Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-11 Thread Zoran Stojsavljevic 
> Sorry for my part of starting this heated debate.

Nothing to be sorry for... You are very welcome (and other guys who might
join this discussion, from INTEL, GOOGLE, you name it! But they risk to
loose at least $200K USD/per annum, and they are mortally afraid for
outcome). :-)

Zoran Stojsavljevic

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Jim Hendrick 
wrote:

> Sorry if I triggered the emotional part of this thread!
>
> My 2 cents is this - the hardware industry has sacrificed privacy for the
> sake of enterprise customers (can hardly blame them I suppose) and that has
> left many of us with very few options.
>
> We can compromise on privacy for the latest performance, and take some
> steps to guard against backdoors (which - at some level - we need to accept
> that hardware is not actively compromised or we should all go back to
> slide-rules...)
>
> We can insist on the best privacy and accept using (rapidly aging)
> hardware.
>
> I have no hard data on coreboot, Purism, or any of the other tools /
> products / companies out there. (and hope that that part of this thread has
> run its course)
>
> It does seem to me that in order to even play in the market - that any
> company would need to take the (reasonably current) hardware that is
> available and do what it can to minimize the likelihood that the (assumed
> or proven) backdoors can be exploited.
>
> I would like to see any company (Purism, system76 or anyone else) be able
> to work with the major vendors to acquire hardware AND be able to replace
> or wrap the compromised firmware to give us the best of both.
>
> To the degree that they fully disclose what they are able OR not able to
> do to mitigate these risks is really between their marketing department and
> their customers.
>
> For myself - I will probably end up with accepting the problems with more
> recent hardware for functionality and performance and try to use other
> security / privacy layers to minimize the risk.
>
> Sorry for my part of starting this heated debate.
>
> And thanks again to all for the insight!
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Zoran Stojsavljevic <
> zoran.stojsavlje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > let's pause this discussion until the new mailing list is up, and then
>> move it there, ok? This is not technical
>> > It's decreasing the signal to noise ratio on this list.
>>
>> It is NOT a NOISE, Ron... It is true ESSENCE. Do you, Ron, after all,
>> think, I am a noise??? INTEL does think I am (fatal mistake). Don't you
>> agree?? I am, after all, Open Source stray dog... And.. You would like to
>> understand it?! Don't you?! You are GOOGLE (protected) dog, and INTEL dogs
>> are trying out there to intercept me... Other stray dogs... .. . :-)))  I
>> laugh... why, Ron???
>>
>> Do you think they are successful?!  Really???
>>
>> I am sorry to disappoint you. NO NOISE here... And if you do serve to
>> INTEL main purposes... DO not distract with tricks, and proxys' to make it
>> much easier for flock sheep...
>>
>> I am not fighting Purism, Ron, mu targets are much higher... Imagine! ;-)
>>
>> Don't You agree?
>>
>> TRUE essence. For TRUE purposes (I could NOT be blackmailed, never ever)!
>>
>> Sorry to be Honest Straight!
>> Zoran Stojsavljevic
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:43 PM, ron minnich  wrote:
>>
>>> let's pause this discussion until the new mailing list is up, and then
>>> move it there, ok? This is not technical. It's decreasing the signal to
>>> noise ratio on this list.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 8:55 PM Zoran Stojsavljevic <
>>> zoran.stojsavlje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 > Sorry for that. My last sentence probably doesn't even express what
 > I was trying to say. Could be my bad English.

 Your English is quite good.

 > I just meant that there are people who are easily offended by
 dishonesty.

 Tell me about dishonesty, Nico. What Purism does is just a pebble of
 sand in the desert of big IT companies' dishonesty!

 Zoran Stojsavljevic


 On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Nico Huber  wrote:

> On 10.10.2017 20:02, Youness Alaoui wrote:
> >> So my conclusion, Purism draws customers from other Linux supporting
> >> vendors with dishonest marketing. If that doesn't bother you, fine.
> >> But please don't get angry if it bothers honest people.
> >
> > ...
> > 3 - By stating that it "bothers honest people", right after saying
> > that it doesn't bother me, you're implying that I'm not an honest
> > person (at least that's how I read it) and that kind of statement
> > doesn't lead to cool headed discussions, so I'll simply withdraw from
> > this one.
>
> Sorry for that. My last sentence probably doesn't even express what
> I was trying to say. Could be my bad English. I just meant that there
> are people who are easily offended by dishonesty.

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-11 Thread Jim Hendrick 
Sorry if I triggered the emotional part of this thread!

My 2 cents is this - the hardware industry has sacrificed privacy for the
sake of enterprise customers (can hardly blame them I suppose) and that has
left many of us with very few options.

We can compromise on privacy for the latest performance, and take some
steps to guard against backdoors (which - at some level - we need to accept
that hardware is not actively compromised or we should all go back to
slide-rules...)

We can insist on the best privacy and accept using (rapidly aging) hardware.

I have no hard data on coreboot, Purism, or any of the other tools /
products / companies out there. (and hope that that part of this thread has
run its course)

It does seem to me that in order to even play in the market - that any
company would need to take the (reasonably current) hardware that is
available and do what it can to minimize the likelihood that the (assumed
or proven) backdoors can be exploited.

I would like to see any company (Purism, system76 or anyone else) be able
to work with the major vendors to acquire hardware AND be able to replace
or wrap the compromised firmware to give us the best of both.

To the degree that they fully disclose what they are able OR not able to do
to mitigate these risks is really between their marketing department and
their customers.

For myself - I will probably end up with accepting the problems with more
recent hardware for functionality and performance and try to use other
security / privacy layers to minimize the risk.

Sorry for my part of starting this heated debate.

And thanks again to all for the insight!

