You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually somebody did root it and very publicly (twitter) revealed that files existed in the firmware for P100D cars. Much drama ensued, but he isn't blacklisted AFAIK. That person says he doesn't like the new forum software so isn't posting much here anymore, but it was on here. I'm pretty sure he is in the top 5 of people reporting bugs & exploits to Tesla as well.
I can understand that point of view, while not agreeing with it. Cars use public roads and making code modifications in a firmware driven internet connected vehicle can potentially put other people at risk.
That would be a potential disaster in the making.
I don't know how "right to repair" came into the discussion that is occurring in this thread.Losing the right to repair is a HUGE compromise to make. It means that for the entire life of the vehicle your forced to go through the manufacture for everything. You can't change out the infotainment system to something else. You can't upgrade any of the electric motors to anything else. You can't use someone else's battery pack. You can't buy some part off craigslist to fix your car because that part might have a different firmware version on it. Keep in mind these are just examples of what someone might run into
It wasn't my post but it didn't seem snippy at all to me *shrugs*
I don't know how "right to repair" came into the discussion that is occurring in this thread.
The OP wants to be able to refuse, indefinitely if he wishes, any firmware updates that Tesla pushes to the fleet. He also wants to be able to hack his car and make whatever code modifications to the firmware he wants to.
My position is that modern firmware-driven internet-connected cars like Tesla have become far too complex for owners to be allowed access to. Public safety overrides the owners desire to make any modifications he wants to.
The OP obviously does not agree with my position. That is his prerogative. I hope Tesla never provides anyone outside of Tesla the information and documentation that would allow anyone to access and modify the cars firmware, at any level. Cars are not smartphones. Larger issues are involved. We have moved past the time when car "enthusiasts" could readily make modifications to drivetrains, suspensions, and other parts of their vehicles. To anyone who claims that they have the expertise to make fundamental modifications to a Tesla without compromising the safety and controls of the vehicle, I say that you are either the one in a million customer with the skills to actually do that safely, or you are fooling yourself, and I don't want you anywhere near the roads I use.
Apple's argument would be that they built the highway, you pay to drive on it.It's funny you mentioned cell phones since Apple did the same fear mongering as a justification for their walled garden. What did the walled garden really allow for? For them to make billions on stuff other people made.
Apple's argument would be that they built the highway, you pay to drive on it.
Similar to this - Simon Property Group, the ones who own most major US malls, will charge resident businesses a portion of their profits. That's right, they will put a reasonable number to your monthly profits, and if your business exceeds that, they take a percentage. Your books are open. This probably varies by location, but it was eye-opening to me. Their argument is that they built the house, they drive the traffic, and your business benefits from their infrastructure. While you pay rent already, that's only good to your "reasonable profit" number. The rest.. well, that's all because of Simon.
So anyway, it's not a unique proposition.
So anyway, it's not a unique proposition.
Well, good try but apparently people can't read. Maybe you should let this moral thread going on and try to start a new one with just the technical facts...Many people have told me to shut up and bow down to the Tesla overlords, and how dare I question anything they ever do. This thread is not for those people. If you are one of those people, do us all a favour, stop reading now, and go elsewhere. I don't want your replies, and I will not engage you in this thread.
Well, good try but apparently people can't read. Maybe you should let this moral thread going on and try to start a new one with just the technical facts...
Courage!
Tesla is legally obliged to provide said information, since Tesla is using GPL-licensed software in their cars. Alternatively, they can pay the fines for criminal copyright infringment. They are quite likely to take the secont option at this point, given that the infringment is wilful, for-profit, and has been ongoing for three years now. The Linux copyright holders would be well within their rights to refer the case to the FBI by now, though as far as I know they haven't done so (out of politeness, I presume).I hope Tesla never provides anyone outside of Tesla the information and documentation that would allow anyone to access and modify the cars firmware, at any level.
The only reason I can think of for rooting would be to unlock better performance for refreshed 60D,70D, 75D and nose cone 70D. Tesla handicaps those models in performance through software.
Wow, a lot of effort, time, and risk for such trivial returns... Some people have a LOT of time on their hands. I've seen more ambitious project threads like this started than finished. Will be interesting to see f it goes anywhere.It is of particular interest to the OP because having root access would allow him to turn off the road-type/speed-limit based restriction that was added to 7.1. He predicted during the release that it would function poorly, and he was correct. The other thing it would allow him to do is to turn off nags.
If I had root access I'd use it to turn on/off the LCD and LCD backlight when I wanted to. Sure I can use a dark website, but I want the center console screen off sometimes. Where I can just touch it to turn it back on.
it's his time and it isn't your call on how he expends his efforts, time and risk.Wow, a lot of effort, time, and risk for such trivial returns... Some people have a LOT of time on their hands.
Tesla is legally obliged to provide said information, since Tesla is using GPL-licensed software in their cars. Alternatively, they can pay the fines for criminal copyright infringment. They are quite likely to take the secont option at this point, given that the infringment is wilful, for-profit, and has been ongoing for three years now. The Linux copyright holders would be well within their rights to refer the case to the FBI by now, though as far as I know they haven't done so (out of politeness, I presume).
I disagree. Stated that way it sounds like Tesla intend to at some point stop selling cars to individuals and for Tesla to always own all the vehicles they produce. I don't believe that is even close to accurate. For the foreseeable future (meaning this century) individuals will want to own cars for their personal use only. What Elon said in SMP Part Deux is that when fully autonomous driving is a reality and legally allowed on public roads, car owners will have the option of hiring out their cars for others to use when the owner is not using them.I know the ultimate goal for Tesla is to remove car ownership.
Tesla is legally obliged to provide said information, since Tesla is using GPL-licensed software in their cars. Alternatively, they can pay the fines for criminal copyright infringment. They are quite likely to take the secont option at this point, given that the infringment is wilful, for-profit, and has been ongoing for three years now.
Doug, thank you for posting that point of view. I am not an expert in that field, but your position makes sense to me. After 4 years of Model S production it seems clear that no one has challenged how Tesla is using Linux in their cars, and no one is likely to. Someone might, but I think they will lose that case.This is NOT a widely-held interpretation of GPL.
You can write user space applications with no requirement to release the source code, because you are not extending Linux, you are writing code that runs on the operating system. Just like running Firefix on Windows doesn't make it part of Windows. It is no different whether you are running a desktop application or an embedded application.