There is always Linux.

And no, it would not really be feasible to set up a factory to create all the old stuff. For one, there is not near enough demand to make it profitable. Secondly, unless things such as copyrights and patents cease to exist, much of what was would have to be licensed.

aries-mu wrote on Yesterday, 11:59:

Assuming money wasn't a problem (dreaming here), do you think it could be possible to found a full-stack production factory from scratch, to remake everything, from motherboards to video cards... all the specs... ISA, EISA, MicroChannel, PCI stuff, CPUs, RAM, HDD (tho I wouldn't mind to hybridize everything into SSDs), etcetera...?
It wouldn't require ultra modern expensive production tech such as 7 micron stuff and similar. I would hope with modern advancements in production, making those old cans would be a piece of cake... but I am neither an engineer nor an electronics guy... any opinions here too?

I'll speak on the hardware manufacturing part of your question. I'm not sure if this is my opinion, or just explaining things.

Anything under around 32nm there are significant issues on getting yield without resorting to extraordinary methods that are now in production. It gets SIGNIFICANTLY worse around 10nm and lower, and becomes a nightmare under 5nm. There is no realistic path to start bootstrapping the only new equipment that are only made for these current nodes, that were never really needed for your retro hardware. The upfront investment will make your full-stack production factory from scratch will turn your 80's CPU into a billion dollar chip that a few people want.

The best option is to find one of these previous gen factories from about 10+ years back (relatively old) old fabs and start convincing them to open up their design kits for experimenters. There are a few rumblings towards this in the past several years, but those companies seem to be faltering, IMO due to the chips act making all money pour into 3nm/2nm/A14 brand new fabs instead. At this rate, all the new US-side production capacity coming online will kill off alot of the remaining legacy nodes. (except those very specialized in government contracts, but even then the chips act opens the door into that as well)

You think that it would be easy to put something into production from years past. But really, we as a society are forgetting how we are making this stuff, because it is too complicated to do by hand, and we are switching out the design kits & software so rapidly that no one is going to be able to put humpty dumpty back together again.

Unless we start all over. But that means unlimited money will not solve this. Only those that have studied this stuff for years and still remember, willing to forego a really nice paycheck to do things for enthusiasts for next to nothing?

Study this theory: https://youtube.com/watch?v=L2OJFqs8bUk
I don't care about Laurie's apocalyptic scenario. That isn't real. But what is real, is that this is already happening. The reason we don't realize it is because we are ever increasingly adding production capacity to keep replacing everything that is old, or breaking, at an increasing rate to avoid the "tipping point". She explains things from a technical perspective, so those that know what she's saying, that are in the industry, know. Just know, that we are forgetting how to make chips through the constant churn. The current generation and the next generation of techies won't know how to make anything if this keeps going.

Thankfully, quite a few old patents were created during 'saner' political climates ('forever!' Cooyright and patent was not realistic to demand then), and there were maximum numbers of extensions that could be sought.

This means quite a lot of retrotech is now theoretically reimplementable, patent and copyright free.

The landscape *is* a hellhole of landmines and IP trolls though. The need for lawyers and discovery is very real. 🙁

Most of these old devices can be implemented as virtual descriptions for use on FPGA devices. This allows the FPGA production pipeline and demand curves to satisfy your production needs.

It doesnt quite feel the same, but logically, you wouldnt notice a difference.

I don't understand the problem the OP is trying to solve.

Yes, modern computing has been moving away from a "you-own-it" model to a distributed services model.

I'm not sure how trying to recreate vintage hardware, especially stuff that might be decades old at this point, addresses the issue?

The only people who care about retro hardware are retro enthusiasts. And they probably already own a lot of vintage hardware or have acquired modern versions via emulation or FPGA recreations.

cyclone3d wrote on Yesterday, 14:44:

There is always Linux.

And no, it would not really be feasible to set up a factory to create all the old stuff. For one, there is not near enough demand to make it profitable. Secondly, unless things such as copyrights and patents cease to exist, much of what was would have to be licensed.