Jim





On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Zoran Stojsavljevic <
zoran.stojsavlje...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > let's pause this discussion until the new mailing list is up, and then
> move it there, ok? This is not technical
> > It's decreasing the signal to noise ratio on this list.
>
> It is NOT a NOISE, Ron... It is true ESSENCE. Do you, Ron, after all,
> think, I am a noise??? INTEL does think I am (fatal mistake). Don't you
> agree?? I am, after all, Open Source stray dog... And.. You would like to
> understand it?! Don't you?! You are GOOGLE (protected) dog, and INTEL dogs
> are trying out there to intercept me... Other stray dogs... .. . :-)))  I
> laugh... why, Ron???
>
> Do you think they are successful?!  Really???
>
> I am sorry to disappoint you. NO NOISE here... And if you do serve to
> INTEL main purposes... DO not distract with tricks, and proxys' to make it
> much easier for flock sheep...
>
> I am not fighting Purism, Ron, mu targets are much higher... Imagine! ;-)
>
> Don't You agree?
>
> TRUE essence. For TRUE purposes (I could NOT be blackmailed, never ever)!
>
> Sorry to be Honest Straight!
> Zoran Stojsavljevic
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:43 PM, ron minnich  wrote:
>
>> let's pause this discussion until the new mailing list is up, and then
>> move it there, ok? This is not technical. It's decreasing the signal to
>> noise ratio on this list.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 8:55 PM Zoran Stojsavljevic <
>> zoran.stojsavlje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Sorry for that. My last sentence probably doesn't even express what
>>> > I was trying to say. Could be my bad English.
>>>
>>> Your English is quite good.
>>>
>>> > I just meant that there are people who are easily offended by
>>> dishonesty.
>>>
>>> Tell me about dishonesty, Nico. What Purism does is just a pebble of
>>> sand in the desert of big IT companies' dishonesty!
>>>
>>> Zoran Stojsavljevic
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Nico Huber  wrote:
>>>
 On 10.10.2017 20:02, Youness Alaoui wrote:
 >> So my conclusion, Purism draws customers from other Linux supporting
 >> vendors with dishonest marketing. If that doesn't bother you, fine.
 >> But please don't get angry if it bothers honest people.
 >
 > ...
 > 3 - By stating that it "bothers honest people", right after saying
 > that it doesn't bother me, you're implying that I'm not an honest
 > person (at least that's how I read it) and that kind of statement
 > doesn't lead to cool headed discussions, so I'll simply withdraw from
 > this one.

 Sorry for that. My last sentence probably doesn't even express what
 I was trying to say. Could be my bad English. I just meant that there
 are people who are easily offended by dishonesty. Well, yeah, it does
 imply that I don't count you among them.

 Nico

 --
 coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
 https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

>>>
>>> --
>>> coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
>>> https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
>>
>>
>
-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-11 Thread Zoran Stojsavljevic 
> let's pause this discussion until the new mailing list is up, and then
move it there, ok? This is not technical
> It's decreasing the signal to noise ratio on this list.

It is NOT a NOISE, Ron... It is true ESSENCE. Do you, Ron, after all,
think, I am a noise??? INTEL does think I am (fatal mistake). Don't you
agree?? I am, after all, Open Source stray dog... And.. You would like to
understand it?! Don't you?! You are GOOGLE (protected) dog, and INTEL dogs
are trying out there to intercept me... Other stray dogs... .. . :-)))  I
laugh... why, Ron???

Do you think they are successful?!  Really???

I am sorry to disappoint you. NO NOISE here... And if you do serve to INTEL
main purposes... DO not distract with tricks, and proxys' to make it much
easier for flock sheep...

I am not fighting Purism, Ron, mu targets are much higher... Imagine! ;-)

Don't You agree?

TRUE essence. For TRUE purposes (I could NOT be blackmailed, never ever)!

Sorry to be Honest Straight!
Zoran Stojsavljevic

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:43 PM, ron minnich  wrote:

> let's pause this discussion until the new mailing list is up, and then
> move it there, ok? This is not technical. It's decreasing the signal to
> noise ratio on this list.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 8:55 PM Zoran Stojsavljevic <
> zoran.stojsavlje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Sorry for that. My last sentence probably doesn't even express what
>> > I was trying to say. Could be my bad English.
>>
>> Your English is quite good.
>>
>> > I just meant that there are people who are easily offended by
>> dishonesty.
>>
>> Tell me about dishonesty, Nico. What Purism does is just a pebble of sand
>> in the desert of big IT companies' dishonesty!
>>
>> Zoran Stojsavljevic
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Nico Huber  wrote:
>>
>>> On 10.10.2017 20:02, Youness Alaoui wrote:
>>> >> So my conclusion, Purism draws customers from other Linux supporting
>>> >> vendors with dishonest marketing. If that doesn't bother you, fine.
>>> >> But please don't get angry if it bothers honest people.
>>> >
>>> > ...
>>> > 3 - By stating that it "bothers honest people", right after saying
>>> > that it doesn't bother me, you're implying that I'm not an honest
>>> > person (at least that's how I read it) and that kind of statement
>>> > doesn't lead to cool headed discussions, so I'll simply withdraw from
>>> > this one.
>>>
>>> Sorry for that. My last sentence probably doesn't even express what
>>> I was trying to say. Could be my bad English. I just meant that there
>>> are people who are easily offended by dishonesty. Well, yeah, it does
>>> imply that I don't count you among them.
>>>
>>> Nico
>>>
>>> --
>>> coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
>>> https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
>>>
>>
>> --
>> coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
>> https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
>
>
-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-11 Thread ron minnich 
let's pause this discussion until the new mailing list is up, and then move
it there, ok? This is not technical. It's decreasing the signal to noise
ratio on this list.

