4 ms·

These systems still rely on closed, untrustworthy x86 hardware and mainboard implementations. I'd hardly call it more open than anything Purism provide, except

These systems still rely on closed, untrustworthy x86 hardware and mainboard implementations. I'd hardly call it more open than anything Purism provide, except perhaps for the custom case and backplane (which isn't much, in terms of the system design) That said, it's a step forward. I look forward to seeing what System76 do next.

justinjlynn 8y ago
I forgot to mention - If you're looking for a far more open source system (you get mainboard schematics, firmware is open source, complete documentation all the way down to the processor configuration registers, and the last device firmware blob (non-cpu-loaded mainboard device, assuming you don't need the optional SAS controller) - the built-in ethernet chipset - is almost completely reverse engineered) you might take a look at the Talos (and soon Blackbird) line of systems from Raptor Computing Systems. Though, do note that it's relatively expensive and it's POWER9 (PowerPC 64 endian-switchable). Also, if it's important, the mainboard and processor are fabbed in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalFoundries#Acquisition_of_IBM's_chip-manufacturing_unit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalFoundries#Acquisition_of...
bo1024 8y ago
- I agree that eliminating those closed components is a good goal - I think we should avoid setting the main bar for system76 at purism or vice versa. I say this as a big Purism fan, reading this post is very exciting for all fans of openness in computing.
- justinjlynn 8y ago
  Oh, I agree. The bar shouldn't be set any lower than completely open systems. Unfortunately, while they remain on x86 - and Intel and/or AMD refuse to manufacture chips without the Management Engine or the Platform Security Processor or provide documentation - they'll always be less open than alternative architecture implementations like RISC-V's SiFive or OpenPOWER's IBM POWER and their vendors/integrators like Raptor Computing Systems.

justinjlynn 8y ago

I forgot to mention - If you're looking for a far more open source system (you get mainboard schematics, firmware is open source, complete documentation all the way down to the processor configuration registers, and the last device firmware blob (non-cpu-loaded mainboard device, assuming you don't need the optional SAS controller) - the built-in ethernet chipset - is almost completely reverse engineered) you might take a look at the Talos (and soon Blackbird) line of systems from Raptor Computing Systems. Though, do note that it's relatively expensive and it's POWER9 (PowerPC 64 endian-switchable). Also, if it's important, the mainboard and processor are fabbed in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalFoundries#Acquisition_of_IBM's_chip-manufacturing_unit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalFoundries#Acquisition_of...

bo1024 8y ago

- I agree that eliminating those closed components is a good goal - I think we should avoid setting the main bar for system76 at purism or vice versa. I say this as a big Purism fan, reading this post is very exciting for all fans of openness in computing.

justinjlynn 8y ago
Oh, I agree. The bar shouldn't be set any lower than completely open systems. Unfortunately, while they remain on x86 - and Intel and/or AMD refuse to manufacture chips without the Management Engine or the Platform Security Processor or provide documentation - they'll always be less open than alternative architecture implementations like RISC-V's SiFive or OpenPOWER's IBM POWER and their vendors/integrators like Raptor Computing Systems.