Oh Linux! Sure I thought about it. Sadly, in any modern PC with no legacy boot support, the whole Linux thing must comply to the control freaks' criminal standards, or it won't get the mafia-approved mark, making the machine non bootable. This kind of overreach I shall never accept.

Good points for the rest!

the3dfxdude wrote on Yesterday, 16:20:

aries-mu wrote on Yesterday, 11:59:

Assuming money wasn't a problem (dreaming here), do you think it could be possible to found a full-stack production factory from scratch, to remake everything, from motherboards to video cards... all the specs... ISA, EISA, MicroChannel, PCI stuff, CPUs, RAM, HDD (tho I wouldn't mind to hybridize everything into SSDs), etcetera...?
It wouldn't require ultra modern expensive production tech such as 7 micron stuff and similar. I would hope with modern advancements in production, making those old cans would be a piece of cake... but I am neither an engineer nor an electronics guy... any opinions here too?

I'll speak on the hardware manufacturing part of your question. I'm not sure if this is my opinion, or just explaining things.

Anything under around 32nm there are significant issues on getting yield without resorting to extraordinary methods that are now in production. It gets SIGNIFICANTLY worse around 10nm and lower, and becomes a nightmare under 5nm. There is no realistic path to start bootstrapping the only new equipment that are only made for these current nodes, that were never really needed for your retro hardware. The upfront investment will make your full-stack production factory from scratch will turn your 80's CPU into a billion dollar chip that a few people want.

The best option is to find one of these previous gen factories from about 10+ years back (relatively old) old fabs and start convincing them to open up their design kits for experimenters. There are a few rumblings towards this in the past several years, but those companies seem to be faltering, IMO due to the chips act making all money pour into 3nm/2nm/A14 brand new fabs instead. At this rate, all the new US-side production capacity coming online will kill off alot of the remaining legacy nodes. (except those very specialized in government contracts, but even then the chips act opens the door into that as well)

You think that it would be easy to put something into production from years past. But really, we as a society are forgetting how we are making this stuff, because it is too complicated to do by hand, and we are switching out the design kits & software so rapidly that no one is going to be able to put humpty dumpty back together again.

Unless we start all over. But that means unlimited money will not solve this. Only those that have studied this stuff for years and still remember, willing to forego a really nice paycheck to do things for enthusiasts for next to nothing?

Study this theory: https://youtube.com/watch?v=L2OJFqs8bUk
I don't care about Laurie's apocalyptic scenario. That isn't real. But what is real, is that this is already happening. The reason we don't realize it is because we are ever increasingly adding production capacity to keep replacing everything that is old, or breaking, at an increasing rate to avoid the "tipping point". She explains things from a technical perspective, so those that know what she's saying, that are in the industry, know. Just know, that we are forgetting how to make chips through the constant churn. The current generation and the next generation of techies won't know how to make anything if this keeps going.

yeah good points!!!
And wow! The video... as if all the possible apocalyptic scenarios weren't sufficient... I'm adding this one to my list!

wierd_w wrote on Yesterday, 16:26:

Thankfully, quite a few old patents were created during 'saner' political climates ('forever!' Cooyright and patent was not real […]
Show full quote

Thankfully, quite a few old patents were created during 'saner' political climates ('forever!' Cooyright and patent was not realistic to demand then), and there were maximum numbers of extensions that could be sought.

This means quite a lot of retrotech is now theoretically reimplementable, patent and copyright free.

The landscape *is* a hellhole of landmines and IP trolls though. The need for lawyers and discovery is very real. 🙁

Most of these old devices can be implemented as virtual descriptions for use on FPGA devices. This allows the FPGA production pipeline and demand curves to satisfy your production needs.

It doesnt quite feel the same, but logically, you wouldnt notice a difference.

This is encouraging! Thank you!!! (the FPGA part, I didn't understand, nor the last sentence)

Shponglefan wrote on Yesterday, 17:44:

I don't understand the problem the OP is trying to solve. […]
Show full quote

I don't understand the problem the OP is trying to solve.