Thanks

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 8:55 PM Zoran Stojsavljevic <
zoran.stojsavlje...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Sorry for that. My last sentence probably doesn't even express what
> > I was trying to say. Could be my bad English.
>
> Your English is quite good.
>
> > I just meant that there are people who are easily offended by
> dishonesty.
>
> Tell me about dishonesty, Nico. What Purism does is just a pebble of sand
> in the desert of big IT companies' dishonesty!
>
> Zoran Stojsavljevic
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Nico Huber  wrote:
>
>> On 10.10.2017 20:02, Youness Alaoui wrote:
>> >> So my conclusion, Purism draws customers from other Linux supporting
>> >> vendors with dishonest marketing. If that doesn't bother you, fine.
>> >> But please don't get angry if it bothers honest people.
>> >
>> > ...
>> > 3 - By stating that it "bothers honest people", right after saying
>> > that it doesn't bother me, you're implying that I'm not an honest
>> > person (at least that's how I read it) and that kind of statement
>> > doesn't lead to cool headed discussions, so I'll simply withdraw from
>> > this one.
>>
>> Sorry for that. My last sentence probably doesn't even express what
>> I was trying to say. Could be my bad English. I just meant that there
>> are people who are easily offended by dishonesty. Well, yeah, it does
>> imply that I don't count you among them.
>>
>> Nico
>>
>> --
>> coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
>> https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
>>
>
> --
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
> https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-10 Thread Zoran Stojsavljevic 
> Sorry for that. My last sentence probably doesn't even express what
> I was trying to say. Could be my bad English.

Your English is quite good.

> I just meant that there are people who are easily offended by dishonesty.

Tell me about dishonesty, Nico. What Purism does is just a pebble of sand
in the desert of big IT companies' dishonesty!

Zoran Stojsavljevic


On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Nico Huber  wrote:

> On 10.10.2017 20:02, Youness Alaoui wrote:
> >> So my conclusion, Purism draws customers from other Linux supporting
> >> vendors with dishonest marketing. If that doesn't bother you, fine.
> >> But please don't get angry if it bothers honest people.
> >
> > ...
> > 3 - By stating that it "bothers honest people", right after saying
> > that it doesn't bother me, you're implying that I'm not an honest
> > person (at least that's how I read it) and that kind of statement
> > doesn't lead to cool headed discussions, so I'll simply withdraw from
> > this one.
>
> Sorry for that. My last sentence probably doesn't even express what
> I was trying to say. Could be my bad English. I just meant that there
> are people who are easily offended by dishonesty. Well, yeah, it does
> imply that I don't count you among them.
>
> Nico
>
> --
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
> https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
>
-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-10 Thread Jim Hendrick 
Thanks for all the interesting information for my questions (and - um -
"commentary" :-)
It has given me a lot to think about.

Best,
Jim



On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 7:10 PM, taii...@gmx.com  wrote:

> The lenovo G505S is the latest owner controlled coreboot x86-64 laptop,
> running the FT3 platform which is 4 years old.
> It supports VMX, RVI and IOMMU.
>
> While it does have a blob for video and power both of those have no
> hardware code signing features (thus replaceable), and unlike ivy bridge it
> doesn't have a black box supervisor processor.
>
> Had the folks from purism asked me what they should do, I would have
> suggested FT3.
>
> On 10/09/2017 07:54 PM, Youness Alaoui wrote:
>
> I don't get why you constantly try to discredit Purism and insult
>> everything we do. You complain about coreboot being "useless" because
>> it uses FSP, but you fail to mention that anything using coreboot will
>> use the FSP unless it's 10 year old hardware (Sandybridge is the
>> latest FSP-free supported CPU). The original email asked about a
>> coreboot port, not a libreboot port. Every time I see purism
>> mentioned, you have to jump in to insult and dishonestly say that
>> Purism is dishonest. If you want to claim bullshit like that, at least
>> find something real and concrete to back it up. I've ignored you many
>> times, but I'm fed up of your one-man vendetta against Purism. What
>> happened to you for you to have so much hate against us?
>>
> In the efforts of not getting moderated again we can continue this off
> list but it boils down to the dishonest crowdfunding style "some day we
> will do X" marketing.
>
> I would have recommended your devices at least once if you were selling
> them as they were instead of as they could be.
>
> I dislike:
> * Aspirational marketing "LibreM" "every chip hand selected to respect
> your privacy" "continued efforts to remove ME" that confuses even linux
> veterans and detracts from competitors products.
> * The lobbying for the FSF to decrease the RYF standards
> * (although most companies do this) Not asking the target audience for
> advice on what to do next.
>
> I wouldn't have said anything but on the other lists I visit for every
> person like me there are 5 others who constantly talk up your products. I
> believe everyone needs critical voices.
>
> On 10/09/2017 08:42 PM, Nico Huber wrote:
>
> On 09.10.2017 00:15, taii...@gmx.com wrote:
>>
>>> their version of coreboot is
>>> nothing more than a wrapper layer for intel FSP (binary blob that does
>>> all the hardware init) which is next to pointless for the amount of
>>> money you would spend on one as all it does is move trust from vendor to
>>> OEM not avoiding the hypothetical OEM firmware backdoors.
>>>
>> I've seen that mentioned a lot and can only say: Please stop spreading
>> that FUD about coreboot. Even with blobed silicon init, coreboot still
>> gives you about 80% of the freedom of a free firmware. You only have
>> to trust in one party that provides the blob and not in n parties that
>> put their code into the usual Windows booting firmware. coreboot, even
>> blobed, also gives you much more freedom about the platform configu-
>> ration and the boot process as a whole.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, I don't like FSP either (from a developer point of
>> view, it makes coreboot porting twice as hard and 10 times more frus-
>> trating if something doesn't work right away). You can stomp on it as
>> you wish. But please don't disgrace coreboot.
>>
> Can you suggest a better way of saying it?
>
> People with EE/CS degrees (non-laymen I suppose) I have conversed with
> over the years still consider "coreboot" to mean what it did circa 2011
> where the only real difference between coreboot and libre* was
> philosophical not technical, when someone says "our devices have coreboot"
> they believe that it is entirely "free firmware".
>
> While an FSP coreboot "port" is still technically superior to an entirely
> closed source firmware no one I have talked to would consider spending an
> extra 1K per device just to cut the vendor out of the trust picture (they
> and I desire silicon init)
>
>
> I propose a kind of freedom-level badge certification system (like "Intel
> Inside" stickers) for this situation with everything clearly explained on a
> central website to solve this situation, similar to the one currently on
> the coreboot wiki.
>
-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-10 Thread taii...@gmx.com 
The lenovo G505S is the latest owner controlled coreboot x86-64 laptop, 
running the FT3 platform which is 4 years old.

