I think there is a plan to move librems to non-x86 architecture eventually (considering that RYF is our long term plan, there is no choice in moving out of x86 eventually), I think the efforts on the risc-v front are the most promising and I think that's where the true competition to x86 will be, but to be honest, I don't really follow, understand or know much of anything that happens in the hardware space since I'm a software guy at heart (i.e: all I know is that x86, ARM, PPC and Risc-V use different instruction sets). I hear a lot about PPC (with Talos for example), but I don't think PPC is as open as Risc-v (ISA or something). All I know about PPC really is that it was fun to reverse engineer during my PS3 days :) Anyways, as far as I know, for risc-v, it's not there yet, so we're waiting for that to be ready for the masses before moving to it. I have absolutely no idea if it's "close" or if it's really a long term plan for risc-v to be able to compete with x86 in terms of performance/power usage/features/etc...
Note: this is not an official statement, I never really bothered to ask in details about such things, I simply write code and yell at it for not working... As for the collaboration, again, I have no idea about any of the business/manufacturing logistics, but if you think there's something there that can be done, I suggest you contact Todd (I added him in CC) and you could discuss things, he'll know what to answer you! Thanks! On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Timothy Pearson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you for the detailed explanation. I guess this is an area in > which experience matters; it is absolutely unacceptable (and not > unexpected) that Intel misled your CEO, but this is sadly not an > uncommon tactic in the industry. > > One item I would like to call out though is the following: > >> if old or non-x86 architectures were so appealing, you would have seen that >> become the norm rather than the exception) > > No one is denying that the easiest course of action for everyone would > have been for Intel or AMD to release owner-controllable CPUs. That > being said, individuals and organizations needing privacy and owner > control are /not/ their target market, nor are those entities Intel (or > AMD)'s secondary (or even tertiary) market. Both Intel and AMD rely on > their lock-in and close association with Windows and related software to > provide cheap, but wholly locked down, CPUs *by design*. You could look > at it as the hardware vendor simply providing a leased tool on which to > run the leased software -- in such a market, cost trumps everything, > owner control is looked at as "enabling piracy", and as a result x86 is > not an appropriate platform for anyone needing control or privacy. > > In this environment, one must make a choice between convenience (x86) > and owner control. As you mentioned, the only middle ground is > relegated to ancient computers, and that is not where we place any hope > at all. Trying to switch architectures may be hard, but it is only > going to get harder day after day as people continue to cling to false > hope that the x86 platform may ever be brought under their control. The > simple fact is, the purchaser of an x86 machine is not Intel or AMD's > customer, nor are the ODMs. Their primary customers, in an odd sort of > way, are actually the software vendors that require x86 for their > existing applications, and they are the ones that will call the shots on > features or antifeatures in the x86 walled garden. > > I wonder, though, if given this information if possibly Raptor and > Purism might have some common business ground here? Purism has > experience with laptop mechanicals and related concerns, and we have > experience with truly blob-free, powerful hardware -- combining those > two could yield an interesting machine... > > On 12/19/2017 02:41 PM, Youness Alaoui wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Timothy Pearson >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 12/19/2017 11:51 AM, Dame Más wrote: >>>>> I finished the University and I have free time to do things. And this >>>>> seems like an interesting project to which I dedicate many hours. >>>>> >>>>> The truth is that I read a lot these days. The work you do kakaroto is >>>>> impressive. >>>>> In general Purism is doing something big, and I spoke ahead of time. >>>>> >>>>> I saw that in the directory >>>>> coreboot/3rdparty/blobs/mainboard/purism/ >>>>> there is no content, it is right? