/tech/ - Technology★

Core- or libreboot your machines + me_remover

>>1050289

i was looking at this. Do I have to open my pc and mount clips and a raspberry pi to do this?

Hoping theres a way to do it from the OS

>>1050289

>>1050290

can i flash a usb drive and do it that way?

>>1050290

You must flash it using wires, sorry. After that though, you can do a lot internal since you have libreboot. You can flash Me_remover internally after having flashed libreboot.

>>1050291

First time, no.

It has to be hardware flashed. After that though you can software modify the ship, unless you write protect the chip, at which point you would have to hardware flash again. The guides on libreboot.org are very thorough though.

Modded a QuadCore into a T500 and recently got a x200. Great experience, can only recommend it.

If the US government wanted to get you they'd get you whatever you do.

>>1050299

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"

-Joseph Goebbels

I'm not doing anything illegal, I just want a non backdoored PC because I'm a businessman and I don't want cyberjews in my PC

PSP can be disabled (according to AMD) and it's not nearly as malicious as IME since it can't do half the shit IME does.

>>1050287 (OP)

>Is it worth buying a new laptop with ME disabled?

No it isn't because by doing that, you still support Intel or AMD with your money. That's the reason, I won't buy an old Thinkpad, Purism's laptops or Librem 5 phone.

Better wait and buy completely libre hardware, without backdoors by design.

https://www.crowdsupply.com/libre-risc-v/m-class

https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop

>>1050302

>"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"

>-Joseph Goebbels

Don't use this shitty argument ever again. Everyone should have right for having privacy, no matter what they do.

>>1050421

>PSP can be disabled (according to AMD) and it's not nearly as malicious as IME since it can't do half the shit IME does.

Yeah, tried this on friend's computer. Just a placebo switch. You can't disable PSP nor "Secure" (restricted) boot.

You can't trust nonfree software, without having the source code and compiling it yourself, you don't have no guarantee.

>>1050447

>you don't have no guarantee.

*you have no guarantee

>>1050443

Joseph Goebbels was a propagandist for Nazi Germany.

>>1050459

>Joseph Goebbels was a propagandist for Nazi Germany.

Yes, I know so? Does it make this argument true?

I hate this argument, because normies often use it, when I tell them about proprietary software, spyware, invigilation, etc.

>>1050464

Mate how dense are you? You agree with him yet you're arguing. Try reading what he wrote again and read who said it a few more times.

>>1050494

Listen, I love the Nazis just as much as you or anyone. But just because he was a Nazi, that doesn't mean he was right about everything. I think it's important we stop idolizing these people, and realize that they were humans who made mistakes. How do you think Goebbels would have felt if he had known it was jews doing the spying and not him?

>>1050448

you don't with open source either (see heartbleed)

>>1050447

It's something to worry about, sure, but PSP is still significantly less malicious.

>>1050443

I can see an exception for buying old Intel/AMD hardware that can be freed. Intel/AMD doesn't see any money from that purchase. I doubt many people buying a new PC base that decision on if they can sell their old one.

>>1050525

Open source isn't a guarantee for anything. All it guarantees is that any person is allowed to improve the quality of the software. If nobody cares to look at the code, then obviously the quality doesn't improve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRUxfxp9dJ8

if you are trying to be NSA proof, then ME is the least of your worries. i would bet Satoshi's billion dollar Bitcoin fortune that NSA was exploiting all of the MELTDOWN and SPECTRE and VISA speculative execution flaws and secret debugging channels as of years ago. if it computes, the NSA can fuck you. and i fully expect NSA has dozens more low level CPU attacks that nobody in the Low Side civ world has even thought of. you have to realize that NSA is reading and listening to everything written or said by every engineer at Intel and AMD and all of their subcontractors and suppliers.

why do you think NSA is so seemingly irrationally paranoid about the hacking China does against us, with General Hayden once calling China's scale of hacking "breathtaking"? because NSA is watching China hack us from the MOSFET transistors, though they can't tell us how they know what they know, so you just have to trust us, because when have we ever lied to you before and even if you cannot trust us, whonthe fuck else do you have to help defend you, so it's our way or the Huawei.