It supports VMX, RVI and IOMMU.

While it does have a blob for video and power both of those have no 
hardware code signing features (thus replaceable), and unlike ivy bridge 
it doesn't have a black box supervisor processor.


Had the folks from purism asked me what they should do, I would have 
suggested FT3.


On 10/09/2017 07:54 PM, Youness Alaoui wrote:


I don't get why you constantly try to discredit Purism and insult
everything we do. You complain about coreboot being "useless" because
it uses FSP, but you fail to mention that anything using coreboot will
use the FSP unless it's 10 year old hardware (Sandybridge is the
latest FSP-free supported CPU). The original email asked about a
coreboot port, not a libreboot port. Every time I see purism
mentioned, you have to jump in to insult and dishonestly say that
Purism is dishonest. If you want to claim bullshit like that, at least
find something real and concrete to back it up. I've ignored you many
times, but I'm fed up of your one-man vendetta against Purism. What
happened to you for you to have so much hate against us?
In the efforts of not getting moderated again we can continue this off 
list but it boils down to the dishonest crowdfunding style "some day we 
will do X" marketing.


I would have recommended your devices at least once if you were selling 
them as they were instead of as they could be.


I dislike:
* Aspirational marketing "LibreM" "every chip hand selected to respect 
your privacy" "continued efforts to remove ME" that confuses even linux 
veterans and detracts from competitors products.

* The lobbying for the FSF to decrease the RYF standards
* (although most companies do this) Not asking the target audience for 
advice on what to do next.


I wouldn't have said anything but on the other lists I visit for every 
person like me there are 5 others who constantly talk up your products. 
I believe everyone needs critical voices.


On 10/09/2017 08:42 PM, Nico Huber wrote:


On 09.10.2017 00:15, taii...@gmx.com wrote:

their version of coreboot is
nothing more than a wrapper layer for intel FSP (binary blob that does
all the hardware init) which is next to pointless for the amount of
money you would spend on one as all it does is move trust from vendor to
OEM not avoiding the hypothetical OEM firmware backdoors.

I've seen that mentioned a lot and can only say: Please stop spreading
that FUD about coreboot. Even with blobed silicon init, coreboot still
gives you about 80% of the freedom of a free firmware. You only have
to trust in one party that provides the blob and not in n parties that
put their code into the usual Windows booting firmware. coreboot, even
blobed, also gives you much more freedom about the platform configu-
ration and the boot process as a whole.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like FSP either (from a developer point of
view, it makes coreboot porting twice as hard and 10 times more frus-
trating if something doesn't work right away). You can stomp on it as
you wish. But please don't disgrace coreboot.

Can you suggest a better way of saying it?

People with EE/CS degrees (non-laymen I suppose) I have conversed with 
over the years still consider "coreboot" to mean what it did circa 2011 
where the only real difference between coreboot and libre* was 
philosophical not technical, when someone says "our devices have 
coreboot" they believe that it is entirely "free firmware".


While an FSP coreboot "port" is still technically superior to an 
entirely closed source firmware no one I have talked to would consider 
spending an extra 1K per device just to cut the vendor out of the trust 
picture (they and I desire silicon init)



I propose a kind of freedom-level badge certification system (like 
"Intel Inside" stickers) for this situation with everything clearly 
explained on a central website to solve this situation, similar to the 
one currently on the coreboot wiki.


--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-10 Thread Nico Huber 
On 10.10.2017 20:02, Youness Alaoui wrote:
>> So my conclusion, Purism draws customers from other Linux supporting
>> vendors with dishonest marketing. If that doesn't bother you, fine.
>> But please don't get angry if it bothers honest people.
> 
> ...
> 3 - By stating that it "bothers honest people", right after saying
> that it doesn't bother me, you're implying that I'm not an honest
> person (at least that's how I read it) and that kind of statement
> doesn't lead to cool headed discussions, so I'll simply withdraw from
> this one.

Sorry for that. My last sentence probably doesn't even express what
I was trying to say. Could be my bad English. I just meant that there
are people who are easily offended by dishonesty. Well, yeah, it does
imply that I don't count you among them.

Nico

-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-10 Thread Rene Shuster 
I actually appreciated your super-long post, as it provided me insight in
the development process that I wasn't aware prior and it changed my view on
Puri.sm from 'they have been debunked' to 'I want to support their
efforts'. Keep up the good work.