Yes, modern computing has been moving away from a "you-own-it" model to a distributed services model.

I'm not sure how trying to recreate vintage hardware, especially stuff that might be decades old at this point, addresses the issue?

The only people who care about retro hardware are retro enthusiasts. And they probably already own a lot of vintage hardware or have acquired modern versions via emulation or FPGA recreations.

🤣 I've been cryptic... good point!
It doesn't address the issue! It just allows for a parallel market/dimension/life to continue, despite modern shjtt0 getting worse and worse...
In other words, it wouldn't be a 'replacement' to modern scam-tech. It would be an escape valve. (Not Valve. That's shjtt0).

This is encouraging! Thank you!!! (the FPGA part, I didn't understand, nor the last sentence)

There is a kind of hardware device called a Field-Programmable Gate Array, or, FPGA.

This is 'more or less', a microchip that can be programmed to operate like some other microchip, if you feed it an appropriately distilled hardware definition.

That is to say, 'You dont NEED a factory making a hundred different kinds of retro chips, you can ask an existing factory that makes FPGAs to send you some stock, and you can program them with whatever personality you need, instead'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-programmable_gate_array

Because patents cover *processes*, and copyrights can cover ISAs (such as CPU instruction sets), re-implementations on FPGAs might not be *legal*, and hiring a lawyer to be doubly sure first is necessary.

Once you have a programmed FPGA, the pins on the package you have defined in your description function electronically exactly like your original chip. Connecting the leads where they should go, makes it do what you expect it to, exactly the same way.

The hardware description is usually written in some variation of VHDL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHDL

And then 'synthesized' / 'distilled' by the FPGA maker's toolchain.

wierd_w wrote on Yesterday, 18:12:

There is a kind of hardware device called a Field-Programmable Gate Array, or, FPGA. […]
Show full quote

This is encouraging! Thank you!!! (the FPGA part, I didn't understand, nor the last sentence)

There is a kind of hardware device called a Field-Programmable Gate Array, or, FPGA.

This is 'more or less', a microchip that can be programmed to operate like some other microchip, if you feed it an appropriately distilled hardware definition.

That is to say, 'You dont NEED a factory making a hundred different kinds of retro chips, you can ask an existing factory that makes FPGAs to send you some stock, and you can program them with whatever personality you need, instead'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-programmable_gate_array

Because patents cover *processes*, and copyrights can cover ISAs (such as CPU instruction sets), re-implementations on FPGAs might not be *legal*, and hiring a lawyer to be doubly sure first is necessary.

Once you have a programmed FPGA, the pins on the package you have defined in your description function electronically exactly like your original chip. Connecting the leads where they should go, makes it do what you expect it to, exactly the same way.

The hardware description is usually written in some variation of VHDL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHDL

And then 'synthesized' / 'distilled' by the FPGA maker's toolchain.

Thanks!
Oh Wow!!! I had no idea about all this....

Boycott DRM. Boycott always-connected spyware and clowd crap.

Software is 95% of the problem. Hardware is not usually the problem, except where there are backdoors or undocumented/proprietary functions, and those can be reverse engineered.

It's cheaper to stockpile old hardware or clone it with FPGAs than it is to start manufacturing it again. FPGA chips and tools are largely proprietary, but there are a few which have been reverse engineered (Lattice) and there are old DRM-less versions of Quartus that can run on DRM-less OS (Windows 2000 or Linux).

bakemono wrote on Yesterday, 18:25:

Boycott DRM. Boycott always-connected spyware and clowd crap.

AMEN BROTHER!!!! AMEN!!!!!

bakemono wrote on Yesterday, 18:25:

Software is 95% of the problem. Hardware is not usually the problem, except where there are backdoors or undocumented/proprietary functions, and those can be reverse engineered.

It's cheaper to stockpile old hardware or clone it with FPGAs than it is to start manufacturing it again. FPGA chips and tools are largely proprietary, but there are a few which have been reverse engineered (Lattice) and there are old DRM-less versions of Quartus that can run on DRM-less OS (Windows 2000 or Linux).

