On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 at 16:25, Angel Pons th3fanbus@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it's not intentional, but your email sounds rather unpleasant and very confusing. What would you like to achieve?
I have no agenda, I'm just sick of seeing all the behaviour on this list. There's a certain toxicity.
Also, out of curiosity, did you see https://mail.coreboot.org/hyperkitty/list/flashrom@flashrom.org/message/65BN... before writing your reply?
Yes, I saw that.
Let's make sure we're on the same page, as misunderstandings have already costed the flashrom project way too much time and effort. Could you please explain what "at scale" means for you?
More than 10,000 users.
Um, this is not true. There are people out there using flashrom on DOS
I'm sure there *are* people using flashrom on DOS but I'm not sure it's something you should optimize a project for.
Also... Doesn't fwupd use flashrom?
Yes, but in the same way as Google; i.e. we only allow-list specific hardware (that we test) that uses the internal programmer for a subset of SPI chips. All the other fwupd functionality is native as the impedance mismatch between fwupd and libflashrom is striking. We did play with using other programmers but it didn't work very well.
Normal people don't use flashrom in production in any appreciable number.
Hmmm, this seems to be another potential source of misunderstandings. What do you mean with "in production"?
Not on a test system, i.e. one with paying customers. StarLabs probably wins here, but they're one of the systems we do end-to-end testing with.
Who do you think is responsible for flashrom, then? Whose responsibility is flashrom?
Well it's not mine: I'm seeing hostility, ego and stop energy -- and that's not a place I really want to be.
Richard.