On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 11:13:42 +0200 Paul Menzel email@example.com wrote: [...]
Basically, I agree with Timothy on the problem and the user confusion. Puri.sm basically omits the FSP in all their blog posts, and the user gets the impression, that the whole firmware is free software .
I too agree with Timothy for the most part. I regularly (albeit not very often) speak to people who have learned about coreboot and say that they want to flash their computer, mostly laptops, and are surprised when I tell them that it's not as open source as they think, i.e. vendor-provided binary blobs are necessary to boot their x86 platform.
But, I don't think a split of the project would be beneficial here. There are eoungh project splits already in the open source world, and I'm sure coreboot at its heart still aims for a 100% open source boot experience.
But maybe coreboot could improve in educating new end users about the current status regarding blobs required for platform bring-up.
What about a new headline "Current blob status" on the "End Users" page? https://www.coreboot.org/users.html
I think, we can work on improving the text, and it’s great that Patrick posted proposals.
I believe, we should a agree on a few thinks first though.
- I do not think, that the openness of the ISA plays any role for coreboot, so it does not need to be mentioned on the main page, and should be moved.
I second that.
- Should the Intel ME and PSP be seen as independent devices like the embedded controller? In my opinion it should be, and therefore, also does not need to be mentioned on the main page. (Unless somebody comes up with a succinct wording.)
I also don't think mentioning the ME, PSP et al on the main page is a good idea, since they are architecture specific co-processors.
But I don't think they should be considered completely independent devices anymore, since they have become more and more involved in platform bring-up over the last years, and well, coreboot is about exactly that: https://doc.coreboot.org/#purpose-of-coreboot
It would be interesting to hear what the current core developers and maintainers of coreboot think about the status of these co-processors, and how much they fall into the scope of the coreboot project.
Maybe some native speaker finds better wording.
I'm not a native speaker, but I want to share my two cents here...
The current text reads as follows:
"coreboot is an extended firmware platform that delivers a lightning fast and secure boot experience on modern computers and embedded systems. As an Open Source project it provides auditability and maximum control over technology."
Idea 1) In the first sentence, instead of "coreboot is an extended firmware platform that delivers" write one of the following: "coreboot is an extended firmware platform that aims to provide" "coreboot is an extended firmware platform that strives to provide" "coreboot is an extended firmware platform with the goal to provide" ... and then make the changed text (e.g. "that aims to provide") a link to a page that describes the current blob situation, or to a new section of the "End Users" page like I proposed above.
Idea 2) Leave the text as is and add a new simple one-line paragraph below it, which could read like
"You can [read here] about the current open source status of coreboot." or "You can [read here] about the current use of blobs in coreboot." or something similar, again, linking to a place which explains the current use of blobs in coreboot.
In any case, IMO it would be nice to keep it rather short and succinct as it is now, and not bloat it up too much.