Re: [coreboot] Removal of AGESA - to be or NOT to be? A story of G505S

[Alex G.]

On 11/06/2015 02:11 AM, Vladimir wrote:
> * Did you know that Lenovo G505S is still widely available at some parts
> of the world? (e.g. in Russia, 50+ online shops are still selling it)

Yeah, I wrote most of the code for that.
> * Did you know that Francis Rowe, head Libreboot developer, has proposed
> the addition of G505S to Coreboot LTS Candidates list of laptops?

Did you know that G505s is unsuitable for libreboot due to the many
blobs it needs (VBIOS, SMU, IMC, make your pick) ?
> * Did you know that Compal will still be making LA-A091P laptop
> motherboard, the primary component of G505S, at least until the end of
> 2018 year?

And this is based on what?
> It is unbelievable that some people here want to take alive-and-kicking
> motherboard and 'remove it'

I wrote most of the code to get it running in the first place.
> or degrade it into a 'second class citizen' - by branching

Geesh! Why don't you take over full maintainership of AGESA before
whining why people who worked on that code no longer want to support it?
> it off to some abandoned branch that nobody would care about.

You would obviously care about it, so that's a moot point.
> Don't know which is worse...

I agreed to leave these discussions behind. I don't know why people
_still_ keep bringing it up.
> > > > Someone wrote:

That was me
> > I'm looking forward to seeing the draft of the removal plans. Maybe
> > removal is even better than branching

<sarcasm_alert>
Yes. Because everything is black and white. We either keep everything in
a "master" branch, or it's dead.
</sarcasm_alert>
> If Someone doesn't care about those boards which he doesn't own own, if
> Someone has no idea how to set up makefiles so that they will not make
> builds for boards that he doesn't care about, if Someone can't wait a
> few more extra minutes of compilation because he is in a 'great hurry':

I also happen to run one of the build servers. Here's a deal, you pay
for 60% of the running costs of the server (the amount of time agesa
builds take out of total time), and I'll stop whining. You owe me $1300
for the year 2015, pal.
> then he should start his 'Removal Quest' from old boards like Intel I945
> and AMD K8 - if nobody runs coreboot on them anymore.
> Or from his own board, if his own board is EOL and old...

WOW! Guess what. You didn't git log AGESA boards. Hint: I'm "removing"
(your words, not mine) a lot of the code that I worked on.
> PLEASE do NOT submit proposals that will negatively affect a support for
> alive boards, because

If you want to treat logical separation as removal, that's on you. I'd
appreciate it if you stopped throwing baseless accusations around
because you feel that makes your argument stronger.
> such malevolent plans

Sure, I'm the enemy. I'm certain Stefan will love this one!
> are a great insult

I'm insulted by your portrayal of me as aforementioned. I've invested a
lot of my personal time and resources into coreboot, with nothing but
good intentions. I don't feel you truly have a grasp of all the facts
and headaches of doing coreboot on such a scale. So I'd really
appreciate you taking a step back and trying to get an overview every
once in a while.

Alex

Removal of AGESA - to be or NOT to be? A story of G505S

[Vladimir]

> > > On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote:
>
> Did you know that G505s is unsuitable for libreboot due to the many
> blobs it needs (VBIOS, SMU, IMC, make your pick) ?

That is why Francis suggested adding it to coreboot LTS Candidates list,
not to Libreboot list - because, while Lenovo G505S seems to be a great
coreboot LTS Candidate , it is still not ready for Libreboot. Which is a
real pity, because there are no AMD laptops supported by Libreboot yet...
In any case, Lenovo G505S matches all the requirements for it to be
considered among the Coreboot LTS Candidates list :

* RYF-certifiable - [V] check
* Sturdy - [V] check
* Long shelf life - [V] check
* Cool factor - [V] check

Actually it was you who came up with these requirements :

http://www.coreboot.org/User_talk:MrNuke/LTS_Candidates#Requirements:

Sorry, but it is a really bad idea to treat LTS Candidate as a second grade
citizen
> > > On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote:
> > * Did you know that Compal will still be making LA-A091P laptop
> > motherboard, the primary component of G505S, at least until the end of
> > 2018 year?
>
> And this is based on what?