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Youness Alaoui <
kakar...@kakaroto.homelinux.net> wrote:

> > While I understand your frustration, and agree with the general thrust
> > of your email, and disregarding the "10 years", the Samsung Chromebook
> > Plus (and many other devices of similar age) beg to differ.
> > There are devices from 2016 and 2017 shipping with coreboot and no CPU
> > level blobs in the firmware (the only CPU side blob would be the
> > kernel's GPU driver).
>
> Sorry, I'm so deep into Intel stuff right now that I completely missed
> the possibility of non-x86 hardware. Yes, there is newer hardware with
> no blobs in coreboot, my statement is only true for intel-related
> hardware. I don't even know about AMD actually, but I believe it's a
> similar situation for AMD. But in the case of the Chromebook Plus, I
> checked, and it's an ARM based CPU, which is why coreboot is blob free
> for it.
> The original post was about a laptop to run virtual machines, so I
> assume x86 is a requirement, but my statement was about coreboot
> itself, not about the laptop requirement, which made it false. Thanks
> for the correction!
>
>
>
> >
> > Please keep the dimension right, newest is Ivy Bridge and that is 5
> > years old.
>
> My bad, you're right. The '10 years old' was in reference to ME-less
> CPU designs and I confused it with FSP-less coreboot.
> As for the ivybridge being the newest, that's again my bad, I used
> this to look up when the native intel raminit stopped being supported
> ;
> https://www.coreboot.org/Intel_Native_Raminit#Sandybridge.2FIvybridge
> and it said sandybridge/ivybridge, and I thought they were the same,
> not one being successor of the other.
>
> I guess that will teach me to email while I'm tired and busy/distracted.
>
>
>
> >
> >> The original email asked about a
> >> coreboot port, not a libreboot port. Every time I see purism
> >> mentioned, you have to jump in to insult and dishonestly say that
> >> Purism is dishonest. If you want to claim bullshit like that, at least
> >> find something real and concrete to back it up. I've ignored you many
> >> times, but I'm fed up of your one-man vendetta against Purism. What
> >> happened to you for you to have so much hate against us?
> >
> > It's not him alone, you might remember our discussion about it (it
> > ended with you writing poems that I didn't even had the time to read
> > in the end, please don't do that again).
>
> You're not hateful from what I could see. You disagree with Purism and
> you don't like it, but I haven't seen you jumping at every occasion to
> talk bad about it.
> As for our last discussion, that's what it was, a discussion, which
> unfortunately, I got a little over-verbose in my last response and
> killed the discussion, but I don't feel like Taiidan wants to discuss
> anything. Either way, I don't plan on opening any new discussions
> about Purism here.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Extremely funny how you then say that System76 is "a fine choice"
> >> considering that System76 doesn't even come with coreboot, and even if
> >> it did come with coreboot, it would of course, still depend on the
> >> FSP. Also, System76 hardware depends on components which do require
> >> binary blobs, as opposed to Purism laptops, so I don't get why
> >> System76 is "a fine choice" if Purism isn't.
> >
> > It's pretty simple, System76 seems to advertise what say sell, Purism
> > doesn't. I'd say they do most things right, but not the advertisement.
> > Most Linux supporting vendors are honest about their products. Yet,
> > Purism makes claims such as:
> >
> >"Only by selecting each and every chip in our Librem laptops can
> > we guarantee your privacy, security and freedom are protected."
> >
> > Where I still argue, it's the opposite with Intel inside.
> >
> > Everything else, they seem to do alright. I'd fully support them if
> > they'd stop the false advertisement of being super secure. They are
> > not, just a little better than the rest (by hardware design, don't
> > know about the details of their software and how secure the hard-
> > ware is configured).
> >
> > So my conclusion, Purism draws customers from other Linux supporting
> > vendors with dishonest marketing. If that doesn't bother you, fine.
> > But please don't get angry if it bothers honest people.
>
> I disagree with your statement that it's false advertisement and that
> it's dishonest marketing. I won't explain why I think you're wrong
> here, because :
> 1 - I already explained it in length in my previous long email that
> you never read
> 2 - It doesn't market itself as "being super secure" as you said, but
> rather as being "security and privacy focused", which it is. You are
> free to find anywhere on the

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-10 Thread Youness Alaoui 
> While I understand your frustration, and agree with the general thrust
> of your email, and disregarding the "10 years", the Samsung Chromebook
> Plus (and many other devices of similar age) beg to differ.
> There are devices from 2016 and 2017 shipping with coreboot and no CPU
> level blobs in the firmware (the only CPU side blob would be the
> kernel's GPU driver).

Sorry, I'm so deep into Intel stuff right now that I completely missed
the possibility of non-x86 hardware. Yes, there is newer hardware with
no blobs in coreboot, my statement is only true for intel-related
hardware. I don't even know about AMD actually, but I believe it's a
similar situation for AMD. But in the case of the Chromebook Plus, I
checked, and it's an ARM based CPU, which is why coreboot is blob free
for it.
The original post was about a laptop to run virtual machines, so I
assume x86 is a requirement, but my statement was about coreboot
itself, not about the laptop requirement, which made it false. Thanks
for the correction!



>
> Please keep the dimension right, newest is Ivy Bridge and that is 5
> years old.

My bad, you're right. The '10 years old' was in reference to ME-less
CPU designs and I confused it with FSP-less coreboot.
As for the ivybridge being the newest, that's again my bad, I used
this to look up when the native intel raminit stopped being supported
;
https://www.coreboot.org/Intel_Native_Raminit#Sandybridge.2FIvybridge
and it said sandybridge/ivybridge, and I thought they were the same,
not one being successor of the other.

I guess that will teach me to email while I'm tired and busy/distracted.



>
>> The original email asked about a
>> coreboot port, not a libreboot port. Every time I see purism
>> mentioned, you have to jump in to insult and dishonestly say that
>> Purism is dishonest. If you want to claim bullshit like that, at least
>> find something real and concrete to back it up. I've ignored you many
>> times, but I'm fed up of your one-man vendetta against Purism. What
>> happened to you for you to have so much hate against us?
>
> It's not him alone, you might remember our discussion about it (it
> ended with you writing poems that I didn't even had the time to read
> in the end, please don't do that again).

