5 ms·

This is par for the course for libreboot. The developers have been known to fly off the handle in highly unprofessional ways. For example, their FAQ states thi

by amyjess 10y ago

This is par for the course for libreboot. The developers have been known to fly off the handle in highly unprofessional ways. For example, their FAQ states this: > It is extremely unlikely that any post-2008 Intel hardware will ever be supported in libreboot, due to severe security and freedom issues; so severe, that the libreboot project recommends avoiding all modern Intel hardware. If you have an Intel based system affected by the problems described below, then you should get rid of it as soon as possible. That's some of the most unprofessional editorializing I've seen from a software project. The FAQ then goes on a lengthy rant where they elaborate on how it's because they have moral objections to the Management Engine and AMT, ending with: > In summary, the Intel Management Engine and its applications are a backdoor with total access to and control over the rest of the PC. The ME is a threat to freedom, security, and privacy, and the libreboot project strongly recommends avoiding it entirely. Since recent versions of it can't be removed, this means avoiding all recent generations of Intel hardware. The Management Engine is, by the way, intended to help large enterprises automate administration of PCs on their network. Calling it malicious is intellectually dishonest. With that said, I don't think a fork is feasible, or even a good idea. Libreboot is already a fork of Coreboot, and it's a fairly small fork that's not particularly in demand; in fact, the project goes out of its way to be hostile to anyone running modern hardware. Most forks are a result of the community being fed up with the intransigence of the developers; I'm convinced that libreboot doesn't even have a community. As someone else mentioned, Leah is by far and above the most active developer, and there are maybe 3-4 other people who have contributed. Unless GNU is just going to mirror her git repo and slap a different name on the tarballs, you're not going to have a fork. And, developers aside, how many people actually use it? Are there enough people who specifically insist on libreboot over coreboot and care about how it's developed to fork it?

tzs 10y ago
> For example, their FAQ states this: >> It is extremely unlikely that any post-2008 Intel hardware will ever be supported in libreboot, due to severe security and freedom issues; so severe, that the libreboot project recommends avoiding all modern Intel hardware. If you have an Intel based system affected by the problems described below, then you should get rid of it as soon as possible. > That's some of the most unprofessional editorializing I've seen from a software project. How is that unprofessional? Recent Intel hardware does contain binary blobs that you cannot disable and that have full system access, which does raise both security and freedom issues. >> In summary, the Intel Management Engine and its applications are a backdoor with total access to and control over the rest of the PC. The ME is a threat to freedom, security, and privacy, and the libreboot project strongly recommends avoiding it entirely. Since recent versions of it can't be removed, this means avoiding all recent generations of Intel hardware. > The Management Engine is, by the way, intended to help large enterprises automate administration of PCs on their network. Calling it malicious is intellectually dishonest. I didn't see them call it malicious in their FAQ. Yes, it's purpose is to provide a backdoor for legitimate owners of the computers to administer them. That something has a legitimate use that does not threaten freedom, security, and privacy doesn't mean that there is no risk that someone will find an illegitimate way to use it. What it comes down to is that they value having only free software on their systems, and you cannot do that on recent Intel hardware. Hence, they recommend avoiding said hardware.
Dain42 10y ago
If you think that's unprofessional, you should see some of the drivel the FSF itself puts out. I understand taking a position against proprietary code and systems. But to take an extremely hardline stance like they do, and to do it as childishly as the FSF often does, doesn't strike me as something that advances the cause of Free Software. At least this is just editorializing. The FSF often engages in rhetorical flourishes that would be at home in an elementary schoolyard.

by amyjess 10y ago

tzs 10y ago

> For example, their FAQ states this: >> It is extremely unlikely that any post-2008 Intel hardware will ever be supported in libreboot, due to severe security and freedom issues; so severe, that the libreboot project recommends avoiding all modern Intel hardware. If you have an Intel based system affected by the problems described below, then you should get rid of it as soon as possible. > That's some of the most unprofessional editorializing I've seen from a software project. How is that unprofessional? Recent Intel hardware does contain binary blobs that you cannot disable and that have full system access, which does raise both security and freedom issues. >> In summary, the Intel Management Engine and its applications are a backdoor with total access to and control over the rest of the PC. The ME is a threat to freedom, security, and privacy, and the libreboot project strongly recommends avoiding it entirely. Since recent versions of it can't be removed, this means avoiding all recent generations of Intel hardware. > The Management Engine is, by the way, intended to help large enterprises automate administration of PCs on their network. Calling it malicious is intellectually dishonest. I didn't see them call it malicious in their FAQ. Yes, it's purpose is to provide a backdoor for legitimate owners of the computers to administer them. That something has a legitimate use that does not threaten freedom, security, and privacy doesn't mean that there is no risk that someone will find an illegitimate way to use it. What it comes down to is that they value having only free software on their systems, and you cannot do that on recent Intel hardware. Hence, they recommend avoiding said hardware.

Dain42 10y ago

If you think that's unprofessional, you should see some of the drivel the FSF itself puts out. I understand taking a position against proprietary code and systems. But to take an extremely hardline stance like they do, and to do it as childishly as the FSF often does, doesn't strike me as something that advances the cause of Free Software. At least this is just editorializing. The FSF often engages in rhetorical flourishes that would be at home in an elementary schoolyard.