Live data from Hacker News

An Open Letter to Intel

cs.vu.nl

51–60 of 379 posts

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#51
post #32
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is part of being passive-aggressive, together with "resentment, fear of intimacy/competition"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior

Which are all just your interpretation of his post.

Indeed!

Which is what sarcasm does :)

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#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?

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#53
post #6
post #4

> when companies have told me that they hate the GPL because they are not keen on spending a lot of time, energy, and money modifying some piece of code, only to be required to give it to their competitors for free Some piece of code that also cost time (and possibly someone's else money) to develop, and that they got for free?

This struck me as bizarre as well. You're thanking someone because you relicensed your hard work so they can use it for free (BSD) and you complied? All for the stated reason that they don't have to relicense their work to other people so they could use it for free? /facepalm It's like some version of the Stockholm syndrome, deserves a name.

MINIX was first and foremost an educational system -- simple OS so that students can see how every OS component works on a real end to end system during a single semester course. And easily try their own changes.

As such wider acceptance is something to celebrate. It might also be a (partial) vindication that an alternative design you absolutely hate and tried to kill is a huge success and is everywhere from supercomputers to cell phones.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#54
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.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#55
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I have run across this before, when companies have told me that they hate the GPL because they are not keen on spending a lot of time, energy, and money modifying some piece of code, only to be required to give it to their competitors for free. These discussions were why we put MINIX 3 out under the Berkeley license in 2000 (after prying it loose from my publisher)."

Nowhere does it say that discussions with Intel in particular motivated the license change away from the GPL. Only discussions with unnamed corporations as long ago as 2000.

Your point being?

It makes absolutely no difference whether the "you cost, me profit" corporation was Intel, Nvidia, Acme Inc or all above.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#56
post #26

It is interesting to see that Andrew S. Tanenbaum released this letter to the public (probably to show that he was not directly involved in deploying Minix to all those chips), while saying that he is okay with the closed source nature, as long as there are good reasons to do so (to prevent causing any problems for him and for the person who made the decision at Intel). Hey Andrew, if you have no problem with Minix r…

That's an absolute non-sequitur and I think you know that. There is no reason that MINIX could not have been used in the ME even if it were GPLd, for example…

Given recent discoveries of secret options to disable the ME, I doubt that Intel would picked code where they would be forced to release the source.

The binary was scrambled. You don't do that if you plan to release the source.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#57

> If nothing else, this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users. Interesting conclusion, considering one of the "features" of the Intel ME is precisely to limit what the final user can do with their computer.

Does it? I think the DRM aspect is managed somewhere else

The backdoor aspect is true, either from three-letter agencies or for corporate locked-down machines

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#58
Well, if Minix was developed on NL and EU taxpayer dime it’s quite disconcerting that it’s now being used to potentially bug the computers of those same taxpayers.

I’m sure nobody would agree to paying for that, so why on earth does this man feel entitled to give away the product of “our” taxes without any restriction

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#59
post #4

> when companies have told me that they hate the GPL because they are not keen on spending a lot of time, energy, and money modifying some piece of code, only to be required to give it to their competitors for free Some piece of code that also cost time (and possibly someone's else money) to develop, and that they got for free?

The main reason to mention GPL specifically is as a side-attack to Linux. This feud has been going on for a looong time.

Finally MINIX is more popular that Linux! Never mind that it's being used as a backdoor.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#60
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…

(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 nobody will ever mention out loud.

Post reply on HN