4 ms·
> i would be in favour of a separate Bluetooth and Wifi kill switch. that's what I thought as well. About the microcode, this won't be fixed. But see the week
by slasaus 11y ago
> i would be in favour of a separate Bluetooth and Wifi kill switch.
that's what I thought as well.
About the microcode, this won't be fixed. But see the weekly updates on their blog[1] that states progress they make with the coreboot developers. Hopefully they can free the number one problem with intel chips[2] which is the Management Engine firmware.
[1] https://puri.sm/posts/weekly-update-on-librem-production-2015-09-18/ https://puri.sm/posts/weekly-update-on-librem-production-201...
[2] http://www.coreboot.org/Binary_situation http://www.coreboot.org/Binary_situation
- sspiff 11y agoAssuming they're running Intel Wireless chips (which is very likely), this is impossible because they are run on the same antennas by the same chip. You can disable this in software by passing "bt_coex_active=N" to the iwlwifi kernel module, but of course, who knows if that's actually sufficient. I'm pretty sure the situation with other vendors is similar or worse. Big vendors like Broadcom have terrible open source track records.
- grkvlt 11y agoI think he means two switches, one for camera and microphone and one for blutooth and wifi; not a separate wifi switch and a bluetooth switch. Of course, a little DIP panel with a toggle for each device would be nice, too!
- sounds 11y agoThey definitely do not use Intel Wireless chips. In reply to sibling poster about dip switches, it looks like there are little wires running inside the case from the four separate connections to the two DPDT switches, i.e., if you want to find a DIP switch and mount it to your laptop, the 4 wires are easily hackable.