You're not hateful from what I could see. You disagree with Purism and
you don't like it, but I haven't seen you jumping at every occasion to
talk bad about it.
As for our last discussion, that's what it was, a discussion, which
unfortunately, I got a little over-verbose in my last response and
killed the discussion, but I don't feel like Taiidan wants to discuss
anything. Either way, I don't plan on opening any new discussions
about Purism here.

>
>>
>> Extremely funny how you then say that System76 is "a fine choice"
>> considering that System76 doesn't even come with coreboot, and even if
>> it did come with coreboot, it would of course, still depend on the
>> FSP. Also, System76 hardware depends on components which do require
>> binary blobs, as opposed to Purism laptops, so I don't get why
>> System76 is "a fine choice" if Purism isn't.
>
> It's pretty simple, System76 seems to advertise what say sell, Purism
> doesn't. I'd say they do most things right, but not the advertisement.
> Most Linux supporting vendors are honest about their products. Yet,
> Purism makes claims such as:
>
>"Only by selecting each and every chip in our Librem laptops can
> we guarantee your privacy, security and freedom are protected."
>
> Where I still argue, it's the opposite with Intel inside.
>
> Everything else, they seem to do alright. I'd fully support them if
> they'd stop the false advertisement of being super secure. They are
> not, just a little better than the rest (by hardware design, don't
> know about the details of their software and how secure the hard-
> ware is configured).
>
> So my conclusion, Purism draws customers from other Linux supporting
> vendors with dishonest marketing. If that doesn't bother you, fine.
> But please don't get angry if it bothers honest people.

I disagree with your statement that it's false advertisement and that
it's dishonest marketing. I won't explain why I think you're wrong
here, because :
1 - I already explained it in length in my previous long email that
you never read
2 - It doesn't market itself as "being super secure" as you said, but
rather as being "security and privacy focused", which it is. You are
free to find anywhere on the website where it says security or privacy
without stating "a focus on" or "-focused" along with it.
2 - It's my opinion/interpretation and you have a different one, and
that's fine, you are entitled to it. Your view/interpretation of a
statement does not mean everyone needs to see it your way and that the
conclusion that it's being dishonest which your drew from it, is going
to be the absolute truth.
3 - By stating that it "bothers honest people", right after saying
that it doesn't bother me, you're implying that I'm

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-10 Thread Patrick Georgi via coreboot 
Hi Youness,

2017-10-10 1:54 GMT+02:00 Youness Alaoui :
> it uses FSP, but you fail to mention that anything using coreboot will
> use the FSP unless it's 10 year old hardware (Sandybridge is the
> latest FSP-free supported CPU).
While I understand your frustration, and agree with the general thrust
of your email, and disregarding the "10 years", the Samsung Chromebook
Plus (and many other devices of similar age) beg to differ.
There are devices from 2016 and 2017 shipping with coreboot and no CPU
level blobs in the firmware (the only CPU side blob would be the
kernel's GPU driver).


Patrick
-- 
Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado

-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-09 Thread Nico Huber 
On 10.10.2017 01:54, Youness Alaoui wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 6:15 PM, taii...@gmx.com  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> (I also am looking at system76 and Purism but I am bit leery of spending a
>>> lot with a small / new company - comments appreciated)
>>
>> Purism dishonestly markets their products - while they claim that their
>> laptops "respect freedom and privacy" their version of coreboot is nothing
>> more than a wrapper layer for intel FSP (binary blob that does all the
>> hardware init) which is next to pointless for the amount of money you would
>> spend on one as all it does is move trust from vendor to OEM not avoiding
>> the hypothetical OEM firmware backdoors.
>>
>> System76 is a fine choice if all you want is a laptop that runs linux
>> without difficulty.
>>
> 
> I don't get why you constantly try to discredit Purism and insult
> everything we do. You complain about coreboot being "useless" because
> it uses FSP, but you fail to mention that anything using coreboot will
> use the FSP unless it's 10 year old hardware (Sandybridge is the
> latest FSP-free supported CPU).

Please keep the dimension right, newest is Ivy Bridge and that is 5
years old.

> The original email asked about a
> coreboot port, not a libreboot port. Every time I see purism
> mentioned, you have to jump in to insult and dishonestly say that
> Purism is dishonest. If you want to claim bullshit like that, at least
> find something real and concrete to back it up. I've ignored you many
> times, but I'm fed up of your one-man vendetta against Purism. What
> happened to you for you to have so much hate against us?

It's not him alone, you might remember our discussion about it (it
ended with you writing poems that I didn't even had the time to read
in the end, please don't do that again).

> 
> Extremely funny how you then say that System76 is "a fine choice"
> considering that System76 doesn't even come with coreboot, and even if
> it did come with coreboot, it would of course, still depend on the
> FSP. Also, System76 hardware depends on components which do require
> binary blobs, as opposed to Purism laptops, so I don't get why
> System76 is "a fine choice" if Purism isn't.

It's pretty simple, System76 seems to advertise what say sell, Purism
doesn't. I'd say they do most things right, but not the advertisement.
Most Linux supporting vendors are honest about their products. Yet,
Purism makes claims such as:

   "Only by selecting each and every chip in our Librem laptops can
we guarantee your privacy, security and freedom are protected."

Where I still argue, it's the opposite with Intel inside.

Everything else, they seem to do alright. I'd fully support them if
they'd stop the false advertisement of being super secure. They are
not, just a little better than the rest (by hardware design, don't
know about the details of their software and how secure the hard-
ware is configured).

So my conclusion, Purism draws customers from other Linux supporting
vendors with dishonest marketing. If that doesn't bother you, fine.
But please don't get angry if it bothers honest people.

Nico

-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-09 Thread Nico Huber 
On 09.10.2017 00:15, taii...@gmx.com wrote:
> their version of coreboot is
> nothing more than a wrapper layer for intel FSP (binary blob that does
> all the hardware init) which is next to pointless for the amount of
> money you would spend on one as all it does is move trust from vendor to
> OEM not avoiding the hypothetical OEM firmware backdoors.

