Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Open Letter to Intel

cs.vu.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 379 posts

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#111

Post by jcelerier »

Wintamute wrote: post #96
geocar wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You seem to be having a problem understanding why people would be motivated to release genuinely free software. Yes, I do have a problem understanding why people work for free. I don't see cops working for free, or bankers, or chip designers, or the guy who served my dinner working for free. Even Andrew doesn't work for free. I can understand licensing software that was built or purchased using [socialist] tax doll…

How are you paying Andrew? That makes no sense.

with whose money do you think researchers are paid ?

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#112

Post by varjag »

jhasse wrote: post #103
gtrubetskoy wrote: post #80

All Dr. Tanenbaum is saying is that it would have been the classy thing to let him know, nothing more. Professor Tanenbaum is one of the most respected computer scientists alive, and for Intel to include Minix in their chip and not let him know is kind of unprofessional and not very nice to say the least. That is his only (and quite fair) point.

> and for Intel to include Minix in their chip and not let him know is kind of unprofessional and not very nice to say the least. I guess Minix' license, which allows this kind of behaviour, is the very reason Intel chose Minix in the first place. I imagine it would be very complicated to get management approval for informing Dr. Tannenbaum about the usage in Intel's ME. IMHO if he has a problem with the way things w…

BSD 3-clause license requires that as well.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#113

Post by jcelerier »

samat wrote: post #101
rbanffy wrote: post #89

> this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users I'm sorry, but I don't feel free because of that. What I see is that I have proprietary code I never saw, never vetted and which I don't (and shouldn't) trust that's running on all my computers (not all, but you can get it) and that I don't have the freedom to remove, examine, modify or replace. Th…

This is exactly one distributing thing about GPL religion - they keep using word ‘free’ to describe one of the most restrictive open source licenses. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> one of the most restrictive

restrictive for the developers. GPL freedom is for the users before anything.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#114

Post by jhasse »

Wintamute wrote: post #96
geocar wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You seem to be having a problem understanding why people would be motivated to release genuinely free software. Yes, I do have a problem understanding why people work for free. I don't see cops working for free, or bankers, or chip designers, or the guy who served my dinner working for free. Even Andrew doesn't work for free. I can understand licensing software that was built or purchased using [socialist] tax doll…

How are you paying Andrew? That makes no sense.

taxes

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#115

Post by Radim »

pulse7 wrote: post #12
amelius wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And it also allows others (e.g. the three-letter agencies) to spy on the user. I wonder how Tanenbaum feels about all that.

If Minix's license wouldn't be BSD, they would use some other BSD licensed OS or develop it's own...

Does this argument have a name? "If I didn't do [SOME HORRIBLE THING X], someone else would, so I might as well do it myself?"

When googling, I only found this: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/3wclk6/even_...

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#116

Post by agumonkey »

gtrubetskoy wrote: post #80

All Dr. Tanenbaum is saying is that it would have been the classy thing to let him know, nothing more. Professor Tanenbaum is one of the most respected computer scientists alive, and for Intel to include Minix in their chip and not let him know is kind of unprofessional and not very nice to say the least. That is his only (and quite fair) point.

Is it close to being the most used OS with the IME embedding ? lots of mainstream devices don't use Intel chips...

I'm sure A.Tannenbaum is flattered (and duly so, Minix 3 is very interesting) but I'm feeling he's patting himself on the back here.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#117

Post by gpvos »

simias wrote: post #11

I can't tell if this is earnest or 2nd degree. Can people more familiar with Mr Tanenbaum's style enlighten me? Because if this is earnest I'm quite seriously baffled. I don't mind BSD at all and I won't comment on the political side of things but why on earth would you rejoice that you worked for free (I assume?) for Intel only to have your work end up in some user-hostile module forced on the users? Is Tanenbaum eg…

He was my prof. This is clearly his style, he is being earnest. Also, this has been the address of his web site ever since the web started. Also see his later added note: Many people don't like the idea of the management engine in there at all, but that is a separate issue from the code it runs.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#118

Post by signa11 »

is it just me, or other folks here as well, also got the inkling that this was just a veiled gloat ? not so sure if being complicit in intel's ME racket is such a great honor...

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#119

Post by jhasse »

jvdh wrote: post #54
Crontab wrote: post #52

I don't understand why people put stuff out under the Berkley License and then complain about a lack of credit or a lack of reimbursement (in support or money) for the use of their code. Isn't that the actual point of the license?

The point of the letter is that there is something as being polite. Intel telling him about it at some point would have been polite.

> Intel telling him about it at some point would have been polite.

Intel has paid one billion to AMD to settle a law suit. I wouldn't expect a company which doesn't refrain from illegal activities to be polite.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#120

Post by jhasse »

pjmlp wrote: post #95
therealmarv wrote: post #86

nah, Linus Torvalds wins. I really really doubt that Minix is more deployed than Linux... just think of three examples (and there are probably many more examples): * Linux in all variants running in billions of VMs and Containers. * Android. * There are not only Intel chips out there. So Kudos to Dr. Tanenbaum but adding all numbers I don't think we have Minix nearly as much deployed as Linux ;)

When Fuchsia gets more mature you can eventually remove Android from that list. The stable NDK APIs are not Linux specific, ANSI C and C++ libraries are OS agnostic, and as of Android 8 the syscalls are white listed.

Let's wait and see.

When that happens Intel might as well have replaced MINIX in the ME.

Post reply on HN