Lenovo is open to requests of motherboards (as well as requests for other
internal components) coming from repair workshops, for a specific Lenovo
laptop model - at least until the end of Service Lifetime of the last
manufactured Lenovo laptop of this specific model. Lenovo stopped making
G505S at the end of 2014 year, however they set a Service Lifetime of G505S
model as 4 calendar years, which means that our repair workshop can request
motherboards from Lenovo for this laptop model until the end of 2014 + 4
years = end of 2018 year . Unless Lenovo would suddenly change their rules
or would break up their partnership agreement with Compal, Compal will
still be making motherboards for G505S until the end of 2018 year, based on
requests from Lenovo which in turn based on requests from repair workshops.
Although the minimal order quantity is 10pcs for us, we collaborate with
smart people who have technical knowledge and could swap motherboards by
themselves: we resell extra motherboards which we dont need for a small
additional profit (+ sale tax), so any physical person could get them even
at 1pcs quantities ;)

Undoubtedly, Francis Rowe was 100% right while he was suggesting a Lenovo
G505S to be added to Coreboot LTS Candidates list. This wonderful machine
is still sold at many places and has a long life ahead
> > > On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote:
>
> I wrote most of the code to get it running in the first place.
> > * Did you know that Lenovo G505S is still widely available at some parts
> > of the world? (e.g. in Russia, 50+ online shops are still selling it)
>
> Yeah, I wrote most of the code for that.

Thank you very much, dear friend, I really respect you for that :) But
please keep in mind that coreboot is GNU GPL project, and you have
transferred your G505S code to public domain at the very date of upload.
Imagine, what if someone would suddenly decide to revert/branch off all his
significant contributions to a Linux kernel? People simply would not let it
happen! So I doubt that you can do anything you want with your important
commits to coreboot repository, be it a branch or anything else as
significant, without considering the opinion of other coreboot people
> > > On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote:
>
> I also happen to run one of the build servers. Here's a deal, you pay
> for 60% of the running costs of the server (the amount of time agesa
> builds take out of total time), and I'll stop whining. You owe me $1300
> for the year 2015, pal.

First of all, it would be interesting to see a detailed report describing a
process of how you came up with such a round value ( $1300 ) . Secondly,
there are a lot of people who are using coreboot on AGESA hardware; and
also, my main concern here lies with just 1 board. It is not that fair for
you to ask $1300 from a single person , and because of my financial
struggles I could invest $200 at max. If you are seriously estimating these
running costs as $1300/year , you could set up a crowdfunding at Crowd
Supply - Richard Stallman considers it a preferred platform for
crowdfunding the open source software/hardware projects
> > > On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote:
>
> Geesh! Why don't you take over full maintainership of AGESA before
> whining why people who worked on that code no longer want to support it?

Actually I have expressed my desire to participate in AGESA -> Native Init
porting, but as I said before I can't do it all alone because I don't have
enough experience. If you could show some good examples of AGESA -> Native
Init porting, which could aid me in learning process, then we can do it
together. Or I can be a build tester and constantly test your builds on my
hardware (and maybe donate Money/Things to you to support your efforts)
> > > On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote:
> > branch it off to some abandoned branch that nobody would care about.
>
> You would obviously care about it, so that's a moot point.
>
> <sarcasm_alert> We either keep everything in a "master" branch, or it's

dead. </sarcasm_alert>
>

In my earlier messages I already told what sense I am putting behind these
words. Master branch will be receiving all the love: important bug fixes as
well as great new features, which would be a part of code thats common for
all the boards in a master branch. Meanwhile, nobody is going to constantly
track check and copy all these commits to this separate branch, which means
it would be abandoned.
> > > On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote:
>
> I agreed to leave these discussions behind. I don't know why people
> _still_ keep bringing it up.