I've seen that mentioned a lot and can only say: Please stop spreading
that FUD about coreboot. Even with blobed silicon init, coreboot still
gives you about 80% of the freedom of a free firmware. You only have
to trust in one party that provides the blob and not in n parties that
put their code into the usual Windows booting firmware. coreboot, even
blobed, also gives you much more freedom about the platform configu-
ration and the boot process as a whole.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like FSP either (from a developer point of
view, it makes coreboot porting twice as hard and 10 times more frus-
trating if something doesn't work right away). You can stomp on it as
you wish. But please don't disgrace coreboot.

Nico

-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-09 Thread Nico Huber 
On 09.10.2017 02:39, Duncan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am not aware of a Coreboot port for the W530. Do you have any more
> information?

The W5xx and T5xx models usually share the same motherboard. The only
difference I know of is that the W530 comes more likely (maybe always)
with 4 DIMM slots. 4 DIMMs is not much tested with the native code but
you can always use the MRC blob as last resort (should be doable in a
day with some community support (if flashing and debugging are already
set up)).

Nico

> 
> Best,
> Duncan
> 
> taii...@gmx.com:
>> On 10/08/2017 11:06 AM, Jim Hendrick wrote:
>>
>>> Just subscribed - I will mostly "lurk" but I do have a few questions for
>>> the group.
>>>
>>> I am looking at a new laptop, and one of my options is a Dell Precision
>>> 7510 (I like the quad-core and loads of RAM available) but I would
>>> like to
>>> not use a vendor BIOS.
>>>
>>> Has anyone put coreboot on one of these?
>> Assuming there is no hardware code signing enforcement anti-feature
>> ("boot guard") for the firmware enabled you would have to port coreboot
>> to it, this would take around 6 months for a skilled firmware engineer.
>>> Anyone tried and failed?
>>>
>>> Any recommendations for something similar (a good laptop ~15 in.
>>> quad-core,
>>> 32GB RAM and fast SSD storage)?
>>> I will be running multiple virtual machines - hence the RAM and cores...
>> W530, supports open source hardware init coreboot and me cleaner.
>> Buy one, install your own SSD, RAM upgrade and W520 keyboard/armrest if
>> you don't like the chiclet layout.
>>
>> Alternatively you could get a G505S (owner controlled) if you don't want
>> ME/PSP - but that only supports 16GB RAM.
>>> (I also am looking at system76 and Purism but I am bit leery of
>>> spending a
>>> lot with a small / new company - comments appreciated)
>> Purism dishonestly markets their products - while they claim that their
>> laptops "respect freedom and privacy" their version of coreboot is
>> nothing more than a wrapper layer for intel FSP (binary blob that does
>> all the hardware init) which is next to pointless for the amount of
>> money you would spend on one as all it does is move trust from vendor to
>> OEM not avoiding the hypothetical OEM firmware backdoors.
>>
>> System76 is a fine choice if all you want is a laptop that runs linux
>> without difficulty.
>>
> 


-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-09 Thread Youness Alaoui 
On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 6:15 PM, taii...@gmx.com  wrote:
>
>>
>> (I also am looking at system76 and Purism but I am bit leery of spending a
>> lot with a small / new company - comments appreciated)
>
> Purism dishonestly markets their products - while they claim that their
> laptops "respect freedom and privacy" their version of coreboot is nothing
> more than a wrapper layer for intel FSP (binary blob that does all the
> hardware init) which is next to pointless for the amount of money you would
> spend on one as all it does is move trust from vendor to OEM not avoiding
> the hypothetical OEM firmware backdoors.
>
> System76 is a fine choice if all you want is a laptop that runs linux
> without difficulty.
>

I don't get why you constantly try to discredit Purism and insult
everything we do. You complain about coreboot being "useless" because
it uses FSP, but you fail to mention that anything using coreboot will
use the FSP unless it's 10 year old hardware (Sandybridge is the
latest FSP-free supported CPU). The original email asked about a
coreboot port, not a libreboot port. Every time I see purism
mentioned, you have to jump in to insult and dishonestly say that
Purism is dishonest. If you want to claim bullshit like that, at least
find something real and concrete to back it up. I've ignored you many
times, but I'm fed up of your one-man vendetta against Purism. What
happened to you for you to have so much hate against us?

Extremely funny how you then say that System76 is "a fine choice"
considering that System76 doesn't even come with coreboot, and even if
it did come with coreboot, it would of course, still depend on the
FSP. Also, System76 hardware depends on components which do require
binary blobs, as opposed to Purism laptops, so I don't get why
System76 is "a fine choice" if Purism isn't.

To answer Jim, the Purism Librem 15 doesn't support 32 GB of RAM, but
it does run coreboot and will come with a disabled ME (blog post
announcing that is pending). If you need a laptop which runs linux
without the need for any of the binary firmware blobs (firmware-linux
package in debian), where the company is actively working on
eliminating the remaining blobs in the system (the ME, the FSP and
VGABIOS) then you might want to look at Purism, if you don't care
about those issues and/or require 32GB of RAM (which our laptops don't
support), then you should discard Purism from your list of choices and
look for something else.

I hope that helps.
.

-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-08 Thread Zoran Stojsavljevic 
> I am looking at a new laptop, and one of my options is a Dell Precision
7510 (I like the quad-core and loads of RAM available)
> but I would like to not use a vendor BIOS.

I see... SKL-S ->  Intel® Core™ i7-6820HQ

INTEL claims on these babies to have the following:
https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/anton-shilov/intel-alters-design-of-skylake-processors-to-enable-sgx-extensions/

SGX: Intel Software Guard Extensions (Intel SGX

)

What are the requirements? Why you do not want UEFI BIOS on the machine?
Any specific reasons for that?

