On 09/07/2017 02:18 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting taii...@gmx.com (taii...@gmx.com):
I also find a bit questionable your going around attempting to tarnish
the reputation of someone with a real name, while concealing your own.
Criticism isn't allowed?
This is of course nothing like what I said.
I dislike when people deal with speculation instead of proven facts
when judging technical merits.
Then, _address what you perceive as speculation_.
I apologize - I should have done that in the first place instead of
resorting to name calling.
Mr. Selli has said:
*That IBM's POWER CPU's have a hardware level backdoor and have had
backdoors in the past whilst providing no real evidence to support that
those claims, he bolstered that argument by stating that IBM's work with
the US military is suspect and thus concludes guilt by association.
IBM sells POWER chips to both the the US Military and the Chinese
Military, doing that is largely as to why they are still in business -
as the worlds third maker of high performance computing hardware one
simply can't and shouldn't ignore the worlds two largest consumers.
IBM has done a variety of bad things, but that doesn't mean OpenPOWER
isn't a really good one.
* That the presence of a BMC chip on POWER means it has a backdoor
BMC chips are a common server feature required for remotely
administering a computer without headache, this one is owner controlled
(no hw code signing enforcement) and has full source code available to
the public after POWER9 is released.
*That TALOS is proprietary closed source hardware - which isn't true -
as not being that is the entire point of it.
After the release of POWER9 the board and BMC firmware sources will be
provided, and both the CPU/board and the BMC are owner controlled due to
the absence of hardware enforced code signing.
Full documentation and HDL's will be available for all components
besides the onboard broadcom nics which currently require a firmware
blob as there are no open source non-intel gigabit NIC's - but the FSF
says that this minor detail doesn't prevent it from receiving RYF
certification as they are behind the POWER-IOMMU and as such are not
capable of doing anything malicious.
* That the reason he/purism hasn't made owner controlled hardware is
because it is "too expensive"
Purism's "Librem" 15" laptop is $2,000 - in comparison one can have a
TALOS-2 DIY build for $2.6K thus making an actual owner controlled
device with significantly higher performance only an additional $600
which isn't really an obstacle for someone that can already afford a $2K
computer (there are a variety of low cost low/mid performance owner
controlled devices, now the high performance sector has one too)
* That the HAP mode "disabled" ME and makes a purism laptop somehow
equivalent to TALOS when it comes to privacy and security.
ME_Cleaner even with HAP mode doesn't disable ME - a black box
supervisor processor is still mandatory for the x86 boot process and is
capable of a variety of dirty tricks so even if one can verify that it
is actually off (difficult...by using an electron microscope perhaps?)
there are various things that it could have done before powering off.
ME cleaner is nerfing/cleaning, nothing more.
* That we should contribute and trust a company that is attempting the
sisyphean task of truly disabling ME.
Google has many times attempted to get intel to provide a method to
disable ME and remove it from the boot process for their in house
computers and the coreboot laptops they sell, they have not been
successful - thus if a billion dollar company can't pull it off a small
upstart certainly can't.
I am sure it is **technically** possible to disable ME, but it would
require years of research and hundreds of thousands in R&D for a single
intel CPU generation making it pointless.
There are real owner controlled devices out there now, I see no reason
to chase a pie in the sky dream of a free x86 - which simply isn't ever
going to happen.
If purism had in 2013 consulted a skilled hardware engineer and not
insisted on peddling intel quanta rebrands they would have probably made
one of the following:
* An 2013 AMD FT3 device, easily made open source (the Lenovo G505S has
only a few blobs that can be easily replaced) with sandy bridge
equivalent performance
* A performance ARM device such as an AppliedMicro CPU
* A POWER mobile workstation type laptop, which is possible with
POWER9's lower wattage CPU's.
* A KCMA-D8 laptop - the C32 platform has 35W 8 core CPU's and already
has libre firmware so one would simply have to make a custom 1U "laptop"
case, battery etc.
The fact that they haven't retasked to do one of the above means that I
distrust them and that they are sucking resources from real computing
freedom projects and thus my nerves get twinged every time someone talks
them up, moreso someone highly skilled such as mr. selli who I believe
should know better.
Instead ttempting
cheap character assassination, from behind cover of anonymity, suggests
you have no real argument.
I do not consider that character assassination, but I do again apologize
anyway as I respect your contribution to the community.
I don't use my "real" name on the internet for the same reason I
don't want a computer with ME/PSP.
Once again, you are deflecting and changing the subject. I said nothing
against being anonymous.
I felt as though you did :[
I merely said that slagging reputations of
real named people with unsupported derogatory allegations, especially
when you refuse to name yourself, is disreputable and bogus
Of course, you don't actually need to worry about 'taii...@gmx.com'
developing a bad reputation:
I have a fine reputation, and I wish to keep it that way - I am not one
to simply "walk away" nor start trouble.
At some point, you can just walk away from
that 'nym and be someone else, which is the whole point, isn't it?
No it isn't, I have had 5 separate targeting hacking attacks on me in my
10 years on the internet - one of those people attempted to find my
physical location so he could SWAT me which is why I never use my real
name nor have any type of social media.
I think a dng-philosphy list may be a good idea, but I was under the
assumption that [DNG] was simply a campfire for systemd refugees (as it
isn't dng-dev) based on list description and the previous content of the
list which mind you this thread is quite benign compared to some.
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
