How do I free my television?
In principle, yes, and I believe a few small hobby projects have attempted to do this and support specific TVs. However, interest in developing a custom Smart TV platform tends to get siphoned away into a project where the output from your actual platform is displayed on the TV rather than running directly on it. Simply, it’s easier to develop and maintain support across different models.
Why would you develop a custom TV OS that runs on one TV when you could develop it for any mini PC and immediately support all TVs? You’d have to develop your OS to run on each specific TV model which will make it quite hard to reach a critical mass sufficient to attract attention from developers and users alike.
The juice isn’t really worth the squeeze. It’s not like TV vendors are publishing detailed hardware specs and drivers. Writing or even porting an OS is hard. Look at the state of the Android ROM scene, and that’s about as good as it gets when some vendors are actually attempting to open source their drivers. The difficulty is much higher and the interest lower due to the existence of a viable alternative.
With that said, motivated minds have done it anyway. You just need to have the right TV for it.
Yes. What brand or model number do you have?
I was thinking that if somebody knows how to do that, they probably also have an opinion on which brands of TV are better or worse for it.
I don’t own a TV right now but plan to in the future.
Ah, well, the biggest thing you have to worry about is that most vulnerabilities that would allow users to get ROOT access have been patched for old and new TVs, so you might want to be selective if you don’t want to do it the hard way. You need to know which TV OS you’re dealing with before you can look for the necesary tools.
The hard way is removing the SoC processor from the board, buying a custom mount for it, and using the debug pins to flash the OS. Most of the legwork has been done already for this method. https://www.synacktiv.com/en/publications/i-hack-u-boot
Something to keep in mind is that the processors in smart TVs are almost always pathetically slow. Also, the streaming services compatible with these TVs require hardware encryption so if your modified OS mimics the old one but isn’t verified then they will refuse to run. You would get better performance from using a computer connected to the HDMI port, or even a Raspberry Pi as your TV Box.
Replacing the OS completely is likely possible for every single TV on the market, but not very likely for any of them because nobody with the skills sees any value in it.
It’s much easier to run a HTPC on something small like a Raspberry Pi, or an NVIDIA Shield. The hardware on your TV is probably the bare minimum to run its own smart features, and replacing the firmware doesn’t guarantee that the TV isn’t still phoning home with your data.
If you literally replaced the firmware, what else could possibly be phoning home?
The lower level firmware, your pc is probably doing the same
This would be awesome, but something else I thought of would be DRM. If you don’t have the correct version (like Linux and a few android custom roms) then you would stream at really low quality. So if you even came up with a free smart tv os, it would lack quality streaming
It is possible but it needs people to develop the OS for each brand of TV and jailbreak the TVs to run another OS.
Most TVs are like phones in that they have a locked down system and their bootloader/BIOS/UEFI is also locked down which is what ultimately needs to be unlocked to allow another OS to be installed.
Why there isn’t?
Just not really many developers interested in creating an OS for it. Probably because of so many different brands and models of TVs that would require lots of work since each one is pretty different from another.
Install pi hole at home, force the TV to use that for dns, block some shit but not all, build on that, report back
It should be a thing because most (all?) “smart TVs” run some variety of Linux, which, as Free Software, is supposed to guarantee the device owner’s right to modify the software running on the thing. However, in most (all?) cases, the practical ability to do that has been destroyed by subverting encryption functions against the owner in a process called Tivoization.
In other words:
- No, it isn’t really a thing,
- It’s wrong for it not to be a thing, and
- You should be pissed off about it.
Count me in for #3.
It’s interesting to see some of the back-and-forth on this topic between different proponents of free software.
I listened to this talk by Linus Torvalds a while back and it relates to the GPL license used by the Linux kernel and why the kernel hasn’t changed to GPLv3. Apparently Linus doesn’t find this practice by Tivo and other hardware manufacturers to be an issue.
Yes, it’s a damn shame that Linus is weak on property rights.
Because that’s what this actually is, by the way: violating the device owner’s property rights in order to prioritize the manufacturer’s temporary monopoly privilege over the software – which was only created for the sole and express purpose “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts” in the first place – above them.
Linus is kinda infamous for being a dick.
That really doesn’t contribute anything to the merits of his remarks or not though.
I think he needs to work with HW manufacturers and chip designers/manufacturers to get drivers. They’re always going to have some proprietary HW and FW and communication protocols somewhere in their stuff. I think if he pisses them off too much he has to to bit-bash or reverse engineer all drivers for loads of stuff - which is never going to happen.
