On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 at 21:46:39 -0700
Rick Moen wrote:
> Elsewhere in this thread, there's been mention of the dire threat to
> system security from Intel Management Engine (ME) (every Intel CPU since
> 2008) and the equivalent AMD Platform Security Processor (PSP).
>
>
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 11:00:42 +0200, Didier wrote in message
<2beaafb7-1f5d-116a-d503-082ee06f4...@in2p3.fr>:
> Le 03/09/2017 à 22:38, zap a écrit :
> > *but in the future I hope to get eoma68 which promises even more
> > freedom.*
>
> Hope it's higher quality than Pi-Top (poor keyboard and
Le 03/09/2017 à 22:38, zap a écrit :
*but in the future I hope to get eoma68 which promises even more freedom.*
Hope it's higher quality than Pi-Top (poor keyboard and touchpad,
Ethernet and USB connectors inside the box with a hole to pass the
cables, no interface for hard disk, one
On 09/03/2017 09:41 AM, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 03/09/2017 at 13:32, zap wrote:
>>
>> On 09/03/2017 05:26 AM, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>>> On 01/09/2017 at 20:36, zap wrote:
> I doubt it will be owner controlled, as their laptops aren't - they
> still haven't even gotten a blobbed
On 09/03/2017 09:41 AM, Alessandro Selli wrote:
Do you believe that all ARM, SPARC and Power suppliers do not put anything
in their CPUs that users and developers do not know about? Again, the only
way to be sure is buying hardware from a vendor that produces it's own
hardware, CPUs
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 03:41:23PM +0200, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> This is the present state of the matter:
> https://puri.sm/learn/avoiding-intel-amt/
>
> "So, there is no hardware level remote access to Purism hardware?"
AMT is merely a way to configure the built-in backdoor that allows you
On 03/09/2017 at 13:32, zap wrote:
>
>
> On 09/03/2017 05:26 AM, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>> On 01/09/2017 at 20:36, zap wrote:
I doubt it will be owner controlled, as their laptops aren't - they
still haven't even gotten a blobbed version of coreboot working
(blobbed init code +
On 09/03/2017 05:26 AM, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 01/09/2017 at 20:36, zap wrote:
>>> I doubt it will be owner controlled, as their laptops aren't - they
>>> still haven't even gotten a blobbed version of coreboot working
>>> (blobbed init code + ME enabled as they insisted on a crappy intel
On 31/08/2017 at 15:24, info at smallinnovations dot nl wrote:
> On 31-08-17 10:14, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>>
>>Good news indeed! The second one this week, after this worthy attempt by
>> puri.sm to finally produce a smartphone designed to be 100% evil-software
>> free
>> and GNU/Linux
On 01/09/2017 at 20:36, zap wrote:
>
>>>
>> I doubt it will be owner controlled, as their laptops aren't - they
>> still haven't even gotten a blobbed version of coreboot working
>> (blobbed init code + ME enabled as they insisted on a crappy intel soc)
>> Purism isn't a trustworthy company.
>
On 09/01/2017 10:43 AM, Edward Bartolo wrote:
> People are mentioning Waterfox yet another reincarnation of Firefox.
> Can it run on Devuan ASCII? I have used Palemoon but stopped due to
> many issues.
YES! and also ceres too. You just can't use it on jessie... for whatever
reason...
>
People are mentioning Waterfox yet another reincarnation of Firefox.
Can it run on Devuan ASCII? I have used Palemoon but stopped due to
many issues.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
> Just try to submit a patch that eg, allows build-time opt-out of
> geoloc, motion/ambient sensors, etc, and see what happens.
Okay point taken screw firefox... I think waterfox though is more
accepting of such patches.
>
>>> Most of it should still be in their mail archives - and I could
Elsewhere in this thread, there's been mention of the dire threat to
system security from Intel Management Engine (ME) (every Intel CPU since
2008) and the equivalent AMD Platform Security Processor (PSP).
Noted in the current Linux Weekly News: discovery of a way to shoot
Intel ME version 11
Quoting Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult (enrico.weig...@gr13.net):
> In essence, moz folks only want to add new fancy brave new world
> features (seems they're totally in the post-humanist ideology),
> and tend to hostile reaction against all critics.
