>Anyway not every computer has it, because some models don't >have AMT/ME at
all. In this case Libreboot shouldn't share >inaccurate information,
What you say is correct, but Libreboot never seems to have claimed otherwise.
Their FAQ, which I presume is what you are referencing, states in bold that
the ME is "present on all Intel desktop, mobile (laptop), and server systems
since mid 2006." This assertion does seem accurate.
>and also what does it mean that you can't turn it off?
>Because on Lenovo x220 you can disable AMT,
These are separate issues. The AMT can be turned off or not present at all
(presuming Intel/OEMs are honest- see below), as is exemplified in a number
of devices if I remember correctly. The ME, however, is a different kettle of
colored horses. Their *are* no BIOS switches for this little beast, and only
in the earliest models (pre-X220 for sure) can it be switched off or removed.
Later models have a hard-coded check, which will switch off the device after
30 minutes if the ME is not found. It also performs some hardware-init stuff,
I think, although that's only required at boot.
>but is it totally or partially disabled and how can you
>affirm that (anyone knows how hardware really works?)?
For the ME, I'm pretty sure the standard way to check is by removing all
traces of the code from the flash chip- if the ME is still required, then it
wouldn't work. For the AMT, I'm not quite so certain about the method- I'd
imagine the best you can do is check if the AMT stops offering the services
one would expect to (remote shutdown etc.). That said, this is just a total
guess- the only one I can tell you about is the ME.
As regards how the hardware works, the basic idea is that the ME is a little
chip embedded inside the main processor, which then has full control over the
main processor. It reads from a flash chip, which is writable (the ME can
update its OS). That's awfully vague, and probably about the extent of my
knowledge, but it's the basic concept nonetheless.
>Libreboot and also other sites should specify these issues,
>otherwise is not an objective information, is an useless
>alarm that seems useful only to sell Libreboot computers
"Libreboot" doesn't make *any* profit from Libreboot computers to the best of
my knowledge; Leah, the lead developer, does, but that is a secondary issue
nonetheless. The primary concern is whether the description is accurate. In
that regard, it is an excellent and comprehensive description of how the ME
has developed as an obstruction to free computing over time. Your facts cited
above are equally correct, certainly, but they're about the AMT. This is
*not* the same as the ME, in that it can be avoided, often disabled (albeit
through a proprietary BIOS) and perhaps might be considered a piece of
software in its own right rather than just complex firmware.