Sounds interesting to learn about this

thx

aries-mu wrote on Yesterday, 17:50:

Oh Linux! Sure I thought about it. Sadly, in any modern PC with no legacy boot support, the whole Linux thing must comply to the […]
Show full quote

cyclone3d wrote on Yesterday, 14:44:

There is always Linux.

And no, it would not really be feasible to set up a factory to create all the old stuff. For one, there is not near enough demand to make it profitable. Secondly, unless things such as copyrights and patents cease to exist, much of what was would have to be licensed.

Oh Linux! Sure I thought about it. Sadly, in any modern PC with no legacy boot support, the whole Linux thing must comply to the control freaks' criminal standards, or it won't get the mafia-approved mark, making the machine non bootable. This kind of overreach I shall never accept.

Good points for the rest!

the3dfxdude wrote on Yesterday, 16:20:

aries-mu wrote on Yesterday, 11:59:

Assuming money wasn't a problem (dreaming here), do you think it could be possible to found a full-stack production factory from scratch, to remake everything, from motherboards to video cards... all the specs... ISA, EISA, MicroChannel, PCI stuff, CPUs, RAM, HDD (tho I wouldn't mind to hybridize everything into SSDs), etcetera...?
It wouldn't require ultra modern expensive production tech such as 7 micron stuff and similar. I would hope with modern advancements in production, making those old cans would be a piece of cake... but I am neither an engineer nor an electronics guy... any opinions here too?

I'll speak on the hardware manufacturing part of your question. I'm not sure if this is my opinion, or just explaining things.

Anything under around 32nm there are significant issues on getting yield without resorting to extraordinary methods that are now in production. It gets SIGNIFICANTLY worse around 10nm and lower, and becomes a nightmare under 5nm. There is no realistic path to start bootstrapping the only new equipment that are only made for these current nodes, that were never really needed for your retro hardware. The upfront investment will make your full-stack production factory from scratch will turn your 80's CPU into a billion dollar chip that a few people want.

The best option is to find one of these previous gen factories from about 10+ years back (relatively old) old fabs and start convincing them to open up their design kits for experimenters. There are a few rumblings towards this in the past several years, but those companies seem to be faltering, IMO due to the chips act making all money pour into 3nm/2nm/A14 brand new fabs instead. At this rate, all the new US-side production capacity coming online will kill off alot of the remaining legacy nodes. (except those very specialized in government contracts, but even then the chips act opens the door into that as well)

You think that it would be easy to put something into production from years past. But really, we as a society are forgetting how we are making this stuff, because it is too complicated to do by hand, and we are switching out the design kits & software so rapidly that no one is going to be able to put humpty dumpty back together again.

Unless we start all over. But that means unlimited money will not solve this. Only those that have studied this stuff for years and still remember, willing to forego a really nice paycheck to do things for enthusiasts for next to nothing?

Study this theory: https://youtube.com/watch?v=L2OJFqs8bUk
I don't care about Laurie's apocalyptic scenario. That isn't real. But what is real, is that this is already happening. The reason we don't realize it is because we are ever increasingly adding production capacity to keep replacing everything that is old, or breaking, at an increasing rate to avoid the "tipping point". She explains things from a technical perspective, so those that know what she's saying, that are in the industry, know. Just know, that we are forgetting how to make chips through the constant churn. The current generation and the next generation of techies won't know how to make anything if this keeps going.

yeah good points!!!
And wow! The video... as if all the possible apocalyptic scenarios weren't sufficient... I'm adding this one to my list!

wierd_w wrote on Yesterday, 16:26:

Thankfully, quite a few old patents were created during 'saner' political climates ('forever!' Cooyright and patent was not real […]
Show full quote

Thankfully, quite a few old patents were created during 'saner' political climates ('forever!' Cooyright and patent was not realistic to demand then), and there were maximum numbers of extensions that could be sought.

This means quite a lot of retrotech is now theoretically reimplementable, patent and copyright free.

The landscape *is* a hellhole of landmines and IP trolls though. The need for lawyers and discovery is very real. 🙁

Most of these old devices can be implemented as virtual descriptions for use on FPGA devices. This allows the FPGA production pipeline and demand curves to satisfy your production needs.

It doesnt quite feel the same, but logically, you wouldnt notice a difference.

This is encouraging! Thank you!!! (the FPGA part, I didn't understand, nor the last sentence)

Shponglefan wrote on Yesterday, 17:44:

I don't understand the problem the OP is trying to solve. […]
Show full quote

I don't understand the problem the OP is trying to solve.

Yes, modern computing has been moving away from a "you-own-it" model to a distributed services model.

I'm not sure how trying to recreate vintage hardware, especially stuff that might be decades old at this point, addresses the issue?

The only people who care about retro hardware are retro enthusiasts. And they probably already own a lot of vintage hardware or have acquired modern versions via emulation or FPGA recreations.

🤣 I've been cryptic... good point!
It doesn't address the issue! It just allows for a parallel market/dimension/life to continue, despite modern shjtt0 getting worse and worse...
In other words, it wouldn't be a 'replacement' to modern scam-tech. It would be an escape valve. (Not Valve. That's shjtt0).

So what if you have to have UEFI for modern OSes and very new boards do not support legacy booting. It was always going to move away from legacy BIOS to something else due to security concerns.

And if you want to run an old OS on new hardware that doesn't have support for such things as ISA and AGP, then run a VM or other emulation software.

There is a point where stuff is obsolete and is only used by those who want to use it and don't expect it to work with or like new hardware.

Since we don't like security, let's go back to the time where there was zero security for online purchases and you could use a credit card number generator and the randomly generated card number would be approved.

Let's also get rid of all safety features on vehicles while we are at it.

Building codes are just a stifling thing for people to build buildings.

We can also go back to using asbestos since it worked so well. Cancer... Who cares about cancer?

aries-mu wrote on Yesterday, 18:16:

wierd_w wrote on Yesterday, 18:12:

There is a kind of hardware device called a Field-Programmable Gate Array, or, FPGA. […]
Show full quote

This is encouraging! Thank you!!! (the FPGA part, I didn't understand, nor the last sentence)

There is a kind of hardware device called a Field-Programmable Gate Array, or, FPGA.

This is 'more or less', a microchip that can be programmed to operate like some other microchip, if you feed it an appropriately distilled hardware definition.

That is to say, 'You dont NEED a factory making a hundred different kinds of retro chips, you can ask an existing factory that makes FPGAs to send you some stock, and you can program them with whatever personality you need, instead'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-programmable_gate_array

Because patents cover *processes*, and copyrights can cover ISAs (such as CPU instruction sets), re-implementations on FPGAs might not be *legal*, and hiring a lawyer to be doubly sure first is necessary.

Once you have a programmed FPGA, the pins on the package you have defined in your description function electronically exactly like your original chip. Connecting the leads where they should go, makes it do what you expect it to, exactly the same way.

The hardware description is usually written in some variation of VHDL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHDL

And then 'synthesized' / 'distilled' by the FPGA maker's toolchain.

Thanks!
Oh Wow!!! I had no idea about all this....

This technology is at the heart of projects like the MISTer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiSTer

Instead of software emulation, it's a reprogrammable, FPGA based SIMULATION platform, that has a large number of pre-distilled 'cores' you can load on the FPGA it contains, allowing more or less faithful recreation of retro computing / gaming systems.

'It doesn't feel the same', is a 'human-centric, nostalgia-satisfaction' statement.

The NES that a MISTer simulates is *exactly* like a real NES, as far as what the programs it runs observes. All the hardware quirks and foibles are there (assuming the core is accurate).

But it does not look, or feel, like a NES to a human.

cyclone3d wrote on Yesterday, 18:35:

So what if you have to have UEFI for modern OSes and very new boards do not support legacy booting. It was always going to move […]
Show full quote

So what if you have to have UEFI for modern OSes and very new boards do not support legacy booting. It was always going to move away from legacy BIOS to something else due to security concerns.

