-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I guess this is an area in which experience matters; it is absolutely unacceptable (and not unexpected) that Intel misled your CEO, but this is sadly not an uncommon tactic in the industry.
One item I would like to call out though is the following:
if old or non-x86 architectures were so appealing, you would have seen that become the norm rather than the exception)
No one is denying that the easiest course of action for everyone would have been for Intel or AMD to release owner-controllable CPUs. That being said, individuals and organizations needing privacy and owner control are /not/ their target market, nor are those entities Intel (or AMD)'s secondary (or even tertiary) market. Both Intel and AMD rely on their lock-in and close association with Windows and related software to provide cheap, but wholly locked down, CPUs *by design*. You could look at it as the hardware vendor simply providing a leased tool on which to run the leased software -- in such a market, cost trumps everything, owner control is looked at as "enabling piracy", and as a result x86 is not an appropriate platform for anyone needing control or privacy.
In this environment, one must make a choice between convenience (x86) and owner control. As you mentioned, the only middle ground is relegated to ancient computers, and that is not where we place any hope at all. Trying to switch architectures may be hard, but it is only going to get harder day after day as people continue to cling to false hope that the x86 platform may ever be brought under their control. The simple fact is, the purchaser of an x86 machine is not Intel or AMD's customer, nor are the ODMs. Their primary customers, in an odd sort of way, are actually the software vendors that require x86 for their existing applications, and they are the ones that will call the shots on features or antifeatures in the x86 walled garden.
I wonder, though, if given this information if possibly Raptor and Purism might have some common business ground here? Purism has experience with laptop mechanicals and related concerns, and we have experience with truly blob-free, powerful hardware -- combining those two could yield an interesting machine...
On 12/19/2017 02:41 PM, Youness Alaoui wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Timothy Pearson tpearson@raptorengineering.com wrote: On 12/19/2017 11:51 AM, Dame Más wrote:
I finished the University and I have free time to do things. And this seems like an interesting project to which I dedicate many hours.
The truth is that I read a lot these days. The work you do kakaroto is impressive. In general Purism is doing something big, and I spoke ahead of time.
I saw that in the directory coreboot/3rdparty/blobs/mainboard/purism/ there is no content, it is right?
Thanks
The main question I have, and this is an honest question, is why Purism chose to use the x86 platform as a base for libre hardware, when it has been known for some time that said hardware could never be made fully blob-free?
There were (and are) other good ways to make a system that could be fully blob-free, for instance ARM, and given the engineering effort that is said to have been put into the Purism machines I wonder what we could have had if said effort had been put into an aarch64 system instead of an x86 system?
That's a very good question and you're not the first one to ask it.
I think it's a combination of quite a few things. First, the fact that I don't think there were any realistically powerfuly/competing ARM/PPC/risc systems available at the time (or if there were, the price would have been too high to make it a "security focused laptop for everyone"). The purpose of Purism is not to satisfy a niche market, but rather to be something everyone will want whether or not they care about the security like we do, but which would still provide them with that security that they need. I think even now, you can't have an ARM device that could compete with an i7 in terms of performance.
The second reason is that Todd (CEO) was in talks with Intel and was unfortunately lead to believe that they were open to release an ME-less design CPU for his needs, it ended up not being the case.
The last reason is because I think that through this discussion (https://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2014-August/078511.html) Todd thought that it would be possible to get a binary blob free coreboot/CPU with a few months of work. He didn't realize that it was a much harder thing to achieve because the FSP takes a lot of time to reverse engineer (remember, he thought he would have an ME-less CPU from Intel), but from what I read in one of his answers, he had already decided on x86 by the time he wrote that mail to the mailing list, so I'm not sure if it really answers your question.
I think those that provide non-x86 (or pre-2008 x86) machines are already there to fill the blob-free need, and it's not healthy to just compete with them. A good summary is that we want to "bring blob-free to the hardware that people want", rather than "bring blob-free hardware to the people who want it".
Finally, I'll paste you one of my explanations from an email I sent here last May, which kind of summarizes it all (from https://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2017-May/084166.html)
"[...], You ask why Purism doesn't just create laptops using FX2 or ARM or whatever... Well, because that's not what most people want, out there. If you want a RYF laptop using old or underpowered hardware or non-x86 architectures, that's a problem that has already been solved, there are various resellers of such devices. The idea here is not to "Use what we can find to make RYF" but rather "Bring RYF to the hardware that people want". What I believe Purism is trying to do is to create a modern laptop for *everyone* with the extra value of security and privacy, and in the process make FLOSS appealing to mainstream instead of letting it be confined in a niche. I think everyone will be better off with tools to protect their privacy/security without asking them to throw the baby with the bathwater by requiring them to use hardware that does not interest them (otherwise, if old or non-x86 architectures were so appealing, you would have seen that become the norm rather than the exception)."
