(no title)
guylhem | 11 years ago
As you clearly say, your job is to serve your clients, the manufacturers who do not want their BIOSes to be replaced with something else like coreboot.
You say "Intel has to consider the needs of the system manufacturer along with the end user", but the balance is obviously slanted in one direction. The reason is simple: we end users are not your customers.
As pointed out before, the trickiest issues are with Intel ME and AMT, who can not be removed except on the X200. Otherwise, the luckiest machines will reboot every 30 minutes only. The others won't boot.
You say "Making firmware more open and more secure is an interesting balancing act, and I hope we work towards getting it right". I'm sorry but you don't. Having a backdoor that the physical owner of the machine can not remove is neither secure nor open. If there was a jumper than could be used by the knowledgeable end user to override all his, yes. There is no such things, only barriers.
This is a nice PR attempt to deflect the heat towards Lenovo (for the thinkpads), but sorry, that's vacuous.
There is a moral responsibility in a given design.
At the moment, this is at best the moral equivalent of making weapons without a safety and saying it's not your fault if they can harm the end user, and that the end user should direct the complains to whoever is selling these defective guns. Sorry, but I disagree.
pgeorgi|11 years ago