Live data from Hacker News

An Open Letter to Intel

cs.vu.nl

221–230 of 379 posts

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#221
post #21

The guy missed one hell of a point on his resume for better part of a decade! More than that Personal satisfaction would be unimaginable given the magnitude of deployment.

Yeah, Andrew Fucking Tanenbaum needs to expand his resume.

Not to mention that he retired three years ago.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#222
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. His letter point is clearly about widely(1) known debate(2) between him and Linus Torvalds, and ego massage. (1) widely, if you arent 25 years old proverbial "javascript developer" ;-) - as the debate took place in 1992. (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_deb...

Speaking of ego: "if you arent 25 years old proverbial "javascript developer" ;-)" Why is this necessary?

I would think qualifying a claim of such scope as "widely known" would be very much necessary.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#223
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)_/¯

This is like saying North America and Europe don't have freedom because you're not free to kill/abuse/take advantage of the others however you like. Freedom doesn't work like that. The GPL restrictions are for keeping the freedom equal for all parties involved.

And it works great. I know very few software companies that will go anywhere near the thing. Good job GPL /s

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#224
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of ego: "if you arent 25 years old proverbial "javascript developer" ;-)" Why is this necessary?

The same reason Vi versus Emacs internet arguments are necessary.

ed all the way!

[this comment was written in Lynx]

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#225
post #101
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)_/¯

The freedom to deny freedom to others is not freedom. Society at large, particularly in the US, is having trouble with this notion.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Edit: removed silly comment about a personal interaction. The letter has also had addendums making the intent more clear. I will add "shut up on the internet" to the list of things I've learnt from the author) I read this as, for want of a better word, snarky. I'd bet if it wasn't Minix, L4 would have been on the cards. That's another microkernel that runs in coprocessors like your phone's radios that probably nobod…

Snarky? Yeah, in a way. Honestly he just seems a little hurt that they didn't extend the courtesy of letting him know what they were going. But at the end he admits that he's the one who picked that license.

> But at the end he admits that he's the one who picked that license.

He's talking about publishing code. The BSD license explicitly requires including the license somewhere (anywhere, really).

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#227
post #151
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…

If you have worked years on something, you rather want people to use it then for all work to be in vain. Even if that means giving up all rights.

It depends I think on a few things; one, finance. I think he's making plenty of money with his books and his career at the university, so I don't think that's a problem for him. Two, morals. If Minix was used in e.g. ballistic missiles (which it might just be) I'm sure he'd have objections - even if there's nothing he could legally do about it due to the license, as acknowledged in this letter too.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#229
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

He did cover those points in the letter: > 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. Tanenbaum: Some people have pointed out online that if MINIX had a GPL license, Intel might not have used it since then it would have…

Tanenbaum has clearly been updating and editing his later added note; I saw an earlier version that didn't include the parts in parentheses and a few other parts.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#230
From the Network World report:

> If you have a modern Intel CPU (released in the last few years) with Intel’s Management Engine built in, you’ve got another complete operating system running that you might not have had any clue was in there: MINIX.

That's different from Mr. Tannenbaum's claim:

> Thanks for putting a version of MINIX 3 inside the ME-11 management engine chip used on almost all recent desktop and laptop computers in the world.

What about all of the AMD system, or the systems that were built before IME 11 (or that just don't have it)?

Post reply on HN