Re: I wonder why?
Will never be? After Torvalds steps aside, just give it a few years and watch them do it.
It's already time to choose from one of the BSDs.
1218 posts • joined 16 Apr 2018
"Another point worth noting: there's no guarantee the A12Z chip in the Developer Transition Kit will appear in the first consumer Arm-based Macs, which are expected to land later this year. "
The other well-known Developer Transition Kit, the one for PowerPC to x86, had a Pentium 4, while the final release had a Core Duo chip (which was much more powerful).
They would be better off porting to ARM and releasing an ipad pro-pro with full macos.
What I would note is that MS' attempt at ARM laptops have not been a spectacular success and the only place I've seen a lot of Google's devices are those dumped on kids in school.
What about phones, which are pretty much mini PCs without a keyboard?
What about the Raspberry Pi and its clones?
What about ARM servers? (I know that ARM servers tend to be specific-purpose as opposed to general-purpose, but hey, it's there)
This is also hedging lots of bets on your perceived immunocompetence.
It's a little like playing Russian roulette.
As far as it's known from Intel documentation, Intel MEI loads its firmware from an SPI chip on the motherboard, the same one that holds the BIOS/UEFI.
This project's whole point is to keep only a minimum of MEI components that would still permit the CPU to boot (while obliterating ME functionality).
I said x86 (the architecture), not Intel CPUs themselves. Your question was about how the choice of architecture could affect backdoor presence.
Backdoors could be built in any hardware including open-source hardware. You have to have perfect control of the supply chain, from the individual silicon wafers, even the machinery used to cut and process the wafers, to the couriers transporting your finished CPUs. An impossible amount of control, plain and simple, even for nation-states.
Same goes for software. You have to write your own assembly code if you want to be 100% guaranteed to be free of backdoors.
A stateless laptop isn't a Chromebook. It has persistent storage, but that persistent storage is external to the laptop.
The whole concept of stateless means that the laptop itself doesn't have any chips capable of storing anything (including malware) - everything is moved to an external USB stick. Therefore, malware can't persist in firmware on the machine because the user can replace the stick on demand.
Don't know why they don't ... the concept surely makes sense.
You pretty much nailed it here.
Maybe they have a skunkworks project to get their chip to run a full version of macOS, but they haven't demonstrated anything yet.
To be honest, some "practical" proof exists.
Ages ago, the original iPad Air (only the iPad Air) can run Mac OS X Mavericks, because Apple had included ARM binaries of the whole system in the Mavericks release.
Unless you can totally control every partition of that flash storage.
Until you can change out the operating system for anything you might see fit.
Until it runs a real operating system, not a mobile operating system wearing a T-shirt five sizes too big.
The previous release was faster than an i7-8700U, so faster than basically all laptops on the market at the time except gaming laptops and workstation laptops running H-Series chips.
It's a MediaTek chip - so a mixed bag, it may be very easy or nigh-on impossible. And Motonovo phones are traditionally anti-modding.
There are no-root solutions that use a dummy local VPN (that routes your traffic to an app on your device) ... but that's fishy unless the one you use is open source.
If you want a really moddable phone, go for a used flagship model (or low-end if it really has to be new) that has a Qualcomm chip and a leaked/available factory programmer. Xiaomi even officially supplies them (instead of them being leaked like LG's or OnePlus's ones).
A whole lot of Windows versions between 95 and XP existed that did do gradients.
And it's definitely 7, based on the command prompt icon. That's the icon first introduced in Vista, and I sincerely hope this isn't Vista.
The command line background is blue, so it's possibly PowerShell in a Command Prompt window.
1- You gotta be kidding me.
2- What's wrong with the Genius Bar?
5- Done, but look, here's the next-gen Apple USB-C complete with a chip to prevent non-Apple equipment from sipping pure Apple power.
6- Like the latest Surface Laptop with a socketed but still proprietary SSD.
Why is it important for a website I visit to obtain knowledge on my Chrome installation ? I come with a browser, they serve the page, that's the deal. Why is it important that they be notified of any extensions I have ?
To fingerprint your browser (therefore you), so they could track you, so they could target ads depending on which websites you visit.
If I ever have the chance of meeting someone from Google, before shaking their hand I'm going to ask them the brand and size of their underwear, their shoe size, what deodorant they're wearing and how old their socks are. Let's see how they like that.
That's like the analogy I give to laypeople to explain this. Imagine that you're riding a cab when somebody slides into the seat next to you with a clipboard, asking you for where you live, where you work, what your interests are et cetera, jotting down your answers in minute detail. Any sane person would tell them to go mind their own business.
The question is whether we should just silently watch them do it or kick up a stink.
But for this to happen, you need people to realize the big issue. However, on the other side you have:
(a) catchy arguments that ring, are easy to grasp and are mostly true (like the compelling nothing-to-hide argument) ... and:
If what they do is covered in new legislation then we need to apply pressure to ensure the legislation is enforced.
(b) lobbying against almost all hope of an actual implementation of such legislation by megacorps, because there's money to be lost because of such legislation.
Most people don't think of Google of a data mining operation, however misguided they may be.
Some people think that Google is a really nice philanthropic corporation (compared to traditionally ugly ones like the smoking and pharmaceutical ones), offering services for pittance in form of ads. Let them target me, I'm not that significant, such a person would say.
The people that understand and have concerns need to raise those concerns to have a chance of reining Google in.
Brings us back to (a). Scaremongering really works when the scaremonger uses catchy arguments and have lots upon lots of money to back them up.
You've made a mistake here which has proven my point: considering any of this equal to a home or social user.
Not so fast:
It's ok if people screw up doing something recreational because of a UI change when using Twitter/ Facebook/Instagram, or any other non-critical application.
A critical application isn't something that would get many changes and is something that is not supposed to get so many hands on it that retraining its users is a hassle.
Think of a hospital application, since life and death were mentioned.
A hospital application that allows the janitor to prescribe controlled substances is seriously flawed. And a hospital application that has its UI changed with every UX fad is also in deep need of a reality check.
TL;DR: critical applications should not suffer from the issue at hand, unless that critical application is incorrectly implemented.
3. Re-training users regarding updates
I find it odd how users could magically retrain themselves when it comes to Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/$ANTISOCIAL_APP/$PHONE_OS updates and major UI redesigns ... but not when a work system changes something ever so slight ... like Windows updates prior to Windows 8?
Like seriously, is the difference between XP and 7 even close to enough to reconsider retraining?
Though Windows has all the grace of an elephant doing a monkey dance and the virus potential of a public lavatory, it still has to be given credit for being easy to integrate into existing Windows architecture. This include dead-simple control with Group Policies, which I rave about to this very day.
And follow the money. Wherever you have a big megacorp (M$ here), you have potential fat rolls of bills being exchanged under the table (and yes, this had happened before - look up Microsoft and local governments)
Oh, how we would've loved to believe that they are the new cheerful sandal-wearing open-source-loving Microsoft.
No, they are still the old M$. The old Embrace, Extend, Extinguish M$, only this time, they've realised how Google and Amazon are exploiting FOSS to their own ends ... and they are aiming for a slice of the pie.
From Azure hosting Linux instances to this (and everything in between), it's all about grabbing the market share.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020