I hope that fully answers your question.
Thanks! Youness.
- -- Timothy Pearson Raptor Engineering +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) https://www.raptorengineering.com
THANKS KAKAROTO!! I alredy have fun!
If my head does not explode and my laptop does not explode, I'll write you soon hahahaha
2017-12-19 21:54 GMT+01:00 Timothy Pearson tpearson@raptorengineering.com:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I guess this is an area in which experience matters; it is absolutely unacceptable (and not unexpected) that Intel misled your CEO, but this is sadly not an uncommon tactic in the industry.
One item I would like to call out though is the following:
if old or non-x86 architectures were so appealing, you would have seen
that become the norm rather than the exception)
No one is denying that the easiest course of action for everyone would have been for Intel or AMD to release owner-controllable CPUs. That being said, individuals and organizations needing privacy and owner control are /not/ their target market, nor are those entities Intel (or AMD)'s secondary (or even tertiary) market. Both Intel and AMD rely on their lock-in and close association with Windows and related software to provide cheap, but wholly locked down, CPUs *by design*. You could look at it as the hardware vendor simply providing a leased tool on which to run the leased software -- in such a market, cost trumps everything, owner control is looked at as "enabling piracy", and as a result x86 is not an appropriate platform for anyone needing control or privacy.
In this environment, one must make a choice between convenience (x86) and owner control. As you mentioned, the only middle ground is relegated to ancient computers, and that is not where we place any hope at all. Trying to switch architectures may be hard, but it is only going to get harder day after day as people continue to cling to false hope that the x86 platform may ever be brought under their control. The simple fact is, the purchaser of an x86 machine is not Intel or AMD's customer, nor are the ODMs. Their primary customers, in an odd sort of way, are actually the software vendors that require x86 for their existing applications, and they are the ones that will call the shots on features or antifeatures in the x86 walled garden.
I wonder, though, if given this information if possibly Raptor and Purism might have some common business ground here? Purism has experience with laptop mechanicals and related concerns, and we have experience with truly blob-free, powerful hardware -- combining those two could yield an interesting machine...
On 12/19/2017 02:41 PM, Youness Alaoui wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Timothy Pearson tpearson@raptorengineering.com wrote: On 12/19/2017 11:51 AM, Dame Más wrote:
I finished the University and I have free time to do things. And this seems like an interesting project to which I dedicate many hours.
The truth is that I read a lot these days. The work you do kakaroto is impressive. In general Purism is doing something big, and I spoke ahead of time.
I saw that in the directory coreboot/3rdparty/blobs/mainboard/purism/ there is no content, it is right?
Thanks
The main question I have, and this is an honest question, is why Purism chose to use the x86 platform as a base for libre hardware, when it has been known for some time that said hardware could never be made fully blob-free?
There were (and are) other good ways to make a system that could be fully blob-free, for instance ARM, and given the engineering effort that is said to have been put into the Purism machines I wonder what we could have had if said effort had been put into an aarch64 system instead of an x86 system?
That's a very good question and you're not the first one to ask it.
I think it's a combination of quite a few things. First, the fact that I don't think there were any realistically powerfuly/competing ARM/PPC/risc systems available at the time (or if there were, the price would have been too high to make it a "security focused laptop for everyone"). The purpose of Purism is not to satisfy a niche market, but rather to be something everyone will want whether or not they care about the security like we do, but which would still provide them with that security that they need. I think even now, you can't have an ARM device that could compete with an i7 in terms of performance.
The second reason is that Todd (CEO) was in talks with Intel and was unfortunately lead to believe that they were open to release an ME-less design CPU for his needs, it ended up not being the case.
The last reason is because I think that through this discussion (https://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2014-August/078511.html) Todd thought that it would be possible to get a binary blob free coreboot/CPU with a few months of work. He didn't realize that it was a much harder thing to achieve because the FSP takes a lot of time to reverse engineer (remember, he thought he would have an ME-less CPU from Intel), but from what I read in one of his answers, he had already decided on x86 by the time he wrote that mail to the mailing list, so I'm not sure if it really answers your question.
I think those that provide non-x86 (or pre-2008 x86) machines are already there to fill the blob-free need, and it's not healthy to just compete with them. A good summary is that we want to "bring blob-free to the hardware that people want", rather than "bring blob-free hardware to the people who want it".