Linux would need overwhelming market share in the consumer end to force chip makers to play, whether they like it or not.
Windows might be finally doing a bad enough job again, to drive Linux adoption, but it’s hard to tell if that’s just Lemmy talking.
Linux doesnt “force” chip makers. It tries to collaborate , that’s the point of what Linus has been saying and doing for several years. I don’t know which market you’re talking about though, embedded - which is relevant here, or consumer PC. I don’t even think MS gives a shit about consumer PC, it’s worth next to nothing to anyone - maybe apple does.
Force is the wrong word, I meant more difficult to ignore.
Thanks for teaching me a new concept to be angry about, I guess.
I mean, they did it with phones too. Android is just Linux. That was one of the main attractions, for me at least.
At first, many people and groups supplied their own phone OSes. There was a whole thriving community ecosystem. Then they started to make it really hard, locking bootloaders and including critical pieces of hardware that didn’t or couldn’t have open source drivers (look up WinModems for a very early example of this technique, it remains really effective) or otherwise required extremely convoluted methods to access and the phone might function marginally without some of these fully functional, but at least you could still install a custom ROM on it if you were stubborn enough.
But even that wouldn’t last. Nowadays they’ve made it literally impossible to defeat the security on most phones, in the name of keeping hackers and criminals out, but really a big part of their motivation is blocking these pirate OSes that let you actually control the hardware and software in your phone, doing criminally nefarious things like stopping them from downloading ads (the horror!) and preventing them from funneling all your data and activities back to Big Brother (how rude!) and worst of all updating it with modern functionality after they’ve declared it “obsolete”. The goal going forward is to sell you things that you don’t and can’t control, so they can shut them down or make them gradually more and more useless and make you buy new ones forever. They want you to have a subscription for everything including physical objects without realizing that you’ve been forced to subscribe to their regularly-scheduled-disposable-device-replacement-plan for no actual reason.
They’re coming for computers too, or at least they’ll try. They want control of everything we interact with. For profit, mostly, but I wouldn’t rule out other motives. It’s a powerful thing when you have control of everything people see and do.
STOP IT!! I WAS ABOUT TO HAVE A GOOD DAY TODAY!!
I could be wrong (I haven’t really paid attention lately), but I think the state of Linux on “smart” TVs is considerably more dire than the state of Android phones. At least with the latter, projects like LineageOS and GrapheneOS are a thing, whereas I know of zero third-party community firmware projects for TVs.
Oh absolutely. Smart TVs are completely under the control of the technology and media companies with very little hope for freeing them, except that you can still plug a computer into them to bypass all the “smart” features and just use it as a dumb screen with a smart computer instead. But they always seem to put a few new stumbling blocks in the way of both those options every year. That loophole will eventually get closed, it won’t happen overnight, but they will keep eroding the functionalities and convenience of doing so until few if anyone wants to do that anymore.
Cars are nearly a lost cause too, except where regulations say they must use some standard like OBD2 for “emissions reasons”, although that is obviously a limited scope and manufacturers try to find any ways they can to sabotage it or otherwise avoid it. Appliances and “smart homes”, all the way down to the light bulbs and LEDs, have plenty of proprietary, locked down, unrepairable technology in them too despite reliable open standards being available. The war for total control over our digital devices is in full swing and there’s no area of our lives from large to small that isn’t a battleground. People need to keep prioritizing the freedom of their devices because once they get these technologies and features entrenched it’s going to be very hard to work around them.
Woah woah woah, slow down partner, you’re not done yet.
- you should absolutely make as much headway on this project as you can, then share the results so we can all benefit.
The Free Software Foundation explicitly forbade tivoization in version 3 of the GNU General Public License. However, although version 3 has been adopted by many software projects, the authors of the Linux kernel have notably declined to move from version 2 to version 3.
How come Linux doesn’t use GPL v3?
Linux copyrights are owned by many different people, so it would be prohibitively difficult to ask every person to agree to a GPLv3 change. Even if you could, Linus Torvalds is not a fan of the v3 license.
Even if you could, Linus Torvalds is not a fan of the v3 license.
Why not?
I have another question.
Can we reprogramme the remote buttons that open Netflix, YouTube etc., so that they open other apps like Jellyfin or something?
you can! (at least on googles android tv, not sure about amazon’s bastardized version) I use an app called button remaster, available from the play store, to switch my chromecasts youtube button to smart tube and netflix button to stremio
Those companies paid to have their buttons on the remote. Your TV manufacturer is not going to threaten their sponsorship deal by letting you use those buttons for anything else.
