Didier Kryn - 30.10.17, 12:20: > Le 30/10/2017 à 11:10, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp a écrit : > > Am Montag, 30. Oktober 2017 schrieb Didier Kryn: […] > > 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.
I wonder when Intel will finally wake up that there is a significant amount of their customers who do not want that Intel Management Engine crap and that the only way moving forward with firmware that makes sense is by using free software and allowing the users the choice to replace it. And its not only individual privacy and security aware users like us, but also companies and government authorities who do not want this crap. Yet UEFI is a different thing. I prepared UEFI slides for my courses meanwhile and I have the impression it is one of the biggest craps ever. As much source code lines as a Linux kernel without drivers. Seriously? I think GPT is okayish. Anyway I wonder why not just to use Coreboot/Libreboot and be done with it? Actually I´d make firmware pretty dumb and implement as much as I can in loaded software. Just enough firmware to actually install / boot a bootloader which loads an operating kernel and initial ram disk. > 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. There is one thing tough: To my knowledge up to now Intel provides the mobile processors with the best processing power / energy consumption ratio. I get the impression that AMD is getting there is Ryzen mobile processors which would also have the advantage to have a more powerful CPU. But AFAIK IBM Power is no where close to be usable in a laptop. Its also not meant for that as far as I understand. So Freescale remains? I wonder about ARM64 as an alternative? But they have some Trustzone crap if I remember correctly. Or… but not right now yet, RISC-V. Thanks, -- Martin _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