I see only one serious reason: you don't want ME to work on this machine,
since you do not trust to ME as the base of the unknown arc/x86 (quark ?)
based applications running in its own 32MB space close to TOLUD.

If you do have bare metal (type 1) HYP and run several VMs, does this
assure the security and well protected VM space, regardless UEFI BIOS
below? Anyone?

Thank you,
Zoran
___

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Jim Hendrick 
wrote:

> Just subscribed - I will mostly "lurk" but I do have a few questions for
> the group.
>
> I am looking at a new laptop, and one of my options is a Dell Precision
> 7510 (I like the quad-core and loads of RAM available) but I would like to
> not use a vendor BIOS.
>
> Has anyone put coreboot on one of these?
>
> Anyone tried and failed?
>
> Any recommendations for something similar (a good laptop ~15 in.
> quad-core, 32GB RAM and fast SSD storage)?
> I will be running multiple virtual machines - hence the RAM and cores...
>
> (I also am looking at system76 and Purism but I am bit leery of spending a
> lot with a small / new company - comments appreciated)
>
> Thanks all!
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> --
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
> https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
>
-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-08 Thread taii...@gmx.com 

On 10/08/2017 08:39 PM, Duncan wrote:


Hi,

I am not aware of a Coreboot port for the W530. Do you have any more
information?

Best,
Duncan
There is a W520 port from charoletteplusplus and she was working on a 
W530 port but they never got merged - no idea why, I would consider 
contacting her for more info.


https://www.coreboot.org/Board:lenovo/w520

--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-08 Thread Duncan 
Hi,

I am not aware of a Coreboot port for the W530. Do you have any more
information?

Best,
Duncan

taii...@gmx.com:
> On 10/08/2017 11:06 AM, Jim Hendrick wrote:
> 
>> Just subscribed - I will mostly "lurk" but I do have a few questions for
>> the group.
>>
>> I am looking at a new laptop, and one of my options is a Dell Precision
>> 7510 (I like the quad-core and loads of RAM available) but I would
>> like to
>> not use a vendor BIOS.
>>
>> Has anyone put coreboot on one of these?
> Assuming there is no hardware code signing enforcement anti-feature
> ("boot guard") for the firmware enabled you would have to port coreboot
> to it, this would take around 6 months for a skilled firmware engineer.
>> Anyone tried and failed?
>>
>> Any recommendations for something similar (a good laptop ~15 in.
>> quad-core,
>> 32GB RAM and fast SSD storage)?
>> I will be running multiple virtual machines - hence the RAM and cores...
> W530, supports open source hardware init coreboot and me cleaner.
> Buy one, install your own SSD, RAM upgrade and W520 keyboard/armrest if
> you don't like the chiclet layout.
> 
> Alternatively you could get a G505S (owner controlled) if you don't want
> ME/PSP - but that only supports 16GB RAM.
>> (I also am looking at system76 and Purism but I am bit leery of
>> spending a
>> lot with a small / new company - comments appreciated)
> Purism dishonestly markets their products - while they claim that their
> laptops "respect freedom and privacy" their version of coreboot is
> nothing more than a wrapper layer for intel FSP (binary blob that does
> all the hardware init) which is next to pointless for the amount of
> money you would spend on one as all it does is move trust from vendor to
> OEM not avoiding the hypothetical OEM firmware backdoors.
> 
> System76 is a fine choice if all you want is a laptop that runs linux
> without difficulty.
> 

-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-08 Thread taii...@gmx.com 

On 10/08/2017 11:06 AM, Jim Hendrick wrote:


Just subscribed - I will mostly "lurk" but I do have a few questions for
the group.

I am looking at a new laptop, and one of my options is a Dell Precision
7510 (I like the quad-core and loads of RAM available) but I would like to
not use a vendor BIOS.

Has anyone put coreboot on one of these?
Assuming there is no hardware code signing enforcement anti-feature 
("boot guard") for the firmware enabled you would have to port coreboot 
to it, this would take around 6 months for a skilled firmware engineer.

Anyone tried and failed?

Any recommendations for something similar (a good laptop ~15 in. quad-core,
32GB RAM and fast SSD storage)?
I will be running multiple virtual machines - hence the RAM and cores...

W530, supports open source hardware init coreboot and me cleaner.
Buy one, install your own SSD, RAM upgrade and W520 keyboard/armrest if 
you don't like the chiclet layout.


Alternatively you could get a G505S (owner controlled) if you don't want 
ME/PSP - but that only supports 16GB RAM.

(I also am looking at system76 and Purism but I am bit leery of spending a
lot with a small / new company - comments appreciated)
Purism dishonestly markets their products - while they claim that their 
laptops "respect freedom and privacy" their version of coreboot is 
nothing more than a wrapper layer for intel FSP (binary blob that does 
all the hardware init) which is next to pointless for the amount of 
money you would spend on one as all it does is move trust from vendor to 
OEM not avoiding the hypothetical OEM firmware backdoors.


System76 is a fine choice if all you want is a laptop that runs linux 
without difficulty.


--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

[coreboot] greetings and laptop questions

2017-10-08 Thread Jim Hendrick 
Just subscribed - I will mostly "lurk" but I do have a few questions for
the group.

I am looking at a new laptop, and one of my options is a Dell Precision
7510 (I like the quad-core and loads of RAM available) but I would like to
not use a vendor BIOS.

Has anyone put coreboot on one of these?

Anyone tried and failed?

Any recommendations for something similar (a good laptop ~15 in. quad-core,
32GB RAM and fast SSD storage)?
I will be running multiple virtual machines - hence the RAM and cores...

(I also am looking at system76 and Purism but I am bit leery of spending a
lot with a small / new company - comments appreciated)

Thanks all!

Jim
-- 
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot