4 ms·

Don't forget that POWER10 is no longer ryf-certifiable. Of course the ryf certification may be questionable but it is an established bar, POWER9 was able to cro

Don't forget that POWER10 is no longer ryf-certifiable. Of course the ryf certification may be questionable but it is an established bar, POWER9 was able to cross it, POWER10 probably won't: https://www.talospace.com/2020/08/power10-sounds-really-great-but.html https://www.talospace.com/2020/08/power10-sounds-really-grea... https://twitter.com/RaptorCompSys/status/1435510763402244105?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/RaptorCompSys/status/1435510763402244105...

unixhero 5y ago
Any reference to the ryf certification?
- Jasper_ 5y ago
  They're referring to the FSF's "Respects Your Freedoms" programme, a frankly absurd specification that encourages vendors to lock down closed source firmware into ROM rather than actually make it free. RYF doesn't care about the hardware designs themselves being open (no computer would qualify in that case), so they treat closed-source firmware ROM images as identical to closed-source hardware, which is fine. But store that firmware on some sort of RAM, or flashable ROM, and all of a sudden it's now closed-source firmware, which is bad. The end result is that systems that are the most locked down are those which "Respects Your Freedoms".
  - fsflover 5y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30036588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30036588
  - unixhero 5y ago
    Ah thanks a lot. I asked because I had not heard of that abbreviation.
detaro 5y ago
RYF allows various "tricks" of hiding blobs, so it is not what I'd use as the benchmark here. Raptor's standards are likely higher than what RYF would require...
- marcodiego 5y ago
  I don't know if the firmware on embedded controllers in currently ryf-certified laptops are open source, but that is the only source of "trick" I can see that could be currently explored to get ryf certification. I've heard people saying things like "even a windows device could be ryf-certified if it was in ROM", but I see nothing even close to this when I look at currently ryf-certified devices. People are probably influenced by this: https://puri.sm/posts/librem5-solving-the-first-fsf-ryf-hurdle/ https://puri.sm/posts/librem5-solving-the-first-fsf-ryf-hurd... where a Purism engineer describes a "trick" to store a memory controller training firmware in ROM and run it on a "secondary processsor" so it can get Librem 5 ryf-certified; but to this day Librem 5 is still not certified and probably won't because of this specific issue. Also there are the people who correctly question that ryf is silly because it accepts software without code available if it is in ROM and only runs on a secondary processor. I currently have no counter-argument to this and I think it would be great if FSF explained it clearly. Nevertheless, there are some reasonable points to consider that stance: - AFAIK, the form of accepted code is only for "secondary processors" and can't take over the system or compromise it, - having things in ROM forces manufacturers to maximally simplify it, - having things in ROM forces manufacturers to implement more features in software that can be checked and - having things in ROM forces manufacturers to be extra careful when implementing it.
  - detaro 5y ago
    I'm not saying that RYF is entirely useless, just that "new version requires firmware blobs, old one didn't" is a clearer and stronger statement than mentioning RYF IMHO.
    - marcodiego 5y ago
      Hmmm... I understand. I mentioned ryf certification because Tallos II and Talos II Lite are the only ryf-certified modern systems available. Also, I bet FSF is very strict when certifying systems so we don't have to rely on the word of the vendor only.
goodpoint 5y ago
FSF RYF certification carries very little weight. If you care about not having backdoors in your hardware, RYF is not very relevant because it allows closed source hardware and firmware blobs.
- marcodiego 5y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30036588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30036588

unixhero 5y ago

Any reference to the ryf certification?

Jasper_ 5y ago
They're referring to the FSF's "Respects Your Freedoms" programme, a frankly absurd specification that encourages vendors to lock down closed source firmware into ROM rather than actually make it free. RYF doesn't care about the hardware designs themselves being open (no computer would qualify in that case), so they treat closed-source firmware ROM images as identical to closed-source hardware, which is fine. But store that firmware on some sort of RAM, or flashable ROM, and all of a sudden it's now closed-source firmware, which is bad. The end result is that systems that are the most locked down are those which "Respects Your Freedoms".
- fsflover 5y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30036588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30036588
- unixhero 5y ago
  Ah thanks a lot. I asked because I had not heard of that abbreviation.

detaro 5y ago

RYF allows various "tricks" of hiding blobs, so it is not what I'd use as the benchmark here. Raptor's standards are likely higher than what RYF would require...

marcodiego 5y ago
I don't know if the firmware on embedded controllers in currently ryf-certified laptops are open source, but that is the only source of "trick" I can see that could be currently explored to get ryf certification. I've heard people saying things like "even a windows device could be ryf-certified if it was in ROM", but I see nothing even close to this when I look at currently ryf-certified devices. People are probably influenced by this: https://puri.sm/posts/librem5-solving-the-first-fsf-ryf-hurdle/ https://puri.sm/posts/librem5-solving-the-first-fsf-ryf-hurd... where a Purism engineer describes a "trick" to store a memory controller training firmware in ROM and run it on a "secondary processsor" so it can get Librem 5 ryf-certified; but to this day Librem 5 is still not certified and probably won't because of this specific issue. Also there are the people who correctly question that ryf is silly because it accepts software without code available if it is in ROM and only runs on a secondary processor. I currently have no counter-argument to this and I think it would be great if FSF explained it clearly. Nevertheless, there are some reasonable points to consider that stance: - AFAIK, the form of accepted code is only for "secondary processors" and can't take over the system or compromise it, - having things in ROM forces manufacturers to maximally simplify it, - having things in ROM forces manufacturers to implement more features in software that can be checked and - having things in ROM forces manufacturers to be extra careful when implementing it.
- detaro 5y ago
  I'm not saying that RYF is entirely useless, just that "new version requires firmware blobs, old one didn't" is a clearer and stronger statement than mentioning RYF IMHO.
  - marcodiego 5y ago
    Hmmm... I understand. I mentioned ryf certification because Tallos II and Talos II Lite are the only ryf-certified modern systems available. Also, I bet FSF is very strict when certifying systems so we don't have to rely on the word of the vendor only.

goodpoint 5y ago

FSF RYF certification carries very little weight. If you care about not having backdoors in your hardware, RYF is not very relevant because it allows closed source hardware and firmware blobs.

marcodiego 5y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30036588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30036588