you know how Saddam Hussein or Baghdadi never slept in the same place every night, and thereby avoid drone strikes and SEAL kill raids? the only way to be 100% NSA proof is to throw away your computer each day and use a new clean one. we are not yet to the point where computers are single use disposable, but we are getting close, with perfectly usable used laptops for sale on Craigslist and ebay for $100. so if you want to be safe from State level attacks on low level CPU internals, it's going to cost you money. but i wouldn't expect being NSA proof to be free anyways, because that would mean NSA truly is a failure at their job across the board and their entire budget woukd be wasted for nothing if just anyone could trivially escape from the Eye of Sauron.

if you aren't capable of flashing yourself, you probably don't understand basic security to begin with

I've got an x60 which is really easy to flash but its more interesting to play with coreboot than to come up with reasons why its necessary

>>1050525

>you don't with open source either (see heartbleed)

<It was introduced into the software in 2012 and publicly disclosed in April 2014

Just two years. Think about meltdown and spectre - every processor since 1995 up to 2018. Bugs happen, even in free software, but in proprietary software it is harder to see how the program works - it is harder to find a bug. Proprietary software is mainly audited by crackers, because people are less intrested in helping a company improving their product, whereas free software users are more intrested in security of a program, because everyone can use, modify, etc.

I for example report bugs only to free software developers, because I have something in exchange - great software I own. If nonfree software has a bug I don't bother reporting it, because it is business of company making money out of it.

Also compare Linux kernel security and stability with Microsoft NT kernel, the latter is fucking garbage.

>>1050545

>If nobody cares to look at the code, then obviously the quality doesn't improve.

If you use abandonware, don't be suprised if it contains bugs. If a program is free software and is maintained devs, users, white hats and crackers check if the code is safe. When a program is proprietary only devs are allowed to check the code.

>>1050603

>Just two years.

"just" two years in an incredibly popular, critical, and completely open codebase.

>Also compare Linux kernel security and stability with Microsoft NT kernel, the latter is fucking garbage.

Imagine actually believing this holy shit, Linux on desktop is a security nightmare that is only relatively safe because nobody cares about it.

>>1050612

>anyone not enthusiastic about my mediocre thread is a jew

shoo Schlomo

>>1050603

FYI certain Intel Atom boards are unaffected by Spectre/Meltdown and can be flashed with Libreboot.

>>1050673

Just two years compared to over two decades.

>Imagine actually believing this holy shit, Linux on desktop is a security nightmare that is only relatively safe because nobody cares about it.

Everybody cares about GNU/Linux security, because almost all servers run on it. I've never had any malware on GNU/Linux, whereas on Windows Vista they installed themselves, without any user help. Same with W10. You probably have never used any free software, or have never used any Microsoft's product. Code made by corporations is often spaghetti code, written by programmers, that just don't want to starve.

Read about your glorious NT kernel yourself.

http://blog.zorinaq.com/i-contribute-to-the-windows-kernel-we-are-slower-than-other-oper/

>>1050603

>Think about meltdown and spectre - every (((intel))) processor since 1995 up to 2018.

FTFY

>>1050287 (OP)

>Is it worth buying a new laptop with ME disabled?

you cannot disable ME

>>1050289

>Core- or libreboot your machines + me_remover

this is scam. there are no proofs me_remover fully removes ME

>>1050421

>PSP can be disabled (according to AMD)

false, it cannot be disabled. you can only disable it for yourself, so you cannot use it, but israel still can use it on your PC

>>1050545

>Open source isn't a guarantee for anything. All it guarantees is that any person is allowed to improve the quality of the software. If nobody cares to look at the code, then obviously the quality doesn't improve.

open source is shitty scam. how can you improve Sorosfox browser if it has 10 million lines and to compile it you need a supercomputer?

>>1050603

>Just two years. Think about meltdown and spectre - every processor since 1995 up to 2018.

show proof that every processor since 1995 is affected, jew

>how can you improve Sorosfox browser if it has 10 million lines and to compile it you need a supercomputer

The same way you run a marathon, build the great wall of China, or build the city of Rome. You do it one step at a time.

>>1050302

>Misquoting hard

>>1050788

>open source is shitty scam. how can you improve Sorosfox browser if it has 10 million lines and to compile it you need a supercomputer?

Yes, but free software is not.

And still some people modify firefox, e.g. the guy form GNU Icecat. He removes the malware himself, alone and still it works. Web is bloated for sure, but having 10 milion lines of code is still better than having binary. I think the WWW is bloated on purpose, so big corporations can have power over it, because it is hard to be compilant with w3c's "standards".

>show proof that every processor since 1995 is affected, jew

Nothing is affected, you're safe, don't think about it, goy.

https://meltdownattack.com/#faq-systems-meltdown

<More technically, every Intel processor which implements out-of-order execution is potentially affected, which is effectively every processor since 1995 (except Intel Itanium and Intel Atom before 2013).

Ok not every every, but almost everything.

>>1050289

Good luck doing that on anything that isn't an outdated thinkpad

>>1050679

>Just two years compared to over two decades.

There is no "just" with either of those amounts of time, they're both so long it's clear the bug was found purely by chance and not by proper auditing.

>Everybody cares about GNU/Linux security, because almost all servers run on it.

Linux on server is a very different thing than linux on desktop for security purposes: different expected configurations, different software running, different network rules...

Same goes for windows vs windows server.

>You probably have never used any free software, or have never used any Microsoft's product.

You couldn't be more wrong

>linking to some LARPer pretending to work at MS on HackerJews

Bitch please, is that your blog?

>>1050838

>Linux on server is a very different thing than linux on desktop for security purposes: different expected configurations, different software running, different network rules...

Linux is just a kernel, GNU/Linux is the system. Kernel is the same, both on desktop and server, until you're not using SELinux or kernel of *BSD. And it's up to you what distribution, kernel, configuration, software and network rules you use. A retarded user is always going to break something.

I used windows server 2008 and it was a total piece of shit - configuration you made just disappeard, it was buggy and slow and you have to pay for providing services for more than X clients. It is more stable and secure than windows for desktop, but still is nonfree software controlled by Microsoft containing backdoors. How is that safe?

>Bitch please, is that your blog?

No and I've been in a corporation before and saw what a shitty code they make, even if he didn't actually work for Microsoft, this pasta is a close one. 50 commits one day after deadline at friday, so many merge conflicts... I don't think microsoft is any different.

>>1050612

>do it goy! Do that totally useless thing that will provide a false sense of security so you do something and get caught

See I can do it too

>>1050877

>Linux is just a kernel, GNU/Linux is the system.

Kill yourself.

Repeating some shitty points from an autistic pasta everybody and their mum knows about is not witty, is not interesting, and serves no purpose besides masturbatory ego-stroking.

>>1050896

Go to sleep Torvalds

>>1050673

>>1050891

>This thing you propose to do at little to no cost is ineffectual, that's why it matters so much to me that I must try to convince anonymous strangers on the internet not to do it.

>>1050896

If you're continually confusing Linux to be an operating system in itself, then the points will need to be repeating. Linux is not an operating system in itself.

>>1050896

>I call Android devices Linux instead of android

That's how dumb you are.

>>1050584

32 bit cpu i guess?

i need a 64 bit

>>1050935

the bios works on any version of the core2duo found in an x60.

The firmware itself is a 16-bit real-mode application (or maybe just seabios is).

My X60 is T7200 (64-bit) and runs libreboot (now the NSA knows lmao).

Follow the libreboot guide before reading coreboot wiki, their version of the flashrom utility is patched to support the specific chips.

coreboot wiki is outdated for most thinkpads, but useful if you want to try seabios, tina (EFI), or put a DOS floppy or linux kernel in your flash.

>>1051063

I should mention that GRUB2 that ships with libreboot has somewhat spotty USB support, so installing an OS from a CD or thumbdrive can be hit or miss. The way I install linux on GRUB2 is loopback install (directly load vmlinuz / initrd from an ISO stored on my home partition).

>>1050302

Everyone has something to hide. If you don't, the why do you wear pants when you go outside?

>>1050443

>risc-v

Even when it's available, it will be a long time before it has proper support for a desktop pc. What do you do until then?

>>1050915

It's not remarkable that Stallman insists on attaching the name of his pet project to Linux. After all, Linus succeeded where the GNU Project failed, and Stallman's massive ego wouldn't allow him to just graciously accept the relative importance of GNU in the free software/open source world. No, he has to autistically screech "AKSHUALLY IT'S GAHNOO PLUS LEENOOKS," as he does whenever anyone fails to use his idiosyncratic terminology for things.

