@charlie_root Coreboot does hardware init, but it doesn't handle basic input or output, which makes it not a BIOS (Basic Input/Output System) by definition - it's a bootloader.
GNU Grub (also in cbfs on the SPI flash chip) is what handles the basic input and output - which therefore makes GNU Grub my BIOS.
I admit that the cbfs also contains SeaBIOS, but that's not even used by default on my librebooted thinkpad.
Which is why you shouldn't use coreboot. Use stock firmware with BSD or GNU/Linux. Coreboot and it's counterpart "libreboot", are not good alternatives to real firmware. These are reverse engineering efforts that are buggy and may potentially brick your machine. This whole movement was built on Intel ME paranoia stoked by internet personalities that don't give two shit's if your machine runs properly...
@charlie_root >You shouldn't use coreboot >Use proprietary software instead Are you kidding me?
>are not good alternatives to real firmware My aim is to replace proprietary malware of all forms, not provide mere "alternatives" of them.
>These are reverse engineering efforts that are buggy Sure, but imagine treating inconvenient bugs as something other than something to be fixed.
>and may potentially brick your machine. Please don't try to tell me bullshit.
If I was to do a bad flash on my thinkpad, I would just reflash with ISP and for my KGPE-D16s, I would just take out the SPI flash chip, reflash and reinstall.
>built on Intel ME paranoia It's not paranoia if you're correct.
The various version of the ME are a frontdoor, although AMD's PSP has same problems and if I remember correctly, you seem to love your compromised AMD hardware?
@charlie_root >No one has ever concretely proven the Intel ME does anything malicious No-one has ever concretely proven that the me doesn't do anything malicious either.
Software being proprietary is maliciousness in the purest form.
>Coreboot machines do actually brick and have issues. Please advise me of any failures you have heard of that wasn't due to hardware failure.
>they we're unable to run BSD's properly Why would I want to run proprietary software?
>secretly they only cared about the Linux kernel. Yes, free software developers only really care about supporting the only 100% free system available (GNU/Linux-libre), who would have thought?
>the Thinkpad is pretty irrelevant in 2023 It's a laptop, I don't get how "relevancy" or "irrelevancy" even applies to it.
I typically use my KGPE-D16s more even so.
>you're basically a fringe personality these days. Freedom enjoying was always a fringe personality in the whole history of humanity and always will be.
Intel ME paranoia has always been founded on hearsay. No one has ever concretely proven the Intel ME does anything malicious, outside of "it's proprietary so we will just assume malice" argument.
Coreboot machines do actually brick and have issues. Noticeably they we're unable to run BSD's properly for at least 5 years after their creation. You might write this off as a GNUtard, but it meant something to a lot of people at the time. Especially since Core/Libre boots advertised themselves as something "Open Source" friendly. When secretly they only cared about the Linux kernel.
Guess what, the Thinkpad is pretty irrelevant in 2023, good luck with your cause but you're basically a fringe personality these days.
@dcc Yes, some glowers originally developed it for their own usage, but they decided to release it as free software and let other people improve it for them.
A different group of glowers do not like this at all, as thanks to Tor, they have great difficulties, even impossibilities spying on the online activities of Tor users.
The security of Tor's design has been well researched and has been found to not contain a backdoored.
i2p has more of a focus on in-network routing, rather than exiting to the clearnet and the security of its routing mechanisms has been researched a lot less.
@charlie_root >FREE software. Considering that all BSD's were derived from proprietary Unix's with software being copied under unclear licensing terms, I cannot say that any BSD is free software.
While the current holder of Unix's copyrights does not care and may never care, that's not a guarantee.
A lot of BSDs also do disgusting things like install proprietary software without asking the user (OpenBSD's installer is one example, which installs proprietary software automatically if it detects the hardware could use it).
Almost off of the BSD distros repos have lots of proprietary software programs that don't seem to be even properly marked either.
Most versions of GNU/Linux are proprietary as well, but you clearly shouldn't use those.
>coreboot does not init hardware 100%. A lot of the buck is passed to the Linux kernel. So if you are using BSD you are lucky to boot, with a lot of GPU problems. Otherwise it's glitchy screen and a really unstable boot. Well, this doesn't apply to me as I don't use OS's that are an embarrassment to run: https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=2oLuJSFZKEs (by a cuck to proprietary software of course).
>they we're unable to run BSD's properly Why would I want to run proprietary software?
Hey faggot. BSD's are FREE software. Free, Open, Net, all operate in the same manner and administration as Linux distros. So drop the pretensious bullshit.
>Coreboot machines do actually brick and have issues. Please advise me of any failures you have heard
I can't quote anything on reddit because of the current api strike, r/openbsd is literally unusable right now or I would. But I was the principal guy that showcased this, so basically coreboot does not init hardware 100%. A lot of the buck is passed to the Linux kernel. So if you are using BSD you are lucky to boot, with a lot of GPU problems. Otherwise it's glitchy screen and a really unstable boot.
@dcc Yes, there are a few BadExits, but they're constantly being searched for and kicked off the network once found.
Tor's design accounts for a certain percentage of compromised relays in the network to ensure that most users retain privacy despite the glowers nodes.
@dcc I can't be bothered to read the whole thing, but skimming it, I don't see anything to do with Tor.
All I see is: (U) As prescribed in our terms of reference (TOR) and the report seems to be merely about the usage of "commercially available information".
@dcc >you have control of your software when you have none I have pretty good control of the GNU software on my machine.
>people use gpl code behind the back of everyone. Why don't you look up what happens to businesses that try at infringing the copyright of the FSF?
Businesses may get away for using GPLv{2,3}'d code in proprietary software for a while, but they're taking a huge risk, as they will get found out eventually and there will be hell to pay.
Of course businesses are going to infringe the GPLv2 all the time if you fail to actually enforce your license just like most of the Linux developers.
@ringo >just look at what microsoft has done with linux. Until semi-recently, it seems that microsoft was shipping GNU, without Linux ("WSL1"), taking care not to infringe the GPLv{2,3} and making sure to call GNU with the kernel of windows, "Linux".
@dcc You can often tell if a proprietary program has GPL'd code in it by looking at its functionality and then by reverse engineering it.
It's pretty clear what happened if a program has a command line with the exact workings and functionality of GNU readline for example.
Basic reverse engineering techniques usually reveal usage of a GPL'd library very quickly.
Crappy infringing developers often forget to strip symbols and so even just GNU strings can be used to find interesting function names and other strings that exist in the GPL'd libraries.
Beyond that, you can run the program through a decompiler and compare the output of decompiled functions to functions in GPL'd software.
Tools like binwalk are useful too - that can very quickly identify a binary of Linux in a "firmware" update file.
From there, you just need to contact copyright holders and maybe suggest they get a bit of external help from the FSF or the SFC - receiving a strongly worded notice of infringement from a lawyer makes most company execs shit their pants after all.
@Suiseiseki@ringo >if you fail to actually enforce your license well yea tell me how you can prove your gpl code on is a property program? your pissing into the wind
Wrong, not only BSD systems include nonfree software from third parties, they have hundreds of nonfree source files making them nonfree. Hypberola is the only project santizing OpenBSD to make it a properly free operating system, because BSDtards don't give a fuck about free software.