Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Publishes New SB Register, Programming Docs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by rohcQaH View Post
    You'd need "Open Source Hardware" for that. But while everyone can get a compiler, not everyone can get his own fab, so that's a pretty pointless discussion.
    Like any hardware, the evil doers need to be able to upgrade the DRM once in a while, as hackers will find vulnerabilities.

    Making it in silicon means that they can't upgrade it, and they would end up with millions of useless chips every time a vulnerabilities was found.

    This is not something I invent to be right. Check out the Coreboot presentation from 25c3:

    http://events.ccc.de/congress/2008/F...s/2970.en.html

    Can't remember the link for the download site, but search and you will find

    Comment


    • #17
      coreboot is a nice project, but too much in darkness. I really wish I could switch to coreboot.
      I introduced a customer question in gigabyte customer feedback service, to request them publishing some details to coreboot team for my motherboard (an EP45-DS4 model).
      They replied kindly that this would studied, which is the polite way of saying fuck.
      That's a pity as gigabyte as already pushed out one (not two, just one) motherboard (an Athlon X2 motherboard), and that now coreboot can handle perfectly this mobo.
      I don't know why they didn't did it again. Probably Gigabyte has done that just to pressure BIOS vendors for some price drop or something else. Since, the closed-source BIOS manufacturer have corrected the problems or have dropped their prices and therefore, Gigabyte doesn't feel the need of throwing another mobo to coreboot devs. But this only supposition from myself.

      Does intel publish some documentation as AMD has given today ? I guess so.

      Comment


      • #18
        I guess that's just NOT the case when you look at supported Coreboot chipsets.

        Comment


        • #19
          I was planning on going AMD when I went AM3 anyway (nevermind that they're practically the only game in town for that), but this is icing on the cake.

          Keep up the good work!

          Comment


          • #20
            Though it may support it, that doesn't mean that you need to USE it. The frightening thing about mobo-based TC is that it might violate your security before the OS can even boot -- it *does* have a network card right? Coreboot won't do this, and at least with a display card, you can simply IGNORE the TC/DRM crap (current versions anyways) and it'll keep working as normal, just won't work with the other TC/DRM crap that you might try to feed into it. It won't be able to mess with your network or do any other kinds of weird things since it simply doesn't have access -- its a one way thing, from the mobo into the vid card and out to the TV.

            The bad news is that there are some extremely frightening things in the pipes that are sure to enforce TC crap by shutting down or self-destructing if it finds itself in a non-compliant environment, and the even scarier part is that most of the MS-lemmings will accept it out of ignorance, which leaves everyone interested in their own personal rights and freedoms out in the cold.

            You bring up a valid point about open sourced hardware and everyone having their own personal fab's. The funny thing is that there are certainly enough people out there interested in freedom that at some point, we MUST band together to build it. I just hope that by the time we need it, that the legislation doesn't enforce the use of TC crap. Hint: AMD DO THIS! You don't need to do it on everything, but make some things with this option where there is no TC crap built in (or even built in and disabled) and provide FULL design specifications and open source it. Keep selling things to the MS-lemmings, but when the s**t hits the fans and there is no turning back for anyone else, you'll already have the ability to provide the freedom that is sure to be in high demand.

            It really makes you think... maybe the terrorists have it right. Don't get me wrong, their methods are definitely wrong, but they seem to have picked the right enemy to fight. The US government, with their DMCA "treat EVERYONE as a terrorist/criminal" crap NEEDS to be seriously rethought. Back in the old days the rules were that you would be "assumed innocent until proven guilty", now its "assumed potential criminal".


            Originally posted by rohcQaH View Post
            If someone wanted to do something like that really bad, they'd just implement it in hardware. (Palladium relies on custom TPM chips anyway).

            Your gfx card most likely already supports HDCP, a technology designed to restrict your actions. Is an open source BIOS going to help you against that? No.