As you said before,
> Experience tells us that people are silent until their (broken) toys are

taken away, and only then start crying.
>

I dont know what you have been expecting, but I am not going to be a part
of this experience. I am not going to stay silent and watch how my precious
toys are broken and are taken away. I am going to stand up for all the
coreboot users/developers who are using coreboot on their G505S machine
> > > On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote:
> > PLEASE do NOT submit proposals that will negatively affect a support for
> > alive boards, because
>
> If you want to treat logical separation as removal, that's on you

Your logical separation (regardless of how we call it) - it WILL negatively
affect a support for alive boards! I cannot stress it enough:
> Master branch will be receiving all the love: important bug fixes as well

as great new features, which would be a part of code thats common for all
the boards in a master branch. Meanwhile, > nobody is going to constantly
track check and copy all these commits to this separate branch, which means
it would be abandoned.
>

> > > On 11/07/2015 10:18 AM, Alex Gagniuc wrote:
> > such malevolent plans are a great insult to a bright spirit of coreboot !
>
> I'm insulted by your portrayal of me as aforementioned

Your recent proposals (in case if they would be accepted) will negatively
affect many boards, including the alive boards - such as G505S, a coreboot
LTS candidate. If you were expecting the praises of approval and kind words
for such intentions - well, I am sorry to bust your expectations

Best regards,
Vladimir Shipovalov

On 7 November 2015 at 12:18, Alex G. <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 02:11 AM, Vladimir wrote:
> > * Did you know that Lenovo G505S is still widely available at some parts
> > of the world? (e.g. in Russia, 50+ online shops are still selling it)
>
> Yeah, I wrote most of the code for that.
> > * Did you know that Francis Rowe, head Libreboot developer, has proposed
> > the addition of G505S to Coreboot LTS Candidates list of laptops?
>
> Did you know that G505s is unsuitable for libreboot due to the many
> blobs it needs (VBIOS, SMU, IMC, make your pick) ?
> > * Did you know that Compal will still be making LA-A091P laptop
> > motherboard, the primary component of G505S, at least until the end of
> > 2018 year?
>
> And this is based on what?
> > It is unbelievable that some people here want to take alive-and-kicking
> > motherboard and 'remove it'
>
> I wrote most of the code to get it running in the first place.
> > or degrade it into a 'second class citizen' - by branching
>
> Geesh! Why don't you take over full maintainership of AGESA before
> whining why people who worked on that code no longer want to support it?
> > it off to some abandoned branch that nobody would care about.
>
> You would obviously care about it, so that's a moot point.
> > Don't know which is worse...
>
> I agreed to leave these discussions behind. I don't know why people
> _still_ keep bringing it up.
> > > > > Someone wrote:
>
> That was me
> > > I'm looking forward to seeing the draft of the removal plans. Maybe
> > > removal is even better than branching
>
> <sarcasm_alert>
> Yes. Because everything is black and white. We either keep everything in
> a "master" branch, or it's dead.
> </sarcasm_alert>
> > If Someone doesn't care about those boards which he doesn't own own, if
> > Someone has no idea how to set up makefiles so that they will not make
> > builds for boards that he doesn't care about, if Someone can't wait a
> > few more extra minutes of compilation because he is in a 'great hurry':
>
> I also happen to run one of the build servers. Here's a deal, you pay
> for 60% of the running costs of the server (the amount of time agesa
> builds take out of total time), and I'll stop whining. You owe me $1300
> for the year 2015, pal.
> > then he should start his 'Removal Quest' from old boards like Intel I945
> > and AMD K8 - if nobody runs coreboot on them anymore.
> > Or from his own board, if his own board is EOL and old...
>
> WOW! Guess what. You didn't git log AGESA boards. Hint: I'm "removing"
> (your words, not mine) a lot of the code that I worked on.
> > PLEASE do NOT submit proposals that will negatively affect a support for
> > alive boards, because
>
> If you want to treat logical separation as removal, that's on you. I'd
> appreciate it if you stopped throwing baseless accusations around
> because you feel that makes your argument stronger.
> > such malevolent plans
>
> Sure, I'm the enemy. I'm certain Stefan will love this one!
> > are a great insult
>
> I'm insulted by your portrayal of me as aforementioned. I've invested a
> lot of my personal time and resources into coreboot, with nothing but
> good intentions. I don't feel you truly have a grasp of all the facts
> and headaches of doing coreboot on such a scale. So I'd really
> appreciate you taking a step back and trying to get an overview every
> once in a while.
>
> Alex