Nov 7, 2021, 04:13 by [email protected]: > On 07.11.21 00:11, Martin Roth wrote: > >> CB:55367 was pushed on June 9th. It's 5 months later. Intel hasn't been >> able to get it merged yet. Sure, we're not outright saying they can't get >> it in, but in effect, that's what's happening. >> > Yes, 5 months stalled, because nobody told them that we should discuss > it. Hence my proposal to discuss things early. You don't like it? Please > propose something better. > Okay, I'm removing the rest of this conversation now that you've agreed that you are actually talking about blocking platforms because of blobs.
We both agree that we want things to be discussed. Let's start the conversation early, that's great. You want to block things until you're satisfied. I disagree. Blocking patches just makes companies work on a fork, and actually prevents the progress we all want. We both want coreboot to stay alive, and unfortunately, right now, that means that we're stuck dealing with blobs on the platforms that require them. If someone in a country that allows reverse engineering wants to work on replacing the blobs, that's great. Until then, they're the unfortunate reality. The advantage to putting things into the coreboot tree is that EVERYONE needs to work to not break other people's stuff with their changes. The coreboot community includes intel and AMD, and Google, and Secunet along with the people who don't work for any company. It's not any one individual's job, it's everyone's. If someone doesn't want to deal with the blobs, then just don't. You can't break those platforms, but you also don't have to work on them. Just don't use those platforms. As Ron said, "coreboot is best effort, not perfection." Let's try to work together on making things better Martin _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
