Le 30/10/2017 à 11:10, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp a écrit :
Am Montag, 30. Oktober 2017 schrieb Didier Kryn:
Le 30/10/2017 à 08:44, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp a écrit :
Am Montag, 30. Oktober 2017 schrieb J. Fahrner:
https://osseu17.sched.com/event/ByYt/replace-your-exploit-ridden-firmware-with-linux-ronald-minnich-google
Nice. But it they suffer from the "not invented here"-syndrome: instead of using prooven
good busysbox, they rewrite userspace in GO .. oops, who "invented" Go and wants to push
it to the users?
Nik, Though I agree that Busybox is proven good, it remains that
the said system is more than an OS and is to run at least one
application on top of Busybox. This application must be written in some
language.
Busybox provides interpreted languages, Ash, Hush and Awk, but I
doubt they would be a good choice for a complex application. The
application should rather be written in some compiled language and one
cannot deny the author the choice of this language, provided it is open
source. You know what my preferred language would be, but, from what
I've briefly read about Go, it seems to be based on not so bad rationale.
Hi Didier,
please look at the presentation, 2. slide: it says "This is to a shell prompt in Linux" and
"All userland written in Go", so it's not about any application "on top of this written in
go", but plain busybox rewritten in Go.
OK, I watched the whole talk now and it becomes more clear. They
are working in the same direction as Purism; which was discussed a few
weeks ago. Purism has gone a little farther in disabling parts of the
Management Engine but they all agree it cannot be completely disabled up
to now - some people are trying to decompile it.
Actually their whole userland is written in Go, but please note the
pecularity: their image is made of the Linux kernel, the Go compiler and
*the source* of the userland. At boot, the userland is compiled and then
executed. The whole takes less than 6MB. The speaker claims that
programming in Go is easier than in shell. Compilation takes a fraction
of a second.
If there was a choice, I would rather choose a PowerPC arch: they
haven't that crap and their architecture is more modern. IBM and
Freescale have a good card to play and I don't understand why they don't
take the opportunity.
Didier
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