I don’t know how remotes work, physically, but they gotta send some sort of code to the TV. If your TV’s OS can intercept that message it can choose its own response mapped to whatever you want to happen. Something akin to remapping keys in your keyboard.
I would assume, anyway. I could be wrong.
Also cars. I want a custom, privacy respecting OS for an EV please
Oh no:
It is theoretically possible to replace the operating system of an electric car with an open-source or custom alternative, similar to flashing a custom ROM on Android smartphones. However, in practice, this comes with significant challenges. Here’s an overview:
Theoretical Feasibility
-
Hardware Compatibility:
- Electric vehicles rely on specific hardware components (e.g., control units, sensors, actuators) that are tightly integrated with the operating system.
- A custom operating system would need to understand and control this hardware. However, the underlying hardware specifications (APIs, protocols) are often proprietary and not publicly available.
-
Software Architecture:
- Modern electric cars use highly complex software architectures that include real-time operating systems, safety-critical systems, and user-facing interfaces.
- A replacement OS would need to handle safety-critical functions (like braking and steering) as well as infotainment features.
-
Open-Source Efforts:
- There are initiatives like Automotive Grade Linux (AGL), which aim to create open-source software for vehicles. However, these are typically designed for automakers and not readily available for end-user modification.
Practical Challenges
-
Safety Risks:
- Operating safety-critical functions such as braking, propulsion, and battery management requires certified software.
- Modifying the software introduces safety risks, which can have serious consequences, especially on public roads.
-
Legal Barriers:
- Many countries mandate that vehicles operate only with approved software to ensure compliance with safety and emissions regulations.
- Modifying the vehicle’s software could result in the loss of roadworthiness certification.
-
Technical Restrictions:
- Manufacturers often use encryption and digital signatures to protect access to the vehicle’s software.
- Replacing the operating system would require bypassing these security measures, which could be legally and technically problematic.
-
Lack of Community Support:
- Unlike smartphones or PCs, there is currently no large-scale community actively developing user-friendly open-source operating systems for electric vehicles.
Examples from Practice
- Some enthusiasts and hackers have managed to modify software on vehicles like Tesla cars to add custom features or access internal data. However, these projects remain experimental and risky.
- Initiatives like Comma.ai focus on creating aftermarket autonomy systems, demonstrating the challenges of modifying or replacing existing systems.
Conclusion
Replacing the operating system of an electric car is theoretically possible but practically extremely difficult due to legal, technical, and safety-critical constraints. While it could be an exciting project for hobbyists and developers, any modifications would likely render the vehicle unfit for legal road use in most jurisdictions.
You AI generated your comment… https://app.gptzero.me/
You should post your own comments on subjects in your own words instead of using a plagarism bot to do it for you. It’s no better than just copying other people’s comments.
As soon as you see those sections with bullet points you know.
Yeah I obviously did, because I wanted to know the answer and shared it with you. Why would that be a bad thing?
You should clarify at the begging of your comment that is AI and what the prompt that generated that answer was.
How about because AI generation is prone to misinformation, is often straight up plagarism, and finally is just lazy and low effort garbage.
@[email protected] Need your input on this as the admin of this person’s homeserver, are you thrilled about people on your server posting this kind of lazy ass AI spam in the rest of the fediverse?
How many more of your comments are AI generated?
This one was, obviously. I wrote Oh no! and posted it. I obviously wasn’t trying to sell this as my opinion, calm down!
You should’ve quoted the gpt part or mentioned it. That’s why people are upset, it seems misleading. I get why you did it though.
Its bad because its misinformation
Then tell me about it instead of downvoting! I’d love a custom rom for my car and was obviously not happy about the AI answer.
Its currently not possible.
*on modern cars
Like I just discovered, shared and mourned in my post that got deleted? I really don’t understand what’s going on here. :). Where was the misinformation?
-
It is still possible to buy “dumb” TV’s. Tons of businesses need them for display purposes (like at fast food restaurants and corporate expos, etc, etc), but you need to search for commercial displays. Like this one.
deleted by creator
Bless you for providing a link; I can’t tell you howany times I’ve seen this advice without any link or instructions on how to locate these
Day 1,826 of telling people they can buy a smart TV and just not connect it to the internet
You don’t need to spend $700 on a TV that doesn’t connect to the internet
Wait until you learn tvs can piggy back off other tvs that are connected to the internet.
