Hello Zoran,
Zoran Stojsavljevic:
Our recommendation for some time has been a mix -- arm64 client devices (laptops, tablets, etc.) and ppc64el servers. With those two, you can replace x86 entirely if you don't have proprietary software in your environment.
With all due respect, this is the discussion about Coreboot going into The Right Direction! This is what I actually aimed for. :-)
Please clarify what "The Right Direction" is. You have confused me, as I thought the thread was about 'Why do we have FSP-S'.
I think, by "The Right Direction" he meant having the open source code instead of FSP-S blobs. 'Why do we have FSP-S' - I have the same question. Why this code must be kept closed, Intel? Open source is always better than closed, and your major competitor - AMD - would not be able to use your source code - not just because of the licenses, but because your CPUs are so different
2018-05-02 10:45 GMT+03:00 Duncan dguthrie@posteo.net:
Hello Zoran,
Zoran Stojsavljevic:
Our recommendation for some time has been a mix -- arm64 client devices (laptops, tablets, etc.) and ppc64el servers. With those two, you can replace x86 entirely if you don't have proprietary software in your environment.
With all due respect, this is the discussion about Coreboot going into The Right Direction! This is what I actually aimed for. :-)
Please clarify what "The Right Direction" is. You have confused me, as I thought the thread was about 'Why do we have FSP-S'.
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
-
Duncan -
Ivan Ivanov