Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MIPS Loongson 3A Benchmarks On Debian

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by maldorordiscord View Post
    The FSF do have criterias and only because I follow the criterias of the FSF you insult my writing as "non-sense".
    And more you spread conspiracy theories about the banned member "Qaridarium" to insult me even more.
    Also no Richard Stallman do have the same Logic and he does not get a ban just because of the same conclusion.
    Educate yourself! Software in hardware unchangeable is defined as hardware and its allowed in the definition of the FSF!
    http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Hardware...ement_criteria
    And because Loongson meets all criteria and x86 hardware do not meet any criterias Richard Stallman use Loongson hardware.
    But you prefer to insult people instead of try to understand people.
    Its the same with Bridgman he prefer to spread conspiracy theories about backdoors in the loongson product instead of prove anything he says.
    In fact Bridgman should be banned because of abusive criticism on the competitive product based on conspiracy theories!
    And you should be banned because of insulting people only because they follow FSF criterias.
    It is obvious that you are Qaridarium for anyone knowing Qaridarium's posting style. And I don't want you to be banned about your conclusion, I want you to be banned for circumventing the decisions of the forum's authorities.
    Now to your argument: The link you gave us says this:
    the hardware must run free software on every layer that is user upgradeable
    So please feel free to enlighten us about why this means:
    Software in hardware unchangeable is defined as hardware and its allowed in the definition of the FSF!
    Making software unalterable does not make it in some magical way hardware and the FSF is not saying something like that. I educated myself and have proven you to be wrong. Now take your conspiracy theories to a different place.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by bridgman View Post
      Not exactly correct. There is a lot of closed source firmware (microcode really, not firmware), it's just built into the chip
      I just try again because you don't get my point. Your sentence is per definition of the FSF wrong because:
      "The exception applies to software delivered inside auxiliary and low-level processors and FPGAs, within which software installation is not intended after the user obtains the product. This can include, for instance, microcode inside a processor, firmware built into an I/O device, or the gate pattern of an FPGA. The software in such secondary processors does not count as product software." http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria
      Because of this there is no "closed source" product software in a Loongson system.
      My second argument was if something act like hardware then it is hardware for example a CDROM is a CDROM software or hardware? In my point of view a CD ROM is hardware. The data are inseparably connected the CD ROM because of this its hardware no matter if the source code of the data is free or not.
      For the question hardware or software the "data" inside the hardware is not a valid criteria. To clear the question the only valid criteria is: Inseparably connected and unchangeable.
      Example CDROM: The data inside of the CD ROM is inseparably connected and unchangeable because of this its hardware.
      Example Loongson cpu: The data in the microcode is inseparably connected and unchangeable because of this its hardware.
      And I do have a 3. additional argument because open source vs closed source is a question about copyright. But there is no copyright in 100% pure logic trivial functions because of this the microcode cannot contain any copyright because the creation spiritual height do not hit the minimum criteria to get copyright protection by law. This means you can not protect microcode source code with any copyright.
      Originally posted by bridgman View Post
      I don't know who you are but you're starting to exhibit a lot of the same bad habits as Q (ie flat-out lying about what I said). That is probably not the best path to take, particularly for a new user.
      For any intelligent human your sentence : Bridgman: "and doesn't have a published update mechanism." told us that your opinion is that there is a update mechanism but not published. This means i didn't lie I have interpreted it and expressed understandable.
      Originally posted by bridgman View Post
      The x86 processors have built-in microcode plus a patch mechanism, which somehow makes them "less open-source".
      The patch mechanism prove that the microcode of a x86 is not "inseparably connected" to the hardware and the "changeable behavior" prove that its software means closed source software.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by TobiSGD View Post
        It is obvious that you are Qaridarium for anyone knowing Qaridarium's posting style.
        Everything I've read about Qaridarium tells me he would definitely do it differently.
        I think he would focus his argumentation on the fact that Bridgman is biased because his job at AMD which disqualifies him to write here in this topic.
        About your attacks: He also would focus differently he would point out that you're a mental fascist and you just want run your virtual genocide against handicaped people like Qaridarium here.

        Funny isn't it? Now i get 5 forum stars for knowing Qaridarium's style?

        Comment


        • #34
          bridgman most likely refers to the fact that newer cpus can get bugfixes via software. These can be part of the bios or the os can upload em. In debian you can search for microcode and find the intel update tools. Usually that was introduced to fix/disable functions which do not work correctly without replacing the cpu itself. That was a bit expensive for intel with the pentium fdiv bug... amd did not replace the first phenoms as well. Those updates are signed, so it is impossible (if you dont get the secret key somehow) to put custom code in there.
          Last edited by Kano; 07-02-2012, 06:02 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            kano: "bridgman most likely refers to the fact that newer cpus can get bugfixes via software. These can be part of the bios or the os can upload em. In debian you can search for microcode and find the intel update tools. Usually that was introduced to fix/disable functions which do not work correctly without replacing the cpu itself. That was a bit expensive for intel with the pentium fdiv bug... amd did not replace the first phenoms as well. Those updates are signed, so it is impossible (if you dont get the secret key somehow) to put custom code in there."

