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 <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