On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 12:40:31 PM UTC-4, tai...@gmx.com wrote: > On 06/26/2017 10:41 AM, cooloutac wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 24, 2017 at 12:30:48 AM UTC-4, tai...@gmx.com wrote: > > > 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, tai...@gmx.com > 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. > > > only one firmware rom attached to a mobo? What about the cpu, what > about other integrated chips on the mobo besides the bios rom? asking > redhat for permission to use secure boot? wtf? I know You're being > faceitious but it sounds even more ridiculous when they contribute most to > the linux kernel and you are using Qubes which has dom0 based on fedora. > > CPU's don't have firmware or mask ROM. > > To use MS's "secure" boot you have to use a red hat signed version > of grub you can't use your own. > > Red Hat is a crappy company that foists systemd and other unwanted > software on the rest of the linux community. > > > Who are you jealous of more, Redhat or Windows? > > Huh? > > > Why do I say only a couple companies control/manufacture everything? > > > > > Cause thats what Chris from thinkpeguin said, the guy you said knows > what hes talking about. The same goes for most industries. Also its just > human nature, something engineers and developers have a hard time > understanding. > > So with Talos you then, according to you, have an example of how hard is to > fund such a project. > > I am saying that it is entirely possible to make an open source > computer if you have a few mil in funding. > > > Although I don't think you really understand by how much. It would > not be that easy to get funding from corporations because special interests > are also invovled, and its going to take a shit load of money man. > > Only a few million, which isn't really that much - purism raised > 750K for reference. > > > Chris will tell you its impossible right now. > > No it isn't. > > TYAN Palmetto is an open source performance computer (both hardware > and firmware) it just isn't advertised as such. IBM's Firestone is > almost open source and it has twice the performance. > > POWER CPU's are open source, hence OpenPOWER. > > > So we can be upset at purism for exaggerating/lying and being a > marketing scheme, but we can't blame them for not having a 100% libre > machine because its not practical for anybody right now. What would you > rather they did use some arm architecture with a shitty processor noone would > buy? Joanna points out most arm processors are not even open sourced let > alone libre. > > When they released the first one they could have used an AMD FT3 CPU > which actually had better peformance than the low power intel model > so that excuse doesn't fly. > > Their marketing is very dishonest, I respect thinpenguin and > system76 as they aren't claiming to be more than they are. > > Purism said "we have to compromise" but there is no compromise, it > is 100% non-free just the same as a dell so I fail to see as to why > they should exist. > > > > Plenty of people buy ARM computers such as the novena (met 200% its > crowdfunding goal when it was sold for 1K each), and appliedmicro > sells ARM CPU's that have performance equivalent to an intel sandy > bridge desktop cpu but with much lower power consumption. > > > People also said secure boot would be the death of linux, so sorry if > I don't understand your sb 2.0 comment and take it with a grain of salt... > Its not gonna make me run for my guns like "people like you"...l > > > They won't do it right away, simply a gradual introduction with more > and more machines that are locked down. Why do you think SB 2.0 > doesn't include the owner control mandate like SB 1.0? Just cause? > > > > The idea isn't to stop experts it is to stop the average joe from > installing linux on his Windows XP machine and using it for another > 10 years, I did that for my mother and she likes not having to spend > more money.he
I like how on the novena site they say "This is not a machine for the faint of heart. It’s an open source project, which means part of the joy – and frustration – of the device is that it is continuously improving. " improving....lol To me thats common sense though so kudos to them for being honest. But its most likely headache city and I bet the processor runs linux like crap. Using a machine like this probably defeats the purpose of security. Privacy and security aren't the same thing, and open source doesn't automatically mean more secure. again it needs to be practical to sell. something for cool tech experiments but not for serious business won't sell as well. assuming anything truly is 100% open source. And you do know 100% open source is totally different thing then 100% libre right? What is SB 2.0 and SB 1.0? And I don't know what you mean by the idea isn't to stop the experts? So experts won't be affected only noobs? And who is trying to stop them, Microsoft or Redhat? You seem to not like either. Right now you should be thanking both of them for making computing exponentially more secure. haha I for one would love to see a 100% libre machine but prefer practicality, stability, and security rather then open source hardware for the sake of having it in spite of everything else. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to qubes-users@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/75576096-3c91-4a96-9590-9dab0ccef9b4%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
