<div dir="ltr">I keep wanting to drop out of this discussion but there are some things I just can't let go by,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Paul Menzel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net" target="_blank">paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
First I find “wildest expectations” a little exaggerated seeing the<br>
blobs (especially ME) shipped in all current Intel devices [1]. It is<br>
even worse that these blobs are not allowed to be distributed making<br>
building and flashing an image more difficult.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You're misunderstanding the blob situation completely, not surprising as it is so complex.</div><div><br></div><div>In The Beginning, we were blob free. Things changed. Now there are blobs. We got our first blobs in 2001 or so so we could do graphics. We did not have the money to do it any other way.</div>
<div><br></div><div>We don't like it. But if the choice is to ship on nothing, or ship with blobs, we'll ship with</div><div>blobs. The X60 ports ship with blobs too, if you look at the big picture, because we still</div>
<div>don't have EC source on those boxes. The OLPC shipped with blobs. This is not a simple problem.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Additionally I heard claims, that the GPLv2 license is violated as it is<br>
currently impossible to rebuild the exact same image that is shipped<br>
with the devices as it is not even clear what commit was used to build<br>
the image and to my knowledge the requests on the list and in the IRC<br>
channel were not answered.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Dude, the commit is IN THE IMAGE. At least on the images I work with. As in:</div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Courier New',monospace;font-size:11px;line-height:15.805438995361328px;white-space:pre;background-color:rgb(239,243,255)">ro bios version | Google_Link.2695.1.133</span></div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>from chrome:system on my link. I also just checked my falco and the hash is right there too from cbmem -c. </div><div>I don't build all platforms; have you found some where this is not the case? Might you consider fixing it?</div>
<div><br></div><div>I'm going to call BS on this "not GPL" claim until you get a clear statement from the FSF that it is the case. </div><div>I don't see the point of dropping FUD into this discussion. Make your case.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Of course, we have FSF people on this list and if they want to comment on this issue they are most welcome. That said, I've also been talking to those guys (including RMS) for 15 years and they've never hinted to me we're doing something wrong. I realize there are some armchair lawyers on this list who have their own interpretation, but I think I'll use the FSF as my authority in this case. </div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Clearly, getting a system to boot is not the main goal as everybody can<br>
do that with the vendor BIOS/UEFI, which, by the way, lately greatly<br>
improved boot time too in my experience.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Gee, I get to call BS again. I have been telling people for 15 years that boot time is a nice side effect of using coreboot, and while it's key to many users and uses, it was not the primary or in many cases even a secondary goal. Getting control of your platform is one goal. Building custom systems (such as cluster nodes in my case) from generic hardware by changing the BIOS is another goal. There are lots of goals. </div>
<div> </div><div>But if you're happy with UEFI you're more than welcome to use it.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
For Google and the laptop vendors, I guess the goal is simply to save<br>
the money per device that traditionally went to the BIOS/UEFI vendors.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You should not impute motive where you have no knowledge and I can tell you that in this case you have no knowledge.</div>
<div>So let's move on.</div><div> </div><div>The AMD situation, to which you refer, is again one in which you have little or no knowledge, so there's little point in speculation.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
As Intel is bigger, Google<br>
probably hired more people from Intel than from AMD. </blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>And still more unfounded speculation. No offense intended, but you have no idea what you're talking about.</div><div>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Maybe the Google<br>
decision makers know the Intel decision makers and play Golf with each<br>
other. Anyway, it is another datapoint that it is not about free<br>
software at all.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>and more ...</div><div><br></div><div>and we get the NSA now ...</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
In my opinion, we should get the first AMD laptop supported as soon as<br>
possible </blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>yes, well, I've been asking for help on this for some time, years in fact, but I can't do it all myself. It's part of my huge disappointment that our volunteers chose to put their time into (quite obsolete, no longer manufactured) X and T thinkpads instead of something modern and open. You can fault Google for their decision to go with Intel; but the volunteers have not done a lot better, in fact worse in my view. Frankly, it's a disappointment.</div>
<div><br></div><div>One option here is to focus less on the things you currently put your time on, and focus more on getting that AMD laptop working, eh? Because it's easy to talk about what we should do. It's better to start DOING IT. And getting that AMD laptop going is a lot more important than fixing spelling errors in AGESA.</div>
<div><br></div><div>But, Paul, stick with what you know and drop the speculation. Much of what you say is wrong or unfounded and it doesn't help this important discussion.</div><div><br></div><div>ron </div></div></div>
</div>