Finally, I'll paste you one of my explanations from an email I sent here last May, which kind of summarizes it all (from https://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2017-May/084166.html)
"[...], You ask why Purism doesn't just create laptops using FX2 or ARM
or
whatever... Well, because that's not what most people want, out there.
If
you want a RYF laptop using old or underpowered hardware or non-x86 architectures, that's a problem that has already been solved, there are various resellers of such devices. The idea here is not to "Use what we
can
find to make RYF" but rather "Bring RYF to the hardware that people
want".
What I believe Purism is trying to do is to create a modern laptop for *everyone* with the extra value of security and privacy, and in the
process
make FLOSS appealing to mainstream instead of letting it be confined in
a
niche. I think everyone will be better off with tools to protect their privacy/security without asking them to throw the baby with the
bathwater
by requiring them to use hardware that does not interest them
(otherwise,
if old or non-x86 architectures were so appealing, you would have seen
that
become the norm rather than the exception)."
I hope that fully answers your question.
Thanks! Youness.
Timothy Pearson Raptor Engineering +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) https://www.raptorengineering.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJaOXxqAAoJEK+E3vEXDOFbgVkIAJLiGyBNX9A+xeKXFwi/nwlv SgIbunIkPIOH1QewV1BXqZMKqcCya1tNXw4uiviJLEFjKE+o2J9Uj+D2BN+KGT7C imm3F9dhMpAD/IoQ9NRQML1LpgN6rMKPPkW0zGlfl8jWlCvdsi5r3qe9eZinIqk8 ljrUp/33s6Ft8gEZ61lsO8hkOjlSEHRvUxPjo9GKszU+pYO70a0kV07wdDuj8IHy qcmCBX4meGrTviGY4vzB4t6MU/rWcluX154+bmI0FRWH5/JlTKa00DWRcnUoHMQR 0uzxLUTwjnvhZ3siXfRUPNe0d8IFTsrthN6lu3BXIv1QM5MxJ3BsyCxmKg2+m5Q= =10QE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I think there is a plan to move librems to non-x86 architecture eventually (considering that RYF is our long term plan, there is no choice in moving out of x86 eventually), I think the efforts on the risc-v front are the most promising and I think that's where the true competition to x86 will be, but to be honest, I don't really follow, understand or know much of anything that happens in the hardware space since I'm a software guy at heart (i.e: all I know is that x86, ARM, PPC and Risc-V use different instruction sets). I hear a lot about PPC (with Talos for example), but I don't think PPC is as open as Risc-v (ISA or something). All I know about PPC really is that it was fun to reverse engineer during my PS3 days :) Anyways, as far as I know, for risc-v, it's not there yet, so we're waiting for that to be ready for the masses before moving to it. I have absolutely no idea if it's "close" or if it's really a long term plan for risc-v to be able to compete with x86 in terms of performance/power usage/features/etc...
Note: this is not an official statement, I never really bothered to ask in details about such things, I simply write code and yell at it for not working...
As for the collaboration, again, I have no idea about any of the business/manufacturing logistics, but if you think there's something there that can be done, I suggest you contact Todd (I added him in CC) and you could discuss things, he'll know what to answer you!
Thanks!
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Timothy Pearson tpearson@raptorengineering.com wrote:
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I guess this is an area in which experience matters; it is absolutely unacceptable (and not unexpected) that Intel misled your CEO, but this is sadly not an uncommon tactic in the industry.
One item I would like to call out though is the following:
if old or non-x86 architectures were so appealing, you would have seen that become the norm rather than the exception)
No one is denying that the easiest course of action for everyone would have been for Intel or AMD to release owner-controllable CPUs. That being said, individuals and organizations needing privacy and owner control are /not/ their target market, nor are those entities Intel (or AMD)'s secondary (or even tertiary) market. Both Intel and AMD rely on their lock-in and close association with Windows and related software to provide cheap, but wholly locked down, CPUs *by design*. You could look at it as the hardware vendor simply providing a leased tool on which to run the leased software -- in such a market, cost trumps everything, owner control is looked at as "enabling piracy", and as a result x86 is not an appropriate platform for anyone needing control or privacy.
In this environment, one must make a choice between convenience (x86) and owner control. As you mentioned, the only middle ground is relegated to ancient computers, and that is not where we place any hope at all. Trying to switch architectures may be hard, but it is only going to get harder day after day as people continue to cling to false hope that the x86 platform may ever be brought under their control. The simple fact is, the purchaser of an x86 machine is not Intel or AMD's customer, nor are the ODMs. Their primary customers, in an odd sort of way, are actually the software vendors that require x86 for their existing applications, and they are the ones that will call the shots on features or antifeatures in the x86 walled garden.
