David Hubbard [mailto:david.c.hubbard+coreboot@gmail.com] wrote:
]Hi Scott, ]Without additional information about the following questions, ]the job offer misses some candidates. Still, in this economy, ]kudos for the offer.
I have never worked for Intel so I can only guess about the job details. I suspect the creation of this position is a consequence of coreboot now being the fastest growing boot firmware used in the PC market: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/chromebooks_fastest_growing_pc_marke... The listing's incorrect capitalization of coreboot shows that coreboot is a new thing to Intel managers. Intel has been pushing for UEFI as the standard x86 boot firmware since 1999, so the recent success of coreboot (through chromebook) has probably taken some Intel managers by surprise.
]1. What does "coreboot engineer" mean? An engineer who has ]experience with coreboot -- or an engineer who will be working ]openly, supporting the coreboot project, and contributing ]patches, source code, and documentation?
I can only guess about the job details. These job descriptions often contain lots of cut and paste, and little proofreading. At least this one lists "Demonstrated C coding skills". The nearly universal use of "C/C++" in job advertisements is annoying (in my opinion, C and C++ are quite different languages). It is also odd to see a requirement for 5 years of UEFI or coreboot experience. Probably some of both would be better, given that the reference code must be packaged for both UEFI and coreboot use.
]2. What legally binding signatures does the position require? ]For example, Intel has a standard NDA as well as several Trade ]Secret documents; please include an exhaustive list and highlight ]the agreements that will have a material affect on the engineer's ]efforts to improve http://www.coreboot.org/Binary_situation either ]during their free time after hours, or after they no longer work ]for Intel. ]3. Will the position require the engineer to intermittently work ]with Microsoft products, outside of compatibility tests? Will the ]position require the engineer to work on open source projects that ]are incompatible with the GPLv3, specifically the non-Tivoization ]clause? Will the position require the engineer to support UEFI ]Secure Boot?
I can't answer for Intel, but I really doubt any Microsoft OS boot work is involved. The only Windows logo approved boot method is UEFI. Intel already has a UEFI BIOS team to handle that. Same for secure boot. I would be willing to bet that Intel wants pure (UEFI free) coreboot here. Microsoft is the only company that wants 'secure boot'. Google has their own security mechanisms that seem to be getting the job done. Microsoft has UEFI.
Thanks, Scott
]If you are not at liberty to discuss these kinds of details, it's fine. ] ]David ] ]On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Scott Duplichan scott@notabs.org wrote: ] ]https://intel.taleo.net/careersection/10000/jobdetail.ftl?job=725464 ] ]Thanks, ]Scott