> On May 2, 2016, at 10:23 PM, Tyler Romeo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Ali Razeen <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think it might not be a stretch to declare that the only way to use a > “modern platform” is to run non-free software. If that is unacceptable, then > one must make do with the old ThinkPads that run libreboot, > > Even running Libreboot is not truly an easy option. You have to either take > apart the entire laptop and use a BBB to flash the ROM, which is no simple > task if you do not have a lot of hardware experience. Or you have to pay $300 > + shipping to have it installed for you. > > It's going to be a tough argument to convince somebody to both downgrade > their computer and pay hundreds of dollars just to run free software > (assuming you've convinced them on the free software principles in the first > place). > > -- > Tyler Romeo > Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016 > Major in Computer Science
That’s right. I keep thinking that this ME issue must be huge. Surely there must be tons of people who may not see eye-to-eye with us on free software but would nonetheless be concerned about random supervisor code running on all modern platforms without any oversight whatsoever? Does Intel/AMD have enough clout that no one, not even any of the tech company giants, can convince them otherwise? In fact, do we know who is behind the idea of having this anti-feature? Do we know who is pulling the strings? The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. Sure, something like ME might be useful in an enterprise setting where you want control over all company hardware. But why do we have this feature in consumer hardware and why is it something that may not be disabled? Further, why would AMD voluntarily add this anti-feature, too? You’d think that having multiple X86 manufacturers would mean that we can just switch to someone who provides a better platform. In this case, all options are bad. It’s bizarre and highly unethical.