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >> >> The main question I have, and this is an honest question, is why Purism >> chose to use the x86 platform as a base for libre hardware, when it has >> been known for some time that said hardware could never be made fully >> blob-free? >> >> There were (and are) other good ways to make a system that could be >> fully blob-free, for instance ARM, and given the engineering effort that >> is said to have been put into the Purism machines I wonder what we could >> have had if said effort had been put into an aarch64 system instead of >> an x86 system? >> >>> That's a very good question and you're not the first one to ask it. >> >>> I think it's a combination of quite a few things. First, the fact that >>> I don't think there were any realistically powerfuly/competing >>> ARM/PPC/risc systems available at the time (or if there were, the >>> price would have been too high to make it a "security focused laptop >>> for everyone"). The purpose of Purism is not to satisfy a niche >>> market, but rather to be something everyone will want whether or not >>> they care about the security like we do, but which would still provide >>> them with that security that they need. I think even now, you can't >>> have an ARM device that could compete with an i7 in terms of >>> performance. >> >>> The second reason is that Todd (CEO) was in talks with Intel and was >>> unfortunately lead to believe that they were open to release an >>> ME-less design CPU for his needs, it ended up not being the case. >> >>> The last reason is because I think that through this discussion >>> (https://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2014-August/078511.html) >>> Todd thought that it would be possible to get a binary blob free >>> coreboot/CPU with a few months of work. He didn't realize that it was >>> a much harder thing to achieve because the FSP takes a lot of time to >>> reverse engineer (remember, he thought he would have an ME-less CPU >>> from Intel), but from what I read in one of his answers, he had >>> already decided on x86 by the time he wrote that mail to the mailing >>> list, so I'm not sure if it really answers your question. >> >>> I think those that provide non-x86 (or pre-2008 x86) machines are >>> already there to fill the blob-free need, and it's not healthy to just >>> compete with them. A good summary is that we want to "bring blob-free >>> to the hardware that people want", rather than "bring blob-free >>> hardware to the people who want it". >> >>> Finally, I'll paste you one of my explanations from an email I sent >>> here last May, which kind of summarizes it all (from >>> https://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2017-May/084166.html) >> >>> "[...], You ask why Purism doesn't just create laptops using FX2 or ARM or >>> whatever... Well, because that's not what most people want, out there. If >>> you want a RYF laptop using old or underpowered hardware or non-x86 >>> architectures, that's a problem that has already been solved, there are >>> various resellers of such devices. The idea here is not to "Use what we can >>> find to make RYF" but rather "Bring RYF to the hardware that people want". >>> What I believe Purism is trying to do is to create a modern laptop for >>> *everyone* with the extra value of security and privacy, and in the process >>> make FLOSS appealing to mainstream instead of letting it be confined in a >>> niche. I think everyone will be better off with tools to protect their >>> privacy/security without asking them to throw the baby with the bathwater >>> by requiring them to use hardware that does not interest them (otherwise, >>> if old or non-x86 architectures were so appealing, you would have seen that >>> become the norm rather than the exception)." >> >>> I hope that fully answers your question. >> >>> Thanks! >>> Youness. >> >> >> > > - -- > Timothy Pearson > Raptor Engineering > +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) > +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) > https://www.raptorengineering.com > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1 > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJaOXxqAAoJEK+E3vEXDOFbgVkIAJLiGyBNX9A+xeKXFwi/nwlv > SgIbunIkPIOH1QewV1BXqZMKqcCya1tNXw4uiviJLEFjKE+o2J9Uj+D2BN+KGT7C > imm3F9dhMpAD/IoQ9NRQML1LpgN6rMKPPkW0zGlfl8jWlCvdsi5r3qe9eZinIqk8 > ljrUp/33s6Ft8gEZ61lsO8hkOjlSEHRvUxPjo9GKszU+pYO70a0kV07wdDuj8IHy > qcmCBX4meGrTviGY4vzB4t6MU/rWcluX154+bmI0FRWH5/JlTKa00DWRcnUoHMQR > 0uzxLUTwjnvhZ3siXfRUPNe0d8IFTsrthN6lu3BXIv1QM5MxJ3BsyCxmKg2+m5Q= > =10QE > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