>
> Just try to submit a patch that eg,
On 01.09.2017 01:25, Rick Moen wrote:
https://github.com/orgs/Librezilla/
Thank you for working on that. I haven't taken the time to find the
crux of your objection to the upstream code, though.
In essence, moz folks only want to add new fancy brave new world
features (seems they're
Quoting Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult (enrico.weig...@gr13.net):
> >Have you written this up, somewhere?
>
> yet incomplete and hackish (due lack of time)
>
> https://github.com/orgs/Librezilla/
Thank you for working on that. I haven't taken the time to find the
crux of your objection to
On 31.08.2017 22:38, Rick Moen wrote:
I think you're missing that point that a baseband chipset integrated > with a smartphone has total control over anything and everything the>
smartphone does,
Depends on how it is connected to the rest of the system.
If it eg. has a direct link to the mic,
On 31.08.2017 22:26, Rick Moen wrote:
They say it's going to be either i.MX6 or i.MX8.
whenever mx8 will be actually available ... :o
They haven't yet
decided. (This further underlines my point that it's definitely nothing
like a finished product, yet.)
ack.
I don't want to be unduly
On 31.08.2017 22:05, zap wrote:
Try Waterfox that is libre by default at least. eme can be disabled and
that is waterfox's only problem.
Cool, didn't know that yet.
We should support it in dng.
--mtx
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
Quoting Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult (enrico.weig...@gr13.net):
> They suggest firefox ... recent versions (at least since 52) have
> built-in malware. I've already removed larged parts of it (yet
> very experimental and untested) - still need a strategy to align
> w/ upstream.
To be very
On 31.08.2017 21:53, Daniel Abrecht wrote:
While all android phones technically use a linux kernel, they have > nothing else in common with a normal Linux system. Android has it's>
own libc: bionic.
One of my goals in the gnudroid project (which is currently stalled
due lack of time) is
FYI just so everyone knows the 6.5K price is the prebuilt cost, you can
get the board and CPU for around 2K then you just need DDR4 memory.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Quoting Arnt Gulbrandsen (a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no):
[snip a bunch of stuff I'm not going to spend time on]
> Back to the phones.
>
> If you have proper control over your phones's baseband, you're
> relying on the telco as a proprietary black box to forward your
> packets and calls. If your
Quoting Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult (enrico.weig...@gr13.net):
> On 31.08.2017 20:07, Rick Moen wrote:
>
> >Having the i.MX6 ori.MX8 CPU 'separate' from the baseband
> >controller
>
> Does it have to be an mx6 ? okay, open gpu drivers, but perhaps a little
> bit expensive and produces a
>
>> https://blog.torproject.org/blog/mission-impossible-hardening-android-security-and-privacy
>>
>
> They suggest firefox ... recent versions (at least since 52) have
> built-in malware. I've already removed larged parts of it (yet
> very experimental and untested) - still need a strategy to
Rick Moen writes:
Having the i.MX6 ori.MX8 CPU 'separate' from the baseband controller (a
term on which they have not yet elaborated), but the latter remains
deeply problematic, being a proprietary black box with proprietary,
opaque firmware.
Really?
I suppose you've dealt with as many ISPs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
While all android phones technically use a linux kernel, they have
nothing else in common with a normal Linux system. Android has it's
own libc: bionic. It also has special IPC mechanisms enabled in the
linux kernel, and it uses gralloc instead of
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:40:58AM -0400, taii...@gmx.com wrote:
> I doubt it will be owner controlled, as their laptops aren't - they still
> haven't even gotten a blobbed version of coreboot working (blobbed init code
> + ME enabled as they insisted on a crappy intel soc)
> Purism isn't a
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 07:35:49PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
wrote:
> On 31.08.2017 16:40, taii...@gmx.com wrote:
>
> >I doubt it will be owner controlled, as their laptops aren't - they still
> >haven't even gotten a blobbed version of coreboot working (blobbed init
> >code + ME
On 31.08.2017 20:07, Rick Moen wrote:
Having the i.MX6 ori.MX8 CPU 'separate' from the baseband controller
Does it have to be an mx6 ? okay, open gpu drivers, but perhaps a little
bit expensive and produces a lot heat.
