3 ms·
If that were the use-case then nothing speaks against giving full control to private customers over their chips or not including these features into chips for p
by madez 10y ago
If that were the use-case then nothing speaks against giving full control to private customers over their chips or not including these features into chips for private customers, while neither of both is done.
- bryanlarsen 10y agoBoth would cost significant money and effort. The first would probably require replacing lots of purchased code with code that can be disclosed, and doing a full security audit of the remaining code. The second would require separate SKU's and validation for consumer vs business use. The first would benefit enterprises too by replacing the current "security by obscurity" scheme with auditable security, so that's where we should probably focus our lobbying.
- madez 10y agoI don't see how giving full control to the user requires significant money and effort. It is not necessary to release the full source code. Providing hardware documentation and a way to flash the firmware is enough. This shouldn't put AMD in front of significant problems.
- wolfgke 10y ago> If that were the use-case then nothing speaks against giving full control to private customers over their chips or not including these features into chips for private customers, while neither of both is done. This is (as far as I know) only one use-case. Another one (that makes Hollywood drool) is implementing DRM.