And if you want to run an old OS on new hardware that doesn't have support for such things as ISA and AGP, then run a VM or other emulation software.

There is a point where stuff is obsolete and is only used by those who want to use it and don't expect it to work with or like new hardware.

Since we don't like security, let's go back to the time where there was zero security for online purchases and you could use a credit card number generator and the randomly generated card number would be approved.

Let's also get rid of all safety features on vehicles while we are at it.

Building codes are just a stifling thing for people to build buildings.

We can also go back to using asbestos since it worked so well. Cancer... Who cares about cancer?

Not the same thing.
Keep the end goal firm in front of you, and you can distill real needs from needs fabricated under apparently credible excuses (most of the time under the umbrella of safety or security) with a completely different goal (which would be too unpopular to state openly and initially).
Also, security is usually the one and main pretext by which totalitarian regimes are born. Look at EU... Look at the world... let's talk about this in 5 years or even less... (provided we'll even still be able to access the internet).

wierd_w wrote on Yesterday, 18:36:

This technology is at the heart of projects like the MISTer. […]
Show full quote

This technology is at the heart of projects like the MISTer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiSTer

Instead of software emulation, it's a reprogrammable, FPGA based SIMULATION platform, that has a large number of pre-distilled 'cores' you can load on the FPGA it contains, allowing more or less faithful recreation of retro computing / gaming systems.

'It doesn't feel the same', is a 'human-centric, nostalgia-satisfaction' statement.

The NES that a MISTer simulates is *exactly* like a real NES, as far as what the programs it runs observes. All the hardware quirks and foibles are there (assuming the core is accurate).

But it does not look, or feel, like a NES to a human.

Very interesting! thanks.
And yes, indeed that's what I was thinking. The human-centric "doesn't feel the same" nostalgia.

Computer hardware and software security is not totalitarian.

Do you have locks on the doors of the house or your vehicle?

I bet the large majority of thieves and other criminals don't like that.

True, forced "security" implemented by giving up your rights is bad, but actual hardware and software security is not that.

I agree that subscription based software is insane as well as most thing that require connection to the mfgs servers.

There is security and then there is "security". They are different and cannot be lumped into the same category.

cyclone3d wrote on Yesterday, 18:51:

Computer hardware and software security is not totalitarian. […]
Show full quote

Computer hardware and software security is not totalitarian.

Do you have locks on the doors of the house or your vehicle?

I bet the large majority of thieves and other criminals don't like that.

True, forced "security" implemented by giving up your rights is bad, but actual hardware and software security is not that.

I agree that subscription based software is insane as well as most thing that require connection to the mfgs servers.

There is security and then there is "security". They are different and cannot be lumped into the same category.

yeah I agree with you in principle. On the specific topic, I just don't trust Microsoft, I don't trust its most modern spyware (aka Windows 11), I don't trust the oligopoly that it is creating in tandem with major computer hardware brands, and I certainly totally disagree with governments and ANY public service, department, school, whatever, or even public janitor room using Microsoft shjt: using a private, locked product, which nobody truly knows what it does, instead of using OPEN SOURCE systems, which can be inspected by anybody.

All too often, 'security' takes the modality of 'My business model is secure'.

Instead of 'The user's data is not vulnerable.'

This gets *purposefully* blurred, in some circumstances.

Take the infamous SecureBoot technology.

On the surface, this is all about creating a verified chain of trust for essential software and hardware configuration prior to OS load.

In practice, 'you must be THIS tall to ride!'

And it qualitatively excludes smaller players from even being able to run. Linux is only able to run with it on, because it was able to borrow an identity from Microsoft (which is now expired).

https://lwn.net/Articles/1029767/

Enough of a stink was made about it though, that several distros did eventually get their own keys minted. Not all UEFI bioses support them though.

Any time a 'mommy knows best!' approach like this is used, it has these kinds of chilling effects.

