THANKS KAKAROTO!! I alredy have fun! If my head does not explode and my laptop does not explode, I'll write you soon hahahaha
2017-12-19 21:54 GMT+01:00 Timothy Pearson <[email protected]>: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Thank you for the detailed explanation. I guess this is an area in > which experience matters; it is absolutely unacceptable (and not > unexpected) that Intel misled your CEO, but this is sadly not an > uncommon tactic in the industry. > > One item I would like to call out though is the following: > > > if old or non-x86 architectures were so appealing, you would have seen > that become the norm rather than the exception) > > No one is denying that the easiest course of action for everyone would > have been for Intel or AMD to release owner-controllable CPUs. That > being said, individuals and organizations needing privacy and owner > control are /not/ their target market, nor are those entities Intel (or > AMD)'s secondary (or even tertiary) market. Both Intel and AMD rely on > their lock-in and close association with Windows and related software to > provide cheap, but wholly locked down, CPUs *by design*. You could look > at it as the hardware vendor simply providing a leased tool on which to > run the leased software -- in such a market, cost trumps everything, > owner control is looked at as "enabling piracy", and as a result x86 is > not an appropriate platform for anyone needing control or privacy. > > In this environment, one must make a choice between convenience (x86) > and owner control. As you mentioned, the only middle ground is > relegated to ancient computers, and that is not where we place any hope > at all. Trying to switch architectures may be hard, but it is only > going to get harder day after day as people continue to cling to false > hope that the x86 platform may ever be brought under their control. The > simple fact is, the purchaser of an x86 machine is not Intel or AMD's > customer, nor are the ODMs. Their primary customers, in an odd sort of > way, are actually the software vendors that require x86 for their > existing applications, and they are the ones that will call the shots on > features or antifeatures in the x86 walled garden. > > I wonder, though, if given this information if possibly Raptor and > Purism might have some common business ground here? Purism has > experience with laptop mechanicals and related concerns, and we have > experience with truly blob-free, powerful hardware -- combining those > two could yield an interesting machine... > > On 12/19/2017 02:41 PM, Youness Alaoui wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Timothy Pearson > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12/19/2017 11:51 AM, Dame Más wrote: > >>>> I finished the University and I have free time to do things. And this > >>>> seems like an interesting project to which I dedicate many hours. > >>>> > >>>> The truth is that I read a lot these days. The work you do kakaroto is > >>>> impressive. > >>>> In general Purism is doing something big, and I spoke ahead of time. > >>>> > >>>> I saw that in the directory > >>>> coreboot/3rdparty/blobs/mainboard/purism/ > >>>> there is no content, it is right? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > > > > The main question I have, and this is an honest question, is why Purism > > chose to use the x86 platform as a base for libre hardware, when it has > > been known for some time that said hardware could never be made fully > > blob-free? > > > > There were (and are) other good ways to make a system that could be > > fully blob-free, for instance ARM, and given the engineering effort that > > is said to have been put into the Purism machines I wonder what we could > > have had if said effort had been put into an aarch64 system instead of > > an x86 system? > > > >> That's a very good question and you're not the first one to ask it. > > > >> I think it's a combination of quite a few things. First, the fact that > >> I don't think there were any realistically powerfuly/competing > >> ARM/PPC/risc systems available at the time (or if there were, the > >> price would have been too high to make it a "security focused laptop > >> for everyone"). The purpose of Purism is not to satisfy a niche > >> market, but rather to be something everyone will want whether or not > >> they care about the security like we do, but which would still provide > >> them with that security that they need. I think even now, you can't > >> have an ARM device that could compete with an i7 in terms of > >> performance. > > > >> The second reason is that Todd (CEO) was in talks with Intel and was > >> unfortunately lead to believe that they were open to release an > >> ME-less design CPU for his needs, it ended up not being the case. > > > >> The last reason is because I think that through this discussion > >> (https://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2014-August/078511.html) > >> Todd thought that it would be possible to get a binary blob free > >> coreboot/CPU with a few months of work. He didn't realize that it was > >> a much harder thing to achieve because the FSP takes a lot of time to > >> reverse engineer (remember, he thought he would have an ME-less CPU > >> from Intel), but from what I read in one of his answers, he had > >> already decided on x86 by the time he wrote that mail to the mailing > >> list, so I'm not sure if it really answers your question. > > > >> I think those that provide non-x86 (or pre-2008 x86) machines are > >> already there to fill the blob-free need, and it's not healthy to just > >> compete with them. A good summary is that we want to "bring blob-free > >> to the hardware that people want", rather than "bring blob-free > >> hardware to the people who want it". > > > >> Finally, I'll paste you one of my explanations from an email I sent > >> here last May, which kind of summarizes it all (from > >> https://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2017-May/084166.html) > > > >> "[...], You ask why Purism doesn't just create laptops using FX2 or ARM > or > >> whatever... Well, because that's not what most people want, out there. > If > >> you want a RYF laptop using old or underpowered hardware or non-x86 > >> architectures, that's a problem that has already been solved, there are > >> various resellers of such devices. The idea here is not to "Use what we > can > >> find to make RYF" but rather "Bring RYF to the hardware that people > want". > >> What I believe Purism is trying to do is to create a modern laptop for > >> *everyone* with the extra value of security and privacy, and in the > process > >> make FLOSS appealing to mainstream instead of letting it be confined in > a > >> niche. I think everyone will be better off with tools to protect their > >> privacy/security without asking them to throw the baby with the > bathwater > >> by requiring them to use hardware that does not interest them > (otherwise, > >> if old or non-x86 architectures were so appealing, you would have seen > that > >> become the norm rather than the exception)." > > > >> I hope that fully answers your question. > > > >> Thanks! > >> Youness. > > > > > > > > - -- > Timothy Pearson > Raptor Engineering > +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) > +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) > https://www.raptorengineering.com > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1 > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJaOXxqAAoJEK+E3vEXDOFbgVkIAJLiGyBNX9A+xeKXFwi/nwlv > SgIbunIkPIOH1QewV1BXqZMKqcCya1tNXw4uiviJLEFjKE+o2J9Uj+D2BN+KGT7C > imm3F9dhMpAD/IoQ9NRQML1LpgN6rMKPPkW0zGlfl8jWlCvdsi5r3qe9eZinIqk8 > ljrUp/33s6Ft8gEZ61lsO8hkOjlSEHRvUxPjo9GKszU+pYO70a0kV07wdDuj8IHy > qcmCBX4meGrTviGY4vzB4t6MU/rWcluX154+bmI0FRWH5/JlTKa00DWRcnUoHMQR > 0uzxLUTwjnvhZ3siXfRUPNe0d8IFTsrthN6lu3BXIv1QM5MxJ3BsyCxmKg2+m5Q= > =10QE > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
