Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Posts Updated "Software Defined Silicon" Driver To Activate Licensed Hardware Features

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

  • #31
    Artificial software limitations that restrict features and abilities in an attempt to create multiple product lines and raise profits should be illegal. Not to mention how irresponsible that usage of finite resources is and all the excess waste those kinds of business practices create.

    Not that Intel cares about the environment...ever since AMD caught up to them their only strategies have been using as much power as possible for 5Ghz bragging numbers and pairing that with schedulers and restricted cores that physically can't go full Intel with stupid high power usage.

    Frankly, there's nothing that Intel is doing that AMD can't do now or someone else hasn't already done. I mean, anyone can throw assloads of power at the problem and ARM was doing big.LITTLE years ago.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by hvis View Post

      I'm guessing the end destination of of this "feature enablement" stuff would be hardware subscriptions, where you get the device itself for little to no money and they pay the manufacturer for the subscription to be able to use it. Then we would come full circle, and it some point it will indeed be possible to "download a car". Or most of it.
      You already need to pay Tesla $100 to activate your seat warmers.

      Never buy Tesla, make fun of everyone who does.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Ironmask View Post

        You already need to pay Tesla $100 to activate your seat warmers.

        Never buy Tesla, make fun of everyone who does.
        I drew the line at saying "no!" to DRM in scum like Valve's Steam DRM platform.

        How did people manage to get DRM into cars. I am sure people will manage to justify this to themselves somehow

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by ddriver View Post

          You'd still be pirating software - just a license, and it wouldn't work without already having the cpu.

          To pirate hardware would require to either:
          1 - basically steal it
          2 - steal the design schematics and produce the hardware yourself, which you certainly won't be doing
          It also requires an appropriate outfit and, in some cultures, eyeliner.

          Comment


          • #35
            That's a shoot in the knee for Intel. It won't bring the new customers, it will push them to the AMD and other alternatives.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Danny3 View Post
              Nobody in their right mind buys Intel CPUs these days and instead of improving they bring these subscription based garbage ?
              Intel management, WTF are you smoking ?
              AMD has them beaten on cost/performance ratio, ARM has them crushed on energy efficiency and Apple stopped being the captive market that can be overcharged at will. When you are a pure MBA graduate, there aren't many alternatives left.

              I'm starting to wonder if Intel will be the next Boeing, a once great and respect company ruined by incompetent stock price monkeys.

              Comment


              • #37
                I agree with those who say this should NOT be allowed in upstream Linux. Linux is so important in the server space we can kill this outright, as Intel won't be able to target Xeons only to Windows Server and BSD users. To make this work if we ban it from Linux, Intel would have to convince huge corporations and cloud providers to change their choice of OS and that would not be easy. Block this from Linux and Intel will probably scrap it for another ten years

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ms178 View Post
                  That gets me thinking: The first one is easy, what happens if you cancel your subscription? I guess that feature stops the next second, I hope you don't run compiled software which depends on the feature on that machine. And what about 20 - 30 % less performance thanks to their security flaws, do you get free licenses in return to bring back some of the lost performance? I certainly would have had such a conversation with Intel.
                  Is that really what this is referring to? I doubt it. I read it more as a feature enablement license that, for example, may allow intel to sell the exact same piece of silicon as an i5, i7, i9, or xeon W, depending on what license has been applied. The end user doesn't know the difference, but greatly reducing the number of manufacturing SKU's saves intel some $$$.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    As for garbage like Tesla, there are obvious countermeasure for serious hot-rodders. I would never, ever buy any connected car, but suppose a Tesla was given to me? I would not throw out the car, but I would throw Tesla out of the car.

                    If you just want the seat warmers, cut the wires connecting them to the car's computer, and wire them to a B+ power source yourself with a normal cable and switch. The computer no longer has any say in your seat warmers. If you want more, read on:

                    I would regard the car as having a good motor or motors, a good battery pack, and a bad motor controller, same as an E-bike with a legal European spec 15.5 mph cutoff speed controller. Some controllers can be hacked in those cases, some (especially on cheap Chinese E-bikes) are not locked down and can be reprogrammed right from the LCD-and all can be taken out and replaced with your choice of controller.

                    I suspect the actual computer part of a basic, non self-driving electric car does not take much, probably a Raspberry Pi with the GPIO pins put to good use could do it. Controlling the motor and battery (for both power and regen braking) is just a scaled-up version of what you have on an E-bike. You could possibly keep the original MOSFETS that control the phase current and use them as an amplifier for circuitry from a smaller controller. Only power, regenerative braking, and battery management need to be electronic at all. If you cannot make electronic stability control and antilock brakes work, remember for 80 years no car had these.

                    The point is to remove Tesla's computer and replace it with one you control, unless of course you can break into your own car's computer, root it, and get control.

                    Shitcan all that connected car crap, you really want to be able to go to the grocery store without everyone from that store's competitors to the local police department gettting a record of the trip straight from your car. Also, never, ever connect any car to your phone unless you want to share your contacts and intimate photos with the car dealer, car manufacturer, and anyone watching them!

                    Note that since electric cars do not require emissions inspection, not having a computer hookup accessable to inspectors does not prevent you from registering the car.


                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Luke View Post
                      I agree with those who say this should NOT be allowed in upstream Linux. Linux is so important in the server space we can kill this outright, as Intel won't be able to target Xeons only to Windows Server and BSD users. To make this work if we ban it from Linux, Intel would have to convince huge corporations and cloud providers to change their choice of OS and that would not be easy. Block this from Linux and Intel will probably scrap it for another ten years
                      Intel would just make it a downloadable module. Unlike a gpu driver, this wouldn't be hard to maintain out of the main tree.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X