as no more special than a game is the problem when dealing with apps. Tag medicals apps and make it so that system updates have to be manual or go through warnings before being deployed. Offer the option to go back to a version that previously worked. Create regulations to make companies liable for malfunctions.
It’s not about open source, but free/libre software. Third-party developers being able to change the software is a side effect of who is in control of the software that keeps you alive.
Sure we can do certification and similliar, but we still can’t be sure what’s really inside. Also the is a problem of accessibility. What if the app that you need to be alive is made only available from Google Play Store for “security reasons”? Now you are tied to the will of Google if they want you to serve the app or approve account for you.
What free software does is basically makes a protection from many types of abuses that are implications of user not being practically able to do what developer can.
Tandem Diabetes, the people that make one of the few insulin pumps out there, quite vocally demand that, to keep your official apps working, you not update to the latest versions of Android or iOS.
Software that controls your body should always respect your freedom
FTFY
But it is extremely worrying that so many devices that people require for their health and have no alternative for are so invasive and can be turned off without any warning.
It should also respect your PRIVACY! There are numerous articles about CPAP machines transmitting your data to not only your doctor but also your insurance company, WITHOUT your consent. Possibly your employer as well. If your insurance company decides you're "not complying" and using your CPAP machine enough, they'll take it away from you. Your employer could fire you.
Having a sleep apnea diagnosis can also limit you from certain jobs, and can make it harder to get life insurance. In some ways it feels like you're not a free man anymore.
The same question applies to cars, refrigerators, AC, thermostats, TV (aside from multimedia streams), washing machines, sex toys, regular toys, house locks, fan controllers, tooth brushes, toasters, microwaves, water heaters, stoves, ovens, trimmers, shavers, watches, …
Providing information for your care providers to act on it. At least that’s why I would WANT to have it. Is it being effectivly used like that though? I have no idea.
Privacy is a natural consequence of freedom that FSF is talking about. Their stance is that any computing device under your ownership should do everything you want it to, and only what you want it to.
I can’t with this article… there’s a very legitimate argument to be made here, but instead they are whining that stuff stopped working after an iOS update. If you’re running something life-critical you do not install every single update the moment it comes out.
I couldn’t disagree more with you. If you are running something REAL life critical the moment there is a patch you install it and deploy as fast as possible. And if it contains any severe patch it is even the vendor who recalls all the equipment with service bulletin and advisory letters.
With life critical you don’t wait the bug to appear because It maybe too late to avoid deadly consequences.
Then we disagree. Think about it, you’re patching the OS so what you now have is an untested configuration, and you’ve replaced a working system to get there, on the theory that you might be preventing an unknown bug in the future.
In one instance the vendor even explicitly recommends disabling OS updates until they have tested them.
No. If you’re working with life-critical systems, you only apply patches that are relevant to you. For example, an implantable insulin pump with Bluetooth capability. If there’s a patch that changes the Bluetooth functionality, but you don’t use that functionality, there’s no point in applying the patch.
Configuration control is a max in this world and you don’t have the control/ability/power to decide which patches go in or stay out. The vendor, the person who has all the power and knowledge, is the one who decides.
You can loose all your certifications or being held liable for any problem due to that policy.
Not even red hat (certainly not a life critical system) allows a different level of patches/state out of their approved ones
Oh yes, why would I apply a security patch for Bluetooth which I don’t even use, on my life-supporting device which someone else could connect to via Bluetooth without me knowing or noticing?
What you are saying is far from reality. Most patches only state vague stuff like “security” or “Bluetooth”.
How would you know, what those mean? Bluetooth could be “Hey, you can now monitor even more with your app” or “fixed some big holes in the chips security which made it hack able via Bluetooth”.
You say it’s far from reality, but I’m speaking from experience. I was responsible for maritime life safety systems. When those systems were implemented, they were tested and qualified for use. It didn’t matter how many updates came out, if they weren’t qualified, they didn’t get deployed. If I had deployed an update that hadn’t been qualified, it would have put lives at risk, such as by causing issues with ship detection or man overboard alerts not going off.
If you want to get really into it, like the systems that run aircraft and nuclear reactors, look up formal verification.
Okay,so you are talking professional equipment with software patches to be applied by professionals.
The article (and also the comments as I understood them) was about end users updating software themselves. Those are two very different things.
Yes, we also only update needed patches on systems we handle, but as an end user I do not check all updates that I apply on my private PC.
Why would I?
Not if the existing software functions properly. If there’s a fix in it you need then sure, once the vendor has tested and approved it you should migrate.
There’s a reason why Google and Apple let developers test out pre-release versions of their OSes months before the release. Companies which don’t test their apps out to prepare for new versions are at fault, nothing else.
I agree wholeheartedly, alas we live in an imperfect world. It sounds like you’ve waited for an update or two that took longer than expected.
I’m not arguing that the source code shouldn’t be made public. If someone posses the right skills they should definitely be able to take full control over the devices they depend on to keep them alive. It’s a invasive feeling knowing you depend on a gizmo to not die.
The author of this article is glossing over a lot of steps by implying that open sourcing the apps and firmware is a fix for delays in app store approval or other common problems that are inherent in the software/hardware ecosystem. It not really a flawed argument, it’s just not what I would’ve lead with.
I ran an iPhone for many years and never updated anything at all. The apps were updated automatically.
Edit: Ah, you’re talking about an iOS update. Forgive my lack of reading comprehension. Apps that have been automatically updated have been known to stop working, however.
What’s confusing to me is this article talking about the “GNU operating system”. What is that supposed to refer to? They say "Usually combined with the kernel Linux, GNU forms the… " Do they mean that the kernel isn’t part of the OS?
They want you to call it GNU / HURD now so they can contrast it with GNU / Linux. You are correct though that the real “GNU Operating System” includes HURD.
GNU is a project, started by the FSF, to create a “free” operating system. The goal is a full POSIX compatible OS that provides the 4 freedoms to its users.
GNU is not the whole universe of free software. It is not everything released via the GPL. GNU is specifically a project to create an free operating system. Here is what they have done so far:
The GNU project pre-dates Linux. When Linux was created, it was not intended to be part of the GNU project. In fact, in the initial announcement, Linus said Linux would “not be big and professional like GNU”.
The GNU project always intended to write its own kernel. And it has—something called HURD.
All that said, when the Linux kernel appeared, people took parts of the GNU project to create a full operating system out of Linux. In particular, the C library ( Glibc ), C compiler ( GCC ), and core utilities were used with Linux.
In the early days, other than X11, a lot of the software running in a Linux system was GNU software. Nobody called it GNU / Linux back then but it would have been accurate.
These days, even though most Linux distros still ship with the GNU software, GNU represents a small fraction of the ecosystem overall. Some Linux distros ship without any GNU software at all.
Anyway, the reason they talk about “the GNU operating system” is because that is what GNU is and was meant to be—an operating system.
The issue is that practically nobody uses “the GNU operating system”—all the GNU stuff running on HURD. But lots of people run GNU stuff on Linux. So, the GNU folks have promoted the idea that “the GNU operating system” is any kernel with the GNU stuff running on it. So, GNU / Linux is GNU running on Linux. There was an attempt to create GNU / BSD which is GNU stuff running on the FreeBSD kernel. In this naming scheme, HURD is not implied by GNU anymore so that operating system would now be GNU / HURD.
You can probably tell that I do not like the term GNU / Linux. I think it confuses people as it makes it seem like GNU means “free software” or “GPL software” as opposed to a specific project to create an OS. Also, not all Linux distros use GNU and, of the ones that do, GNU software is a small piece. Also, most distros do not actually represent the ideals of the original GNU project very well. There is a reason that there are only a few distros that the FSF endorses. How can you brand something as “GNU” and then have the FSF not recommend it?
This is not a rant against free software. Most of the software shipping with a typical Linux distro is free software. That is a tremendous achievement for the FSF and they should celebrate it. But why try to brand that as GNU. Let GNU be GNU and do more to promote free software in general. The GNU utilities will eventually be replaced I expect and you see some of that now. Clang can replace GCC. MUSL or relibc could replace Glibc. So what? It is all free software ( though not all copyleft ). It would not be GNU, but it is free software nonetheless.
Basically when you log into your Linux pc, everything you see and click on is GNU. Only the invisible part that makes your hardware work (display driver, usb driver, printer driver etc) is Linux (the kernel)
The kernel recognises only hardware and peripherals. Everything else you do on your system is GNU.
I’m no expert … I just enjoy reading about all this stuff.
But isn’t the entire internet built, maintained and made possible by the free software movement. Isn’t Linux systems basically the entire backbone of the internet?
Usually combined with the kernel Linux, GNU forms the backbone of the Internet and powers millions of servers, desktops, and embedded computing devices.
I’m just quoting the Free Software Foundation themselves. I didn’t say I agree with them. It’s a deceptive use of language that is rather unbecoming of an organization normally so careful with its words.
Edit: For the record, I think the GNU Project’s biggest contributions have been to the desktop, not the server world.
Sorry. I replied to the wrong comment. I was not calling you out.
I mean, both RHEL and Debian use Glibc which means the vast majority of the Linux applications running outside the cloud are calling into GNU code. So, I cannot take that away from them.
