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
    ermo
    Senior Member

  • ermo
    replied
    I wonder if this is really a clever way to move feature-enablement away from a proprietary OS model (Windows) to an open source OS model (Linux, BSD) while still being able to monetise more niche features that only certain customers need (large coorporations or nation states)?

    Only here, the sellers of the hardware (and not the sellers of the OS) are in control? Imagine if Intel could build the exact same CPU silicon for uniprocessor sockets, dual-processor sockets and quad-processor sockets, yet only enable the uniprocessor functionality by default and thus save manufacturing and testing dollars by only having to qualify one piece of silicon instead of 3-4 different pieces of silicon per amount of CPU cores configuration?

    They'd obviously need to qualify the firmware, but surely that's relatively cheaper since firmware can more easily be updated/fixed?

    Personally, I'm not a fan. But I am also not really in the target audience for this -- partly because I don't buy intel on principle (due to its incredibly annoying segmentation strategies) and partly because I'm neither a nation state nor a large corporation.
    ermo
    Senior Member
    Last edited by ermo; 22 November 2021, 11:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • BillT
    Junior Member

  • BillT
    replied
    Cisco has been doing this shit for a long time. You want more throughput, pay for a router licence upgrade.

    Leave a comment:

  • partcyborg
    Phoronix Member

  • partcyborg
    replied
    Originally posted by loganj View Post
    so next will see hacking the intel cpu license?
    I wouldnt bet on it. Samsung does stuff in this category in their android phones, and the config data is all cryptographically signed. I envison the same idea could be used in this case

    Leave a comment:

  • ganloo
    Junior Member

  • ganloo
    replied
    Oh, no,please don't let this shit happen, there is a start there is a follower and there is no end. "始作俑者岂无后矣!"

    Leave a comment:

  • smitty3268
    Senior Member

  • smitty3268
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Luke
    Senior Member

  • Luke
    replied
    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.


    Leave a comment:

  • torsionbar28
    Senior Member

  • torsionbar28
    replied
    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 $$$.

    Leave a comment:

  • Luke
    Senior Member

  • Luke
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

  • jacob
    Senior Member

  • jacob
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • StarterX4
    Senior Member

  • StarterX4
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X