3 ms·
> many would agree with me when saying all of ME's functionality should be implemented by the OS. ME's use case is to be able to manage the machine when there
by zvrba 8y ago
> many would agree with me when saying all of ME's functionality should be implemented by the OS.
ME's use case is to be able to manage the machine when there is no OS installed, is unbootable or unresponsive. So somebody doesn't have to physically visit a datacenter and find the machine in a rack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Techno...
- Filligree 8y agoThis could also be implemented using a few BIOS modifications and, this is important, a separate computer connected to an internal serial port. Basically the same setup, except the management engine is a detachable, five-dollar device.
- ethbro 8y agoHow are the two mutually exclusive? There's no technical reason I can think of that Intel couldn't separate the "initialize" and "management" functions of ME. If an OS is installed, it has rights to write into the "management" storage area, remove everything there, or install alternative functionality. If no OS is installed, and remote features like power-off-network-login need to work, have the NIC jump straight into the storage area and start executing. If there's nothing there / corrupt data because the OS / user screwed it up... well, that's their fault. There's no non-DRM case for precluding users from being able to overwrite the ME of their own hardware.
- badrabbit 8y agoRight,what is needed is a management OS(think efi-like). Also,kvm+ipmi[1] is used for that mostly,not ME. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Platform_Management_Interface https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Platform_Managem...
- isostatic 8y agoSo ME isn't a cheap on-chip version of ipmi then?