[GeekyBear]

> It is about tendency and attempt to make it a norm/legalize to sell personal computers without respecting right of the owner to have a full control over their own computer. If owner cannot fully control own computer this computer cannot be called 'personal' anymore.

I have bad news about Intel CPUs.

>[Intel] processors are running a closed-source variation of the open-source MINIX 3. We don't know exactly what version or how it's been modified since we don't have the source code. We do know that with it there Neither Linux nor any other operating system have final control of the x86 platform.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/minix-intels-hidden-in-chip-op...

[marcan_42]

And this isn't the case on M1 machines. On M1s, all blobs that remain after you launch Linux are sandboxed behind IOMMUs, so they cannot take over the system. Ignoring hardware backdoors (which you can never be sure don't exist, on any system), you can be reasonable confident that an M1 system doesn't have a (functional) backdoor running while you're running your own OS on it. Very few systems have this property; mostly only fully open boot systems like the Pinebook or Talos workstations. ~No x86 system does, not even the ones running Libreboot since they almost always have hardware with full DMA access running blobs.

[offmycloud]

I thought that MINIX was running on the Intel Management Engine, not the main CPU.

[HunterWare]

That has full access to, and modification/control ability over, the main CPU.

[lovelyviking]

therefore I've said this before:

The full control of devices you own is absolutely essential. It requires a complete transparency of basic components like cpu micro-code, firmware and hardware otherwise it can and will be abused.[0]

.. unless everything is absolutely transparent including microcode and hardware it is not acceptable as freedom respecting solution.[1]

then I've got unexpected opposition from the one who is making linux for M1 ( marcan_42). If even him fail to understand the consequences of accepting such hostage situation with Apple devices and claim "Freedom isn't the answer." [2]. If even he is ready to downgrade discussion to the personal disrespect toward people like me [3] who merely trying to point out the the danger of the hostage situation while go 'easy' on Apple and ready to justify all of their current mistakes then we have a serious problem. I do not wish to use the term "doomed" but probably we observe limited ability of highly technical minds to resist to the primitive brainwashing and manipulation the big companies provide by presenting it as a norm to trade 'freedom' for the 'safety' . Some people can't even think a few steps forward and understand that by helping companies to promote such agenda we'll end up with loosing both 'safety' and 'freedom'.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29658817

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29675597

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29676524

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29691816

[marcan_42]

I love how every time you bring this up you link every post except the one where you compared Apple to a dictatorship, then went on to insult every user who chooses their hardware over others.

I'm happy to debate the pros and cons to different security approaches, and I want every prospective buyer of these machines to be informed about the decisions and trade-offs that went into their deaign, and what to expect. I'm not interested in debating someone who immediately dismisses all technical discussion and just invokes references to authoritarianism, brings up boiling frogs with no evidence, immediately dismisses my arguments as wrong and assumes they need correction, and ends with ad hominem attacks.

As I said, go buy a Pinebook and please leave the rest of us alone. We're trying to give the users of these machines choice. You're trying to take away our choice to use them through moral arguments.

[smoldesu]

marcan seems to be part of a new breed of hacker, less interested in the "why" we do it and more interested in the "how" of it. Works pretty well for tackling a challenge like blindly picking at a black-box ISA/SIP, but I don't think his project has the kind of ideological understanding that keeps the libre desktop alive. Getting it to work is one thing; building a community to maintain your work is another.

Unfortunately, that's going to constitute a lot of the people you encounter these days. Half-measures are better than no-measures, but I really do miss the days of vigilant software development instead of cleaning up Apple's scraps.

[kmeisthax]

You're not giving Hector Marcan enough credit. He was on Team Twiizers and fail0verflow; groups that did a lot of hacking to open up closed systems. It's not like he's unaware of the customer abuse that happens in the proprietary world.

The "look beyond freedom" quote probably should also be looked at with the context that he's talking about the FSF, which has an odd habit of being extremely absolutist in ways that actually hurt the user. Like, they'll point out that Wi-Fi cards with proprietary firmware are bad, but then endorse very similar hardware where the firmware blob is in ROM or some features are lasered off just to conform to the "proprietary ROMs don't count" rule. Marcan is arguing for creating a gradual sliding scale of "proprietary, user-hostile, and/or insecure" to "Free, user-respecting, and/or secure" and then looking at the trade-offs between them, rather than just creating a really high bar based on what made sense in the late 1980s and sticking to it forever.

[smoldesu]

I'm giving the dude all the credit he deserves. fail0verflow is amazing, the stuff they did with Nvidia Tegra/Nintendo Switch was nothing short of miraculous and insane; that doesn't change the cards at the table though, and it doesn't make me any less skeptical of where all this leads. Again, I've got no intention of stopping people who are making progress, even if it's progress I disagree with, but he still has to prove himself here, and I'm not entirely confident that we're going to end up with "Linux, but on the M1" without a number of asterisks trailing the statement. That was the case with the Switch, that was the case with the PS4, and it's unfortunately crawling in that direction for the M1 as well.

[marcan_42]

I fail to see how you can equate the Switch and PS4, platforms designed to disallow the user from running their own OS, and where the manufacturer actively works to stop any such attempts, to the M1, where the manufacturer actively invested in developing the infrastructure required to allow users to securely boot their own OS.

If you're talking about building a sustainable community so the end product is polished and upstreamed and ready for end users, I'd say we have that with the M1. Things are already getting upstreamed and there is more than enough momentum. This wasn't the case with PS4, which was just me and a few other fail0verflow folks putting together a proof of concept. It helps when you don't have to spend cycles finding exploits and can focus on delivering a working OS :)

[kaba0]

> less interested in the "why" we do it and more interested in the "how" of it.

I mean, to be honest, someone only knowing “whys” alone is kind of disappointing — especially combined with the often seen narcissism of developers and you get someone who does not understand the problem domain spewing bullshit about it with confidence. We can see plenty of examples to that under any firefox, wayland or systemd threads.