(a term on which they have not yet elaborated), but the latter remains
Quoting Alessandro Selli (alessandrose...@linux.com):
> Good news indeed! The second one this week, after this worthy attempt
> by puri.sm to finally produce a smartphone designed to be 100%
> evil-software free and GNU/Linux compatible (scheduled for release in
> 2019, though):
>
>
On 31.08.2017 15:48, Edward Bartolo wrote:
The devil's advocate in me tells me, since making money is involved,
in the end, history will repeat itself as with what happened with
'user-centredness' in GNU/Linux! Those who have used GNU/Linux for
some long time know pretty well with the shoving
On 31.08.2017 17:01, info at smallinnovations dot nl wrote:
Sure as far as it the kernel concerns that is true. As soon as you want
hardware support for a specific SOC you depend on the hardware
manufacturer. Which are not interested in open source and you are
already lucky if they even want
On 31.08.2017 16:40, taii...@gmx.com wrote:
I doubt it will be owner controlled, as their laptops aren't - they
still haven't even gotten a blobbed version of coreboot working (blobbed
init code + ME enabled as they insisted on a crappy intel soc)
Purism isn't a trustworthy company.
Don't
On 31-08-17 16:14, Narcis Garcia wrote:
El 31/08/17 a les 15:24, info at smallinnovations dot nl ha escrit:
As a owner of a BQ Aquaris E45 Ubuntu version i fully support this kind
of free smartphone development. But i doubt of a linux smartphone will
be functional comparable with Android or
On 08/31/2017 04:14 AM, Alessandro Selli wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 at 18:25:07 -0400
"taii...@gmx.com" wrote:
Thought I would share this!
After what happened with TALOS 1 I can't believe they actually pulled it
off this time.
This is truly a historic moment for computing
El 31/08/17 a les 15:24, info at smallinnovations dot nl ha escrit:
> On 31-08-17 10:14, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>>
>>Good news indeed! The second one this week, after this worthy
>> attempt by
>> puri.sm to finally produce a smartphone designed to be 100%
>> evil-software free
>> and
The devil's advocate in me tells me, since making money is involved,
in the end, history will repeat itself as with what happened with
'user-centredness' in GNU/Linux! Those who have used GNU/Linux for
some long time know pretty well with the shoving down our throats of
systemd what remains of
On 31-08-17 10:14, Alessandro Selli wrote:
Good news indeed! The second one this week, after this worthy attempt by
puri.sm to finally produce a smartphone designed to be 100% evil-software free
and GNU/Linux compatible (scheduled for release in 2019, though):
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 04:03:57AM +0200, mdn wrote:
> I wonder how many packages already work on power compared to X86 ?
Since this is little-endian, old "power" (ie, powerpc and ppc64) won't work.
Thus, you need ppc64el packages only.
Binary packages in ppc64el unstable main: 53512
Binary
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 at 18:25:07 -0400
"taii...@gmx.com" wrote:
> Thought I would share this!
>
> After what happened with TALOS 1 I can't believe they actually pulled it
> off this time.
>
> This is truly a historic moment for computing freedom lovers - an owner
> controlled
Le 31/08/2017 03:58, zap a écrit :
> On 08/30/2017 06:25 PM, taii...@gmx.com wrote:
>
>> Thought I would share this!
>>
>> After what happened with TALOS 1 I can't believe they actually pulled
>> it off this time.
>>
>> This is truly a historic moment for computing freedom lovers - an
>> owner
On 08/30/2017 06:25 PM, taii...@gmx.com wrote:
> Thought I would share this!
>
> After what happened with TALOS 1 I can't believe they actually pulled
> it off this time.
>
> This is truly a historic moment for computing freedom lovers - an
> owner controlled open source ultra high performance
Thought I would share this!
After what happened with TALOS 1 I can't believe they actually pulled it
off this time.
This is truly a historic moment for computing freedom lovers - an owner
controlled open source ultra high performance workstation/server for
only a few thousand dollars.
45 matches
Mail list logo