Citation sorely needed
That’s not a citation silly, that’s a downvote. Don’t get mad at me because there aren’t actually any TVs doing this
I didnt downvote you.
I cant find definitive proof. But it hardly would suprise me with the shady shit samsung does.
Seriously, buy an AppleTV. It works standalone without the need for other apple products. Has a fast processor, ability to disable telemetry, good track record of software update support etc. and NO.ADS.IN.THE.OPERATING.SYSTEM.
Using an Android box will result in the same issues you’re trying to get away from with SmartTVs.
If you’re technically capable enough you can build your own HTPC, but due to DRM you’re going to run into issues streaming 4K content from streaming services. And PC and Linux HDR and Dolby Vision support is a rabbit hole.
Except you have needed to have an iPhone to use an Apple TV, and to get around it required a workaround that wasn’t disclosed. It’s happened before, it can happen again.
Apple also telemetries the hell out of your data. The best they offer against this is to prevent them from using it for “targeted” marketing, but that doesn’t really mean much as Apple clearly states:
We provide some non-personal data to our advertisers and strategic partners that work with Apple to provide our products and services, help Apple market to customers, and sell ads on Apple’s behalf to display on the App Store and Apple News and Stocks.
Seriously, this myth of “Apple = Privacy/no ads” needs to go away.
That’s the privacy policy for the AppleTV app. Here’s the specific information on AppleTV device settings:
https://support.apple.com/en-tm/guide/tv/atvb66239fa1/tvos
You can share analytics data with Apple or app developers in order to improve their software. Sharing this data is completely optional
The Apple TV runs the Apple TV app.
It’s not a hardware issue that tracks you, it’s every app baked into it which has its own privacy policies.
Best is to try to get the dumbest TV you can and plug in an android tv streaming box to it imo
I believe that’s called a monitor. Just buy a bigass monitor or projector.
A TV usually comes with a remote, a monitor doesn’t. Additionally, you can use it to watch linear TV if you don’t feel like making a selection.
I have a “smart TV” and I plug it into my receiver and use it as a monitor. I use the term smart TV that way, because it is more than 10 years old when TVs were just starting to have these features. I should also point out that the receiver does all of the spying that the TV isn’t doing. Not sure what I’ll do when the TV dies.
Similar for me. I have an old Philips “smart” TV (actually today it is very dumb as basically all services are disabled and all apps heavily outdated) which I occasionally use for watching TV, but most times I use the attached Raspberry Pi with Kodi for watching German public broadcaster’s Mediathek, Youtube or Amazon Prime.
you can use it to watch linear TV if you don’t feel like making a selection.
These days that’s through a box the cable company provides that plugs into the HDMI more often than anything else. If you happen to have actual towers in range maybe you can actually plug an antenna into the antenna port but that’s what TV Tuner cards that you plug into your Jellyfin/Plex box are for. Basically for folks looking for a dumb TV chances are they have no need for any of the actual TV features except for maybe the remote
In Germany, you may also use the built in DVB-C receiver of the TV for free TV and an additional CI module + card for pay TV. But cable companies want you to use their set top boxes.
But, yes, if you use a set top box an extra speakers with your TV, the TV basically becomes a large monitor with a remote (which isn’t necessary as the set top box usually comes with a remote).
Like a TV that flunked kindergarten? j/k
A Phony
I’d think most people woud go for a cheap used ultra Small Form Factor pc or raspberry pi set up as an htpc. Plug in to either tv screen (via hdmi ) or monitor / projector directly. Never connect the tv to the internet - or even to your LAN if you’re really paranoid. You can arse around with a remote control a bit bodgy, or just use wireless Keyboard/mouse.
I cant imagine spending the time to jailbreak a tv to get less functionality for more hassle - but i’m sure some crazy will have done it - good luck finding them though.
Some TVs will connect to the internet anyway
How do they if you dont plug them in to the network, do they have cellular, or some sort of PLC? Can they hack WPA? maybe they’re more powerful than i’d creditt them for.
Cellular and your neighbors WiFi that was online without a password for about 3 minutes. It only takes a few seconds for them to dump all their stored history up to the mothership.
Its also common for a lot od ISPs to have a hidden SSID for their other customers, which you cannot disable. I wouldn’t be surprised if your neighbors TV will mesh share their WiFi to your TV so it can upload the data about you. That data is why they sold you that TV at a discount. They want it.
Technically yes, you’d have to find an exploit for your TV that allows for installing your own OS.
It’s not super feasible but it’s technically possible.
