On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:34:06 -0500 "Taiidan@gmx.com" Taiidan@gmx.com wrote:
Bootguard can be bypassed by simply swapping compatible CPU's from two computers/laptops, correct?
AFAIK, on many laptops the CPU is soldered now. Since such CPU are probably BGA, I don't see it as a viable option for most people. When people do not have enough skills to do something, commerce typically can bridge that gap, however I fear that: - The costs of such swap would be significant, I might be wrong though as the manufacturing technology evolves. - Users would have some psychological barrier about buying a laptop that is known to be worth a given price second hand or new, at a price that is way higher.
The bigger issue is, do we really want to support a company that will one day succeed in shutting us down?
The question for me is not between supporting or not supporting such company but rather when to stop supporting it entirely. More on that below.
while x86 is the only real option for a mobile workstation
It depend on the use case, people are different and use computing and technology differently. I currently use a Lenovo Thinkpad X60 as main computer. I currently do not need to compile huge quantity of source code like an entire GNU/Linux or Android distribution, so it works for me.
I did a compilation speed test between the Chromebook C201 and one of my X60, compiling u-boot on the C201 for the LG Optimus black took about 1/4 less time on the Chromebook. That said, even if the compiled code was exactly the same, the GNU/Linux distribution was not the same between both devices, and power management setup might have impacted the tests.
I feel as though all desktop/server development should be focused on POWER as IBM isn't yet entirely hostile to the idea of free firmware (in 2012 a new kgpe-d16, compatible RAM, cpu's etc would be as much as a power habanero is now, it isn't really that expensive the only issue is that they don't depreciate in value as much as an x86 device so it isn't as easy to pick up older models for cheap)
There is no doubt that, if we could, we should, as a community, focus on POWER8 and architectures friendly to free software.
However we might also want to think about how to handle the transition between both. A lot of people are still used to x86 hardware and some even still use legacy proprietary OS like Microsoft Windows.
More and more people are learning about privacy issues. A huge number of people also want to do something about it. According to Eben Moglen, that's about 1/5 of the Internet, that is about 400000 people.
More and more people will also realize its importance[7] as it would ruin people's lives (sic[9]). The damage caused by privacy leaks would probably probably increase a lot in the future (sic[9]), due to the kind of data that may be stored (think about your complete DNA) but also because the kind of information you will be able to deduce from the data will be way more sensitive than it is now[8], due to algorithmic progress on the relevant topics.
Free software and user control of the technology is required (but not sufficient by itself) to have some trustworthiness in our own computing and technology in general.
However many people (still) have a day job, a family, and no time for that. So how do you bring in so many people to free software? Especially if you need to change hardware, and that the new hardware won't run the legacy proprietary OS you were used to.
It might be possible if you split the issue in several parts: (1) A given person can start by migrating to GNU/Linux on hardware they have or are familiar with. We are still not there, since many people didn't switch yet, as the various jokes on "The year of the GNU/Linux desktop" reminds us. (2) Once the person migrated to GNU/Linux, on untrustworthy hardware, running it on trustworthy hardware might not be that different.
Having interacted with many (non-tech) people willing to switch to GNU/Linux or switching to it, I've an hypothesis on why very few people actually switched to GNU/Linux.
I think that it's mainly due to the lack of professional support for individuals: Most people still using legacy proprietary software can simply go to the computer shop nearby to get their software problem fixed. Such computer shop typically do not know how to fix common issues in GNU/Linux distributions. GNU/Linux user groups also don't scale enough to accommodate that much people, and are not available 7/7, and are often available the week-end, that is, when people want to spend time with their families instead of getting their computer fixed.
Increasing the availability of commercial support might be possible, for instance by identifying common issues and having a certification that would ensure that shops can fix such common issues with a good enough quality for most people. Few companies[1] seem to be involved in medium scale support of individuals (not businesses). Such companies probably have better information on what the common issues are than the GNU/Linux user groups, as they interact with more diverse people.
To help such user transitioning we also probably need computers that are made to ensure that GNU/Linux runs fine, even if they are x86 and run proprietary blobs in the boot firmware. This is made possible by Coreboot since the OS<->Boot firmware interface is free software. There is also at least one free software friendly company[2] that design laptops, and that are exercising some control over the choice of components that goes into such laptops.
Now helping people transition to use GNU/Linux isn't enough, we also need to make sure that hardware that respects people's free do exist at the end of the transition, and that such hardware also works well.
Since the Crowdsupply campaign of the POWER8 "Talos Secure Workstation"[3] didn't work out, probably due to the lack of people willing to pay a (way) higher price than other free software friendly computers like the novena, how do we go from there?
We also need to bother about security, and ensure that computers that can run fully free software are also secure, that the security is unobtrusive and still encourage the user to experiment with the software and hardware.
As I understand the "Talos Secure Workstation" would also have shipped with a free software root of trust[4][5] that would be user modifiable.
Such hardware would also have permitted to experiment with different approaches on how to ensure that the computer remains trustworthy and has not been tempered with, without the knowledge of the owner of the computer, that is, the user.
As I understand it, this feature might go into some minifree desktops and servers in the future[6], so we will hopefully be able to do such experimentation.
References: ----------- [1]https://hypra.fr [2]https://puri.sm [3]https://www.crowdsupply.com/raptor-computing-systems/talos-secure-workstatio... [4]https://www.crowdsupply.com/raptor-computing-systems/talos-secure-workstatio... [5]https://www.crowdsupply.com/raptor-computing-systems/talos-secure-workstatio... [6]https://minifree.org/product/libreboot-d16/ [7]http://craphound.com/news/2016/07/03/peak-indifference-privacy-as-a-public-h... [8]https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8238-retail_surveillance_retail_countersurveilla... [9]That said we shouldn't wait for privacy issues to be solved automatically: - The cost of that waiting would be that many lives would be ruined. - That doesn't take into account the relationship between privacy and power. People might really really strongly want and require privacy but could be prevented to get it.
Denis.