[coreboot] call on AMD to release src+specs+datasheets for ryzen
Taiidan at gmx.com
Taiidan at gmx.com
Sat Mar 4 02:57:40 CET 2017
On 03/03/2017 02:25 PM, Leah Rowe wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> Hi all,
> We call on coreboot to join us in our campaign to convince AMD to
> start cooperating with the libre hardware community again. Are there
> people in coreboot already doing this?
> - --
> Leah Rowe
> Libreboot developer
> Use free software. Free as in freedom.
> Use a free operating system, GNU+Linux.
> Or BSD:
> Use a free BIOS.
> Support computer user freedom.
> Minifree Ltd, trading as Ministry of Freedom | Registered in England,
> No. 9361826 | VAT No. GB202190462
> Registered Office: 19 Hilton Road, Canvey Island, Essex SS8 9QA, UK |
> Web: https://minifree.org/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Definitely - No matter what anyone thinks about the probability of this
happening it is still very important that we show them how much we care.
Of course they also must release the signing keys as well afaik, or we
would be stuck at a tivo style not really open source impasse.
Nobody has mentioned this fact in that thread.
I can't understand as to why intel/amd after decades and decades of
computing suddenly add a black box supervisor processor to every product
line (not just the business models) that can't be removed or modified.
All we are asking for is a way to shut it off but for some reason they
believe that is unreasonable.
One of the side issues is also the lack of open source GPU firmware and
of course the signing keys for that as well.
It is incredibly depressing that every commodity grade computer is
moving to the locked down model, we can only hope that POWER will not
On 03/03/2017 06:26 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> So, first, I admire and agree with your enthusiasm for making this happen.
> I hope it works.
> That said, having gotten vendors to break open this kind of information,
> with a number of vendors a number of times, and having both failed and
> succeeded, my experience is that a broadcast call like this is probably the
> least effective approach.
> So I'd rather not have the "coreboot community" join in this sort of call,
> for the simple reason that I would rather see us place our efforts on
> something that's likely to be effective. That involves individual members
> of our community spending lots of time locating the right people in the
> right organizations, getting them into a single room, talking to them,
> drafting documents, and getting them to agree to some sort of joint
> communique. It's time consuming and boring but it's how the jobs gets done.
> But, that work naturally occurs behind closed doors, not via web pages.
> We could target putting a meeting with AMD together at the Denver meeting
> or the one in the fall.
Yeah I agree, that would be what could really make something happen.
It is like the difference between getting a job interview with an HR
lackey and an actual technical person.
Intel would never be willing to do this, but AMD? slightly possible.
More information about the coreboot