SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Professor Andrew S. Tanenbaum from the Department of Computer Science at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam wrote "An Open Letter to Intel" regarding Intel's use of MINIX 3 to run the Intel Management Engine (video) built into their processors:
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. I guess that makes MINIX the most widely used computer operating system in the world, even more than Windows, Linux, or MacOS. And I didn't even know until I read a press report about it. Also here and here and here and here and here (in Dutch), and a bunch of other places.
[...] Note added later: Some people have pointed out online that if MINIX had a GPL license, Intel might not have used it since then it would have had to publish the modifications to the code. Maybe yes, maybe no, but the modifications were no doubt technical issues involving which mode processes run in, etc. My understanding, however, is that the small size and modular microkernel structure were the primary attractions. Many people (including me) don't like the idea of an all-powerful management engine in there at all (since it is a possible security hole and a dangerous idea in the first place), but that is Intel's business decision and a separate issue from the code it runs. A company as big as Intel could obviously write its own OS if it had to. My point is that big companies with lots of resources and expertise sometimes use microkernels, especially in embedded systems. The L4 microkernel has been running inside smartphone chips for years.
Professor Tanenbaum did the initial design and development of MINIX, a microkernel used primarily for teaching. He has helped guide it through the years as a small community around it has grown. Lately it has adopted much of the NetBSD userspace. The IME is a full operating system system running inside x86 computers. It gets run before whatever system on the actual hard disk even starts booting.
Related: Intel Management Engine Partially Defeated
EFF: Intel's Management Engine is a Security Hazard
Disabling Intel ME 11 Via Undocumented Mode
How-To: Disabling the Intel Management Engine
Positive Technologies - Learn and Secure : Intel ME: The Way of Static Analysis (takyon: I marked this one to not display at the time since it was a blog post from April and ran within hours of the preceding IME story.)
Purism Disables Intel Management Engine on Librem Laptops
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:18PM (20 children)
So "I'm ethically opposed to this, but you used my software, which massages my ego about microkernels so thanks"? Gee, thanks for making a stand, dude.
Sigh. If it were me I wouldn't draw attention to the shadowy conspiracy that's taking advantage of my generosity.
Guy sounds like a bit of an ivory tower twat; no wonder Linus didn't get along with him.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:25PM (2 children)
The word "preening" comes to mind.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by DannyB on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:32PM (1 child)
How is the -p option of fsck relevant?
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:51PM
Not the first definition, the third or fifth.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Arik on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:27PM (8 children)
And he's a very smart guy with a rare knack for designing systems properly.
I agree with his distate for the ME as currently done, and further I'm not sure his 'your choice/business decision' apologetics is sufficient or even accurate, but that, too, is a different point which doesn't need to be beaten into the ground.
He's spent his life on a very useful codebase, gifted it to everyone, and it's being used by virtually everyone every day. And Intel didn't even bother to let him know they were using it, as a courtesy. I'd say the guy has every right to kvetch a bit more than he did.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:49PM (2 children)
Not that I'm arguing for Intel here. Not at all.
I can understand1 why Intel would not notify him that every processor is running his MINIX. Because Intel is (rightfully) ashamed of the management engine and wants to keep it as low key as possible. Now everyone seems to know about management engine and nobody seems to like it. Is it any wonder why Intel would keep this quiet and not notify Professor Tanenbaum ?
1Understanding a POV doesn't mean I like it
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:42PM
The issue is Intel CANNOT keep it secret or low profile. It must go in the docs. So it should had been known long ago, as soon as they announced they had "this new ME thing that is good for you"™.
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=22467&page=1&cid=594246#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @11:22PM
Were they obliged to specify where the software was installed? if they merely put the license at the end of the manual with the preamble "this device works thanks to a modified version of software covered by the following license"? One might think it's some networking code used to boot.
A corporation should be never excused for this kind of behavior anyway. They can afford a lawyer or two.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:21PM (3 children)
Once Tanenbaum was told, he would go shoot his mouth off all the places, the ego-driven twit that he is.
"INTEL RUNS MY MINIX ON THEIR IME BACKDOOR!!!111!!"
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday November 08 2017, @08:59PM
Yes, but more politely.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Demena on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:28AM (1 child)
“Ego-driven”
Yeah, right. Ever compared his statements with Linus’s statements? Obliviously not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:51AM
I went through the whole flamewar between tanaenbaum and linus way back when. Linus was a young asshole, but tanenbaum was, and apparently still remains, an entitled jackass.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday November 08 2017, @07:24PM
Given the license, it's not as if he has any sort of recourse other than like it or don't.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:32PM
Consider for a moment how every possible method of contact for him his probably been flooded since the moment it was reported that Intel was using MINIX. "Have you heard about this?" "Did you know they were doing this?" "Did they tell you they were using MINIX?" "Are you working with them on this?" "what do you think about this?" "If you GPL'd it, this wouldn't have happened?" and so on, ad nauseum. Perhaps you would consider making a public and visible statement about the subject as well.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @06:11PM (5 children)
Awesome! As a user of a computer running this code on a chip, how do I exercise my freedom with regard to that code?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @06:47PM
Easy: you don't pay money for or use the crippled products that don't respect your freedoms!
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday November 08 2017, @11:34PM (3 children)
I think he referred to users of the license itself, that is devs modifying the software under the terms of the license. End users or any downstream tinkerer are SOL. That is considered a freedom by Tanenbaum. You have the freedom to close up your modifications. Which is BS, because then an even freer license is the following: "to use or modify this software you agree to award me, the creator, all your money and the jus primae noctis". It's quite a lot of freedom, granted to the creator only.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:32AM (2 children)
But those are developers. Users are the ones that get shafted by this - and everyone else closing up open code.
Calling developers "users" is an insult to developers, and pretending that the "freedom to make software closed source" gives freedom to users is an insult to users.
To pretend that the BSD license gives more freedom than the GPL, you either have to dishonest like a Bill Gates era Microsoft shill, or be so religiously pro-BSD that you fail to see the weaknesses of the license (such as the BSD guy (I think it was Theo) who complained that Linux developers would incorporate BSD code into Linux, slapping the GPL on it, while not acknowledging that the BSD license specifically allows this, and if they wanted more control about what developers can do with the code they should have used the GPL in the first place).
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:33PM
The BSD license's purpose is to maximize freedom for the developers; the GPL's purpose is to maximize freedom for the users, although it also makes it easier for users to develop with it in the process.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @05:17AM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by melikamp on Wednesday November 08 2017, @07:50PM
Prof. Tanenbaum obviously does not use the words "potential users" to refer to actual users of computer systems. By "users" he means exclusively the higher echelon of corporate management in companies like Intel, who are perfectly free to use his code to subjugate millions of actual computer users. Once again, he is certainly NOT talking about computer users, since they have absolutely no access to this modified version of MINIX, despite the fact that MINIX bears a free license, and they cannot use the free version of MINIX in any meaningful, practical way.