What's remarkable is that he's gotten so many limp-wristed dimwits to go along with it. I guess autism is catching.

Many people have pointed out that, in the end, Stallman's legacy will be mixed. Ironically, plenty of people who care about free software will be able to say after his demise, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." From the autocratic way he runs the GNU project to his general obnoxiousness driving people away from GNU (and the GPL) and into the arms of things like LLVM/clang, I think the final assessment of the man will be that, while he was brilliant, he was sometimes the worst enemy of (or at least the worst advocate for) the movement he started. And the FSF is basically a big tax dodge to enrich a few Jew lawyers (seriously, look at their financials).

Once you get out of the GNUsphere (and 4/tech/ and 8/tech/ are very much part of it, rare posters excepted) and start reading the recollections of people who've had to interact with him over the years (especially the other hackers at the MIT AI lab, who take issue with Stallman on many of his claims about that time) you start to realize that Stallman is a self-aggrandizing self-promoter whose autism seems to sharpen rather than blunt his basic viciousness, and not the absent-minded professor/righteous folk hero type that many here seem to view him as.

So fuck him, and fuck GNU, and fuck you, too.

IT'S JUST LINUX

>>1050834

>https://meltdownattack.com/#faq-systems-meltdown

<More technically, every Intel processor which implements out-of-order execution is potentially affected, which is effectively every processor since 1995 (except Intel Itanium and Intel Atom before 2013).

>Ok not every every, but almost everything.

it says every (((Intel))) processor, not every processor, nigger. Only retarded people buy Intel hardware, so smart people were never affected by this

>>1051074

It's remarkable that people want to overload the Linux name to mean multiple related ideas simultaneously. What Stallman actually wants is clarity in ideas. Conflating the Linux name to mean anything more than the OS kernel program is a mistake in clear thinking.

>tfw toughbook owner

>intel i5

Can you imagine how many government pc's and laptops are compromised? How many foreign operations, top secret documents, police and military operations. So many things can be captured by that PRISM program. How much we may never know. It would be sweet if there was a company producing non compromised toughbook hardware.

>>1051100

AMD processors are only affected by spectre, same ARM, but still PSP and TrustZone. You have to be dumb to buy computer at all.

>>1051074

Linux didn't even existed, when GNU was started.

What you call "Linux" would be a headless operating system. Open sauce idiots, and people, who give all credits to Torvalds don't even know what's the mission of the operating system.

The first distribution - Debian was called "GNU/Linux" by it's developers, not GNU, not Linux. That means, people who say "Linux" were wrong even back then, when Linux was added to GNU.

Torvalds have started adding nonfree blobs to the kernel in 1995, and his kernel was proprietary, before it was merged with GNU. Torvalds doesn't care about freedom, so I don't know why some people think name of his kernel should be the name of the complete operating system, which purpose was orginally to give freedom to all software users. Also GNU works fine without linux with other kernels - kernel of FreeBSD, with Darwin and with the Hurd. Adding just a kernel of FreeBSD, doesn't make GNU a BSD distribution. Adding darwin, doesn't make GNU a OSX distribution. A kernel isn't a complete operating system.

>It's not remarkable that Stallman insists on attaching the name of his pet project to Linux.

He is not attaching GNU name to the kernel, the kernel is Linux, but a kernel isn't a complete operating system.

>IT'S JUST LINUX

I would like to see you running only the kernel on your computer.

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html

>>1051131

based

>>1051133

LARP

linux is the kernel

>>1051618

gnu is not an operating system

>>1051635

GNU / ɡ n uː / is an operating system

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU

>>1051635

>Android is not an operating system

>>1051113

>It's remarkable that people want to overload the Linux name to mean multiple related ideas simultaneously.

Welcome to human language, you fucking autist.

>What Stallman actually wants is clarity in ideas.

Bullshit. "Clarity in ideas" would mean calling "GNU/Linux" "GNU/Linux/LLVM/Freedesktop" etc., either by line count or importance to the typical user experience. Stallman has anticipated this argument and has said that he has no problem with long, convoluted naming like this, but he doesn't insist on it, because it has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with "clarity in ideas" and everything to do with his fragile ego and forcing people to credit GNU. Stallman is inconsistent and dishonest, and anyone who adopts his naming is a faggot fanboy.