I wonder, though, if given this information if possibly Raptor and Purism might have some common business ground here? Purism has experience with laptop mechanicals and related concerns, and we have experience with truly blob-free, powerful hardware -- combining those two could yield an interesting machine...
On 12/19/2017 02:41 PM, Youness Alaoui wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Timothy Pearson tpearson@raptorengineering.com wrote: On 12/19/2017 11:51 AM, Dame Más wrote:
I finished the University and I have free time to do things. And this seems like an interesting project to which I dedicate many hours.
The truth is that I read a lot these days. The work you do kakaroto is impressive. In general Purism is doing something big, and I spoke ahead of time.
I saw that in the directory coreboot/3rdparty/blobs/mainboard/purism/ there is no content, it is right?
Thanks
The main question I have, and this is an honest question, is why Purism chose to use the x86 platform as a base for libre hardware, when it has been known for some time that said hardware could never be made fully blob-free?
There were (and are) other good ways to make a system that could be fully blob-free, for instance ARM, and given the engineering effort that is said to have been put into the Purism machines I wonder what we could have had if said effort had been put into an aarch64 system instead of an x86 system?
That's a very good question and you're not the first one to ask it.
I think it's a combination of quite a few things. First, the fact that I don't think there were any realistically powerfuly/competing ARM/PPC/risc systems available at the time (or if there were, the price would have been too high to make it a "security focused laptop for everyone"). The purpose of Purism is not to satisfy a niche market, but rather to be something everyone will want whether or not they care about the security like we do, but which would still provide them with that security that they need. I think even now, you can't have an ARM device that could compete with an i7 in terms of performance.
The second reason is that Todd (CEO) was in talks with Intel and was unfortunately lead to believe that they were open to release an ME-less design CPU for his needs, it ended up not being the case.
The last reason is because I think that through this discussion (https://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2014-August/078511.html) Todd thought that it would be possible to get a binary blob free coreboot/CPU with a few months of work. He didn't realize that it was a much harder thing to achieve because the FSP takes a lot of time to reverse engineer (remember, he thought he would have an ME-less CPU from Intel), but from what I read in one of his answers, he had already decided on x86 by the time he wrote that mail to the mailing list, so I'm not sure if it really answers your question.
I think those that provide non-x86 (or pre-2008 x86) machines are already there to fill the blob-free need, and it's not healthy to just compete with them. A good summary is that we want to "bring blob-free to the hardware that people want", rather than "bring blob-free hardware to the people who want it".
Finally, I'll paste you one of my explanations from an email I sent here last May, which kind of summarizes it all (from https://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2017-May/084166.html)
"[...], You ask why Purism doesn't just create laptops using FX2 or ARM or whatever... Well, because that's not what most people want, out there. If you want a RYF laptop using old or underpowered hardware or non-x86 architectures, that's a problem that has already been solved, there are various resellers of such devices. The idea here is not to "Use what we can find to make RYF" but rather "Bring RYF to the hardware that people want". What I believe Purism is trying to do is to create a modern laptop for *everyone* with the extra value of security and privacy, and in the process make FLOSS appealing to mainstream instead of letting it be confined in a niche. I think everyone will be better off with tools to protect their privacy/security without asking them to throw the baby with the bathwater by requiring them to use hardware that does not interest them (otherwise, if old or non-x86 architectures were so appealing, you would have seen that become the norm rather than the exception)."
I hope that fully answers your question.
Thanks! Youness.
Timothy Pearson Raptor Engineering +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) https://www.raptorengineering.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJaOXxqAAoJEK+E3vEXDOFbgVkIAJLiGyBNX9A+xeKXFwi/nwlv SgIbunIkPIOH1QewV1BXqZMKqcCya1tNXw4uiviJLEFjKE+o2J9Uj+D2BN+KGT7C imm3F9dhMpAD/IoQ9NRQML1LpgN6rMKPPkW0zGlfl8jWlCvdsi5r3qe9eZinIqk8 ljrUp/33s6Ft8gEZ61lsO8hkOjlSEHRvUxPjo9GKszU+pYO70a0kV07wdDuj8IHy qcmCBX4meGrTviGY4vzB4t6MU/rWcluX154+bmI0FRWH5/JlTKa00DWRcnUoHMQR 0uzxLUTwjnvhZ3siXfRUPNe0d8IFTsrthN6lu3BXIv1QM5MxJ3BsyCxmKg2+m5Q= =10QE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
Dame Más -
Timothy Pearson -
Youness Alaoui