Ah the smell of disinformation.
On 06/23/2017 10:28 AM, cooloutac wrote:
On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 6:51:27 PM UTC-4,[email protected] wrote:
On 06/21/2017 10:57 PM, cooloutac wrote:
I agree they are super overpriced But i'm not sure we can have 100% libre
hardware, at least not for desktops. I heard the guy Chris from thinkpenguin
talk about on a radio show once, how there is really only a couple
manufactures that dominate the world. You would have to make every single part
from scratch.
I don't know anything about coreboot or libreboot. Though I know I'd actually
would like to have secure boot, but I guess I'm crazy.
Of course you can, see the TALOS project for libre hardware/firmware
concepts and the KGPE-D16/KCMA-D8 for actual production libre firmware,
there are some POWER computers as well.
If someone tells you otherwise they don't know what they are talking
about, there is nothing stopping a company from making a libre computer
even a small company as long as they have the cash, purism could have
they just didn't want to.
Secure Boot is a marketing term for kernel code signing enforcement and
grub already does this, MS "secure" (from you) boot is a way for them to
eventually stop people from running linux.
I searched talos project and see stuff about body armor?
The TALOS project from raptor engineering was a 100% libre firmware and
hardware PC project that did not meet crowdfunding goals.
The guy from think penguin who sells libre laptops doesn't know what he is
talking about? I agree he is a little extreme and paranoid, but The radio show
was focused on wireless devices at the time and the dangers of the fcc ruling
to lock them, and why purism, nor anybody, truly has a 100% libre machine.
There is many firmwares integrated and attached to a mobo, but you are acting
as if there is only one.
Thinkpenguin and system76 are good honest companies FYI, I would suggest
supporting them if you are interested in a new intel machine for linux.
He is not extreme nor paranoid, the fcc thing could mean the end of open
source linux drivers and firmware for wifi chips.
There is not "many firmwares attached to a mobo" there really is only
one most of the time, I know what I am talking about as I am involved in
the coreboot project and I own several libre firmware machines.
The KGPE-D16 and KCMA-D8 have full functionality with libre firmware and
zero blobs, I even play the latest games on mine so that excuse from
purism that "oh no one has this" doesn't fly moreso because they haven't
even "struck a compromise for the latest hardware" or what not as again
their "coreboot" has entirely blobbed hw init making it pointless.
The exception to this rule would be a device with for example an
integrated storage device, FullMAC (not the SoftMAC AGN atheros types)
wireless chip, or a laptop/mobile board with an EC.
I don't know what you mean secure boot is a way to stop linux. It is supported
by all major linux distributions. Even after that myth is proven wrong you
still perpetuate it? Even after Richard Stallman himself says its ok to use
secure boot?
"supported by all major linux distros"
Only by using a red hat supplied signed binary pre-compiled sketchy
version of grub.
I don't think I should need to ask red hat for permission to run linux
do you?
A machine that lacks the ability to use even your own bootloader is not
really your machine you are simply licensing the use of it.
SB 1.0 specs require owner control and method to shut it off and enroll
own keys, SB 2.0 doesn't have this requirement so OEM's will eventually
not implement it similarly to MS's ARM computers that only allow you to
install windows - thus stopping people from using linux so no it isn't a
myth.
I don't believe grub2 can take the place of secure boot. WOuld it have stopped
hacking teams insyde bios exploit? More to it then just the kernel. I
believe you would sign the grub but then grub would also be protected. I mean
what does grub have to do with the bios?
Again secure boot is simply kernel signing nothing special.
Grub2 on a coreboot device can perform the same function only it is
always owned controlled, most coreboot users use grub to load kernels
instead of loading a kernel directly from CBFS.
HT's exploit of crappy proprietary BIOS's would work on a "secure" boot
or otherwise machine.
If you want a 100% libre computer,you will have to manufacture every single
chip on the mobo yourself.
[citation needed]
Again that is purism propaganda that simply isn't true - again see
raptor engineerings TALOS project as a proof of concept, it was already
ready to go they just had to fab the boards.
Because there is literally only maybe 2 or 3 companies who manufacture
certain parts for a mobo in all of the world.
[citation needed]
If you were a hardware engineer you would know that isn't true, why do
you insist on saying "facts" about things you know nothing about
Do you know how much time and money, legal and political obstacles that would
have? It would take more then the resources of a small indie company.
Yet again see TALOS - the only reason it didn't work is because they
tried to get the crowdfunding money from a notoriously cheap community
instead of the business world.
I have several libre firmware servers under my desk right now, and I
contributed to the crowdfunding campaign for a libre BMC from raptor
which will be ready in a few months.
Off the shelf from a vendor? IBM will be happy to sell you a very high
performance computer with libre firmware for 10K, and you can get the
hardware specs if you become an OpenPOWER member.
There is no law that stops people from doing it and you don't have to
ask the government for permission - I grow increasingly tired of people
like you who spout facts as if they are experts in the field.
