Re: CPU as a service // MINIX in Intel ME

Hi Timothy, # Timothy Pearson [2017-11-29 20:25 +0100]: Yes, I agree. The question is, in a society where any new features / ways of doing things are expected at no cost or well below the real cost of creating things, how does society as a whole move away from the resultant need to "monetise"

Re: CPU as a service // MINIX in Intel ME

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/29/2017 11:16 AM, Florian Snow wrote: > Hi, > > > Timothy Pearson writes: >> Giving up privacy and control to waste time in front of a *game*. > > I agree with you that freedom is more important than games.

Re: CPU as a service // MINIX in Intel ME

Hi, Timothy Pearson writes: > Giving up privacy and control to waste time in front of a *game*. I agree with you that freedom is more important than games. But in the long run, we need to find other solutions than telling people not to use things. Phones are

Re: CPU as a service // MINIX in Intel ME

If I'm not mistaken, this is already there. They are freedoms, not obligations against the user. They must be possoble of course, but the user isn't obligated to make use of all of the freedoms, the same applies to freedom 0, see [1]. [1] . This is

Re: CPU as a service // MINIX in Intel ME

(a latere, semi-serious) May I propose an amendment to the first freedom (as in https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)? "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)." should become "The freedom to run (or NOT to run) the program as you wish, for any purpose

Re: CPU as a service // MINIX in Intel ME

Dear Jann, * Jann KRUSE [2017-11-28 21:23:54 +]: Update: Have been exploited... (And you wouldn't even realize it!) https://www.blackhat.com/eu-17/briefings/schedule/#how-to-hack-a-turned-off-computer-or-running-unsigned-code-in-intel-management-engine-8668 as you correctly pointed out

Re: CPU as a service // MINIX in Intel ME

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/28/2017 04:47 PM, White_Rabbit wrote: > Il 28 novembre 2017 22:33:06 CET, Timothy Pearson > ha scritto: >> […] Think about that: *games*. Giving >> up >> privacy and control to waste time in front of a *game*.

Re: CPU as a service // MINIX in Intel ME

Il 28 novembre 2017 22:33:06 CET, Timothy Pearson ha scritto: >[…] Think about that: *games*. Giving >up >privacy and control to waste time in front of a *game*. […] (I'm sorry, I know this is not a reasonable use of the list) You've never played "Metal Gear

Re: CPU as a service // MINIX in Intel ME

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I was using "unlicensed" somewhat facetiously from a large content provider perspective; specifically, in the common usage of "not paying a license fee back to the vendor on a continuous basis". The general idea was that the machine vendor wants to

Re: CPU as a service // MINIX in Intel ME

Jost to note that not all copies of Linux are unlicensed. The unlicensed ones are those shipped or provided by non-free system distributions that happen to break the terms of the license (currently: 99%). Besides, the Linux project itself seems to currently put non-free parts inside it so, one

Re: CPU as a service // MINIX in Intel ME

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/28/2017 03:23 PM, Jann KRUSE wrote: > In short: > We are essentially being forced, without even being told, to run buggy > proprietary code in a very powerful and very capable hyper-hyper-visor > of our OS, which can (benign or maliciously)

Re: CPU as a service // MINIX in Intel ME

On 24 November 2017 18:19:23 EET, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote: >[...] > >2. between the "user facing OS" and the hardware there are at least 2 ½ >OS kernels (MINIX and UEFI) >3. these are proprietary and very likely exploit-friendly Update: Have been exploited... (And you wouldn't