>>1051131

You ESL cocksmoker:

>Linux didn't even existed, when GNU was started.

Irrelevant.

>What you call "Linux" would be a headless operating system.

Headless or not, it's an OS without GNU. Thanks for acknowledging that.

>The first distribution - Debian was called "GNU/Linux" by it's developers, not GNU, not Linux. That means, people who say "Linux" were wrong even back then, when Linux was added to GNU.

The Debian faggots are not the arbiters of what's right and wrong. They're welcome to call their distro whatever they want. That doesn't mean that Stallman gets to insist that every Linux distro that bundles some GNU software is "GNU/Linux."

>Torvalds have started adding nonfree blobs to the kernel in 1995, and his kernel was proprietary, before it was merged with GNU. Torvalds doesn't care about freedom, so I don't know why some people think name of his kernel should be the name of the complete operating system, which purpose was orginally to give freedom to all software users.

Irrelevant. Also non sequitur. Also factually daft, as Torvalds didn't set out to complete the GNU operating system, which has never been completed, because lol HURD.

>Also GNU works fine without linux with other kernels

And Linux works fine without GNU, with musl libc, Bionic libc, busybox, etc.

>I would like to see you running only the kernel on your computer.

Entirely possible. But not very useful, so I do use a variety of GNU and other software. But I don't call the OS Linux/GNU/openssh/Xorg/Firefox/etc. because I'm not a fucking idiot like you.

Here's a fun little gedankenexperiment for you, based on your own admission. What do you call Linux without GNU? A "headless OS." What do you call GNU without Linux? A bunch of fucking shit that can't run a computer, that's what. GNU still insists on calling their incomplete pile of shit an OS in itself, though, because of their enormous asshurt about the failure of HURD. Sad.

Suck a cock, GNUfag.

>>1051893

<>Linux didn't even existed, when GNU was started.

>Irrelevant.

Why? That's not how you prove someone is wrong.

>Irrelevant. Also non sequitur. Also factually daft, as Torvalds didn't set out to complete the GNU operating system, which has never been completed, because lol HURD.

Lol, guys from GNU did everything but the kernel, they didn't started GNU to complete Linux either, Trovlads did just a kernel. Following your logic, Linux was never completed too. You're marginalizing important parts of an operating system - compiler, libc, shell etc.

>What do you call Linux without GNU?

It depends. Kernel alone is Linux, but it could be used inside an operating system, then I'll just use the name of that operating system, for example Android, RouterOS, etc. NOT LINUX.

>What do you call GNU without Linux?

GNU. But when it uses a different kernel it is useful to add the name of kernel, that was added, to make people sure, they're not using a standard GNU/Linux distribution, e.g. GNU/kFreeBSD, GNU/darwin, GNU/Hurd (this one is specific, because it could be called just GNU).

>But I don't call the OS Linux/GNU/openssh/Xorg/Firefox/etc.

openssh - not an operating system

Xopg - not an operating system

Firefox - not an operating system

etc. - not an operating system

These projects didn't mean to be operating systems.

Look, GNU was started first in 1984 - the point was to create a complete operating and free operating system. Linux was started in 1991 as a hobby operating system. He ported GNU software to his kernel - pieces of the GNU operating system. Debian devs decided to name the system GNU/Linux, but at the time, GNU devs had done more work, than Linux devs - even the Hurd was work in progress. Everyone wanted to have a free operating system, so they used Linux as a kernel. They could just call it GNU, but they didn't, because they respected their contribution. That was a mistake, because now almost no one respects GNU.

Torvald's mail:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.minix/dlNtH7RRrGA/SwRavCzVE7gJ

Hello everybody out there using minix -

I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.  This has been brewing
since april, and is starting to get ready.  I'd like any feedback on
things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
(same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
among other things). 

I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work.
This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and
I'd like to know what features most people would want.  Any suggestions
are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)

                Linus (torv...@kruuna.helsinki.fi)

PS.  Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.
It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(. 

Read the FAQ:

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html

>Suck a cock, GNUfag.

Where are your programming socks, eh? Torvalds?

>>1051992

The mail in code tags made me mistake this for a lispfag post the first time.