Being aware that this is also 'done on purpose', is also poignant.

wierd_w wrote on Yesterday, 19:03:

All too often, 'security' takes the modality of 'My business model is secure'. […]
Show full quote

All too often, 'security' takes the modality of 'My business model is secure'.

Instead of 'The user's data is not vulnerable.'

This gets *purposefully* blurred, in some circumstances.

Take the infamous SecureBoot technology.

On the surface, this is all about creating a verified chain of trust for essential software and hardware configuration prior to OS load.

In practice, 'you must be THIS tall to ride!'

And it qualitatively excludes smaller players from even being able to run. Linux is only able to run with it on, because it was able to borrow an identity from Microsoft (which is now expired).

https://lwn.net/Articles/1029767/

Enough of a stink was made about it though, that several distros did eventually get their own keys minted. Not all UEFI bioses support them though.

Any time a 'mommy knows best!' approach like this is used, it has these kinds of chilling effects.

Being aware that this is also 'done on purpose', is also poignant.

THANK YOU brother!
I couldn't have said it better!

There are ... *further*... considerations with SecureBoot.

Board manufacturers naturally do not want to / cannot keep making root certificate firmware updates for old systems.

The certificates are *DESIGNED* to expire.

This will ultimately result in *ENTIRE GENERATIONS* of computers that *cannot be booted*. All the keys contained inside the firmware are expired.

Compare and contrast, how this blurs 'my business model is secure!' (From Intel and AMD's perspective-- it essentially removes old hardware from the market, forcing new purchases), with 'The user's data is not vulnerable.' (As advertised, SecureBoot ensures malware does not load before the OS, and does not take up residence in say, the secure enclave of the Management Engine (intel), or Service Processor (AMD) of the CPU, and do gnarly things the OS cannot stop.)

If the community were able to flash new firmwares that they patched themselves, so could attackers, making SecureBoot into Security Theater.

'Mommy knows best!' Is very dangerous.

wierd_w wrote on Yesterday, 19:45:

There are ... *further*... considerations with SecureBoot. […]
Show full quote

There are ... *further*... considerations with SecureBoot.

Board manufacturers naturally do not want to / cannot keep making root certificate firmware updates for old systems.

The certificates are *DESIGNED* to expire.

This will ultimately result in *ENTIRE GENERATIONS* of computers that *cannot be booted*. All the keys contained inside the firmware are expired.

Compare and contrast, how this blurs 'my business model is secure!' (From Intel and AMD's perspective-- it essentially removes old hardware from the market, forcing new purchases), with 'The user's data is not vulnerable.' (As advertised, SecureBoot ensures malware does not load before the OS, and does not take up residence in say, the secure enclave of the Management Engine (intel), or Service Processor (AMD) of the CPU, and do gnarly things the OS cannot stop.)

If the community were able to flash new firmwares that they patched themselves, so could attackers, making SecureBoot into Security Theater.

'Mommy knows best!' Is very dangerous.

Oh my insane insanity!!! I didn't know! They're basically selling disposable time-b0mbs!
All this has a name. It's called crime.
Criminals n' organized crime.

You dont need a mustache twirler.

'Concerned Parents!' Will suffice. The kind that never think anything through, and insist on immediate and complete adoption of anything that whispers 'safety!' In their ear.

In most old boards, SecureBoot can be disabled. The PROBLEM in the future will be mandated and artificial requirements to have it turned on. (Fat load of good your now booting machine does, when drivers refuse to install or run, because the machine is 'UNTRUSTED! OH NOEZ' )This latter is the 'Concerned Parents' involvement.

The enforcement of product lifecycle may even be viewed *favorably*, because of attrition of vulnerable systems in circulation.

Historicity, nostalgia, or any other such conception, is put in the same box as 'dangerous crazy.'

Basically, 'Mommy' (as a cognitative archetype) positively *adores* 'mommy knows best' as a policy.

Observe:
https://www.bitdefender.com/en-us/blog/hotfor … ew-eu-cyber-law

Only naughty children dislike it.

You aren't one of those Bad, Naughty, and Noncompliant, Evil Hackers, Are you? /s