            You'd need "Open Source Hardware" for that. But while everyone can get a compiler, not everyone can get his own fab, so that's a pretty pointless discussion.

            Comment


            • #21
              OT: Top Posting

              Originally posted by lbcoder View Post
              ...DMCA "treat EVERYONE as a terrorist/criminal" crap NEEDS to be seriously rethought
              Thanks for your interesting message, and I agree with you. However, placing the quotation after your response was rather odd, and made understanding the context of the message slightly more difficult. Top posting can make sense in a corporate e-mail thread, but on a web-based forum that records all messages for everyone, it hinders readability. (Of course, if most people here disagree with me, I'll gladly accept the majority will)

              Comment


              • #22
                Imo the neatest part about open BIOS's is that BIOS's sometimes have bugs which the vendor will never fix. Then you need to have kernel hacks to workaround. If the BIOS is open, developers can keep working on it until it Just Works (tm).

                Comment


                • #23
                  Response should ALWAYS be above the quote, otherwise you have to scroll through a mile of crap to get to the new stuff.

                  Originally posted by unix_epoch View Post
                  Thanks for your interesting message, and I agree with you. However, placing the quotation after your response was rather odd, and made understanding the context of the message slightly more difficult. Top posting can make sense in a corporate e-mail thread, but on a web-based forum that records all messages for everyone, it hinders readability. (Of course, if most people here disagree with me, I'll gladly accept the majority will)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by lbcoder View Post
                    Response should ALWAYS be above the quote, otherwise you have to scroll through a mile of crap to get to the new stuff.
                    Gods, please don't start another flamewar. Top-posting vs bottom-posting is a bit similar to vim vs. Emacs. (Personally I think they're both wrong, you should only be replying to the sentences you want to reply to, not the whole damn thread (which happens often with newsletters) As in, the "quote, answer, quote answer, quote answer" style where you pull the quotes from arbitrary depths from the thread. No sense quoting if you're not even going to comment on everything that was said! )

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Just watched the latest video from coreboot.org... He got to be the worst speaker of all time. Boredom can't kill you, but sometimes you'd wish it could

                      Anyway, I was surprised to hear why the name change from LinuxBIOS to CoreBoot -- and I will spare you the horror to watch it yourself:

                      Original the goal was to fit the entire Linux kernel in the flash, but as BIOS flash didn't get any larger, that could not be done.

                      So Core Boot will initialize the hardware, and boot a payload. http://www.coreboot.org/Payloads

                      So CoreBoot is not a BIOS, where you can do over clocking, setting the clock and stuff like that.

                      So I am wondering, can that be done from the OS?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I asked about overclocking in #coreboot IRC - they say it will be a part of coreboot at some point.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by curaga View Post
                          I asked about overclocking in #coreboot IRC - they say it will be a part of coreboot at some point.
                          Okay, pretty cool!

                          I was fairly sure that CoreBoot would never be main stream on desktop mainboards.

                          Just looked in my BIOS, and the only thing I need and can't live without is being able to set Cool'n'Quite to begin at 45 degress, so the CPU fan spins at the lowest below 45 degrees.

                          Besides PXE, all the other stuff in the BIOS: Don't need it.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            At least you find bios editors for standard systems to add gpxe. Did that successfully on 2 Asrock SiS based socket A boards. The default PXE loader did not work at all for me, not even with gpxelinux.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Kano View Post
                              At least you find bios editors for standard systems to add gpxe. Did that successfully on 2 Asrock SiS based socket A boards. The default PXE loader did not work at all for me, not even with gpxelinux.
                              What is PXELinux? A BIOS replacement?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                No, pxelinux.0 is part of syslinux. Newer syslinux versions also have got gpxelinux.0 which is basically the pxe core of gpxe added in front of pxelinux.0 - that can help partly broken pxe loaders, as you only have to replace that file. With that i could boot from a skge card which is only supported in an old private branch of gpxe (which somebody merged into mainline for me for testing). Without that the loader was too broken to boot.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X