In the container space ( the cloud ), I am not sure that is true. Anything calling into Alpine, for example, would be MUSL.
Why do you say that GNU has had a bigger impact on the desktop? They have nothing to do with the GUI layer ( like X11, Wayland, Mesa, or Proton / WINE ). Do you mean GNOME? It is not part of the GNU project. I would argue it never was as it was started and staffed by totally different people. The G in GNOME originally stood for GNU so the GNOME founders ( like Miguel de Icaza ) were clearly inspired by GNU. Given that, I guess I agree with you.
It is ironic, de Icaza founded the GNOME project with the idea of bringing not only a modern desktop but a broad array of modern free software applications. Unlike GNU, his vision of the Linux desktop was populated by music players, spreadsheets, email / calendar programs, PDF viewers, and video editors. He even formed a company to make them. But he found writing modern desktop apps in the languages GNU GCC supported really difficult. So he set out to write a clone of .NET so that he could write GUI desktop apps easier ( the Mono Project ). It looked like it was worked for a while as, for a few years, the most modern Linux desktop apps were Mono apps ( .NET ). But Richard Stallman ( FSF / GNU ) hated it and railed against it and warned everybody not to use it. There was even an attempt to make a GNU Project competitor to Mono ( dotGNU ) but that went nowhere. It is interesting to me that de Icaza gave up on the Linux desktop. He not only stopped making desktop apps but in fact moved to the Mac as he main platform. Mono became more about the web and then eventually mobile with de Icaza’s second company ( Xamarin ).
Microsoft bought Xamarin ( and basically Mono too ). Today, Linux is practically the premiere platform for .NET. Certainly Linux dominates in the cloud. If you install .NET on your Linux box, you may be running more Microsoft code than GNU.:’
I’m familiar with the history of GNOME, and somewhat with Xamarin and Mono. While I have made that argument in the past, it was pointed out to me that the GNOME name was used to ride off the coattails of the popularity the GNU project had in the '90s, and they ended the association when it stopped being convenient for them.
(A GNOME developer pointed this out to me using this language; I could link you to the interaction, but it was on reddit)
I mean, both RHEL and Debian use Glibc which means the vast majority of the Linux applications running outside the cloud are calling into GNU code.
This also includes the proprietary NVIDIA driver, which only works with glibc.
Unlike GNU, his vision of the Linux desktop was populated by music players, spreadsheets, email / calendar programs, PDF viewers, and video editors.
To begin with, GNU will be a kernel plus all the utilities needed to write and run C programs: editor, shell, C compiler, linker, assembler, and a few other things. After this we will add a text formatter, a YACC, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other things. We hope to supply, eventually, everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and anything else useful, including on-line and hardcopy documentation.
and eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen.
Do you know something I don’t? I don’t think the GNU Project was against multimedia software; they were just focusing on the more fundamental stuff first.
The GNU Project’s biggest contributions were when the kernel was in its infancy. The most major contribution is undoubtedly the GPL. Without it, Linux would not be where it is today. I think enough has been said on that subject, but it’s what made RHEL billions. It’s the philosophy of free software that has made so much of the programs today possible. It’s incredibly important.
Obviously, we also have the GNU Project financially backing Debian GNU/Linux in its infancy. And while you say GNU wasn’t involved in the GUI layer, that’s not true. They worked on the free Harmony toolkit as a matter of high priority, and would have kept working on it if GNOME had not been so successful. Thanks to the success of another GNU project, GIMP, the GTK toolkit was able to be repurposed for general usage.
I don’t think it’s fair to discard contributions that never panned out like HURD and Harmony, because it shows GNU was actively involved in making the desktop better for everyone, which has really been its mission from the start. Maybe they’re not “the backbone” of the desktop, but I think it’s fair to say their biggest/most notable contributions have been to the desktop, not the server.
I don’t contribute to the GNU Project because frankly, they don’t do anything I consider worthwhile at the moment. I don’t contribute to the Linux Foundation, either. I contribute to user-facing software I’m interested in, like Lutris, GIMP, and Kdenlive.
It’s mostly linux now (except for most of the actual networking gear) but it wasn’t 20 years ago, so the internet is certainly “possible” without linux.
Crazy to think that this movement was born in data centers on huge mainframes. The kind you see in old school computer documentaries with the huge spinning tape drives. They recognized the need for free software before mainstream users even existed.
Canada has not yet introduced its version of an “Online Safety” bill, but it will be coming soon. Right now would be a very good time to write to your MP asking them to do what they can to stop it from including any of this kind of stupidity.
fsf.org
Hot