            Nice "software" feature kano but it's still software if you can do this.
            And the FSF definition is clear at this point if software on your main cpu manipulate the behavior of your hardware by closed source code then it's per definition not open source/free software hardware.
            Such a microcode update process must be open source to control the behavior chance to make sure no back door is placed into your pc.

            Comment


            • #36
              no, that would be a very bad idea. the need for a signed update is to protect you from those attacks which would be very lowlevel. your paranoia did not go away with your new nick, not good best: sell all pcs.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by maldorordiscord View Post
                He also would focus differently he would point out that you're a mental fascist and you just want run your virtual genocide against handicaped people like Qaridarium here.
                As you just have done. By the way, I couldn't care less about Qaridarium's handicaps, if there are any at all. He was not banned for being handicapped, he was banned for being a troll. Calling me a fascist will not change anything about that, but makes it more clear that you are in fact Qaridarium.

                By the way, do you really think the forum authorities would be that dumb to not recognize you as Qaridarium when you don't change your posting style?

                Comment


                • #38
                  kano: "no, that would be a very bad idea. the need for a signed update is to protect you from those attacks which would be very lowlevel. your paranoia did not go away with your new nick, not good best: sell all pcs."

                  You really believe in "closed source" as a security model ?
                  There is a big wikipedia article about the question what is the better security model open or closed source:
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_so...tware_security
                  My personal logical conclusion is that the open-source security model is more secure.
                  And about your personal attack: I don't know the "paranoia" status of Qaridarium but for me its not a question about irrational feelings like paranoia.
                  For me it's more about freedom of choice. I can buy both but i'm sure the opensource solution is more secure.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by TobiSGD View Post
                    As you just have done. By the way, I couldn't care less about Qaridarium's handicaps, if there are any at all. He was not banned for being handicapped, he was banned for being a troll. Calling me a fascist will not change anything about that, but makes it more clear that you are in fact Qaridarium.

                    By the way, do you really think the forum authorities would be that dumb to not recognize you as Qaridarium when you don't change your posting style?
                    Check your writing skills I said nothing to you. It was just an example for "Qaridarium" style.
                    He was really a troll? I didn't noticed that because right now you are the "off-tropic" troll in this thread.
                    Your last question is really philosophical because "how stupid can a authoritarian be?" is a very interesting question.
                    I think I can't give a answer because i can't put into words how dump.
                    Anyway they just don't share your opinion that I'm the super dangerous Qaridarium otherwise they would banned me already.
                    I'm right or I'm wrong?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      You are right, this is off-topic. So I took the short route and reported you for obviously being Qaridarium and therefor circumventing their decisions, just in case they didn't notice your re-appearance. Let's just wait how they decide and not further derail this thread. If you are getting banned the next time please be so kind to mail me your next pseudonym, so that I can put you to my ignore list as soon as you appear on the forum.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        When you think it is so simple to attack a system with microcode try it yourself. You find microsims which allow you to create your own opcodes. Thats what you do for training when you study computer science. asm is easy compared to that when you want to do some complex things. It is very unlikely that you want to write real attack code when you dont want that the system just crashes. you could maybe override a random value generater with a fixed value (only newer cpus can do that) to get a fixed seed for a cypher (if it would be the one and only source of it). even if you could change opcodes, what would you change? Thats what is done with those updates, not more, not less. I do not feel a security risk when i can not look at the code what those do. The cpu itself is a blackbox as well, you have to assue that it works as expected.

                        This has got really nothing to do with opensource. If you create your own cpu then you have to worry about it maybe, but thats something a casual user does not do. I am pretty sure you are not clever enough to develop your own processor design...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          @kano

                          Right now I only know the low-level stuff like switching algebra,logic gate and relay circuits and i understand this part perfectly.
                          It sounds logic that your attack vector is always the way you know.
                          Why learning assembler language to attack a system if you know the low level part already and it's possible to attack a system on this level?
                          And you don't have to do something useful to break a system and a broken system is a successful attack.
                          Sure in your point of view this isn't a successful attack but the ability to turn a computer system into a brick is powerful as a weapon.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by TobiSGD View Post
                            You are right, this is off-topic. So I took the short route and reported you for obviously being Qaridarium and therefor circumventing their decisions, just in case they didn't notice your re-appearance. Let's just wait how they decide and not further derail this thread. If you are getting banned the next time please be so kind to mail me your next pseudonym, so that I can put you to my ignore list as soon as you appear on the forum.
                            Why not you say so from the beginning ? Instead of this you waste our time with spamming your off-tropic FUD and ruin the thread.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              @maldorordiscord

                              a crashing system is no real attack. you can not get usefull data out of it. first of all those updates are non permament - thats why the bios is usually used to program the cpu if needed. the way via the os is only a 2nd variant.

                              btw. if you have got no clue about assembler (even that has got an abstraction layer, but not that far away) you dont know what opcodes are...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                a crashing system is no real attack.
                                Maybe that system was running a nuclear refinery before it crashed. Hint hint.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X