Page 4 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 217

Thread: MIPS Loongson 3A Benchmarks On Debian

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maldorordiscord View Post
    The FSF do have criterias and only because I follow the criterias of the FSF you insult my writing as "non-sense".
    And more you spread conspiracy theories about the banned member "Qaridarium" to insult me even more.
    Also no Richard Stallman do have the same Logic and he does not get a ban just because of the same conclusion.
    Educate yourself! Software in hardware unchangeable is defined as hardware and its allowed in the definition of the FSF!
    http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Hardware...ement_criteria
    And because Loongson meets all criteria and x86 hardware do not meet any criterias Richard Stallman use Loongson hardware.
    But you prefer to insult people instead of try to understand people.
    Its the same with Bridgman he prefer to spread conspiracy theories about backdoors in the loongson product instead of prove anything he says.
    In fact Bridgman should be banned because of abusive criticism on the competitive product based on conspiracy theories!
    And you should be banned because of insulting people only because they follow FSF criterias.
    It is obvious that you are Qaridarium for anyone knowing Qaridarium's posting style. And I don't want you to be banned about your conclusion, I want you to be banned for circumventing the decisions of the forum's authorities.
    Now to your argument: The link you gave us says this:
    the hardware must run free software on every layer that is user upgradeable
    So please feel free to enlighten us about why this means:
    Software in hardware unchangeable is defined as hardware and its allowed in the definition of the FSF!
    Making software unalterable does not make it in some magical way hardware and the FSF is not saying something like that. I educated myself and have proven you to be wrong. Now take your conspiracy theories to a different place.

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Not exactly correct. There is a lot of closed source firmware (microcode really, not firmware), it's just built into the chip
    I just try again because you don't get my point. Your sentence is per definition of the FSF wrong because:
    "The exception applies to software delivered inside auxiliary and low-level processors and FPGAs, within which software installation is not intended after the user obtains the product. This can include, for instance, microcode inside a processor, firmware built into an I/O device, or the gate pattern of an FPGA. The software in such secondary processors does not count as product software." http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria
    Because of this there is no "closed source" product software in a Loongson system.
    My second argument was if something act like hardware then it is hardware for example a CDROM is a CDROM software or hardware? In my point of view a CD ROM is hardware. The data are inseparably connected the CD ROM because of this its hardware no matter if the source code of the data is free or not.
    For the question hardware or software the "data" inside the hardware is not a valid criteria. To clear the question the only valid criteria is: Inseparably connected and unchangeable.
    Example CDROM: The data inside of the CD ROM is inseparably connected and unchangeable because of this its hardware.
    Example Loongson cpu: The data in the microcode is inseparably connected and unchangeable because of this its hardware.
    And I do have a 3. additional argument because open source vs closed source is a question about copyright. But there is no copyright in 100% pure logic trivial functions because of this the microcode cannot contain any copyright because the creation spiritual height do not hit the minimum criteria to get copyright protection by law. This means you can not protect microcode source code with any copyright.
    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    I don't know who you are but you're starting to exhibit a lot of the same bad habits as Q (ie flat-out lying about what I said). That is probably not the best path to take, particularly for a new user.
    For any intelligent human your sentence : Bridgman: "and doesn't have a published update mechanism." told us that your opinion is that there is a update mechanism but not published. This means i didn't lie I have interpreted it and expressed understandable.
    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    The x86 processors have built-in microcode plus a patch mechanism, which somehow makes them "less open-source".
    The patch mechanism prove that the microcode of a x86 is not "inseparably connected" to the hardware and the "changeable behavior" prove that its software means closed source software.

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
    It is obvious that you are Qaridarium for anyone knowing Qaridarium's posting style.
    Everything I've read about Qaridarium tells me he would definitely do it differently.
    I think he would focus his argumentation on the fact that Bridgman is biased because his job at AMD which disqualifies him to write here in this topic.
    About your attacks: He also would focus differently he would point out that you're a mental fascist and you just want run your virtual genocide against handicaped people like Qaridarium here.

    Funny isn't it? Now i get 5 forum stars for knowing Qaridarium's style?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,630

    Default

    bridgman most likely refers to the fact that newer cpus can get bugfixes via software. These can be part of the bios or the os can upload em. In debian you can search for microcode and find the intel update tools. Usually that was introduced to fix/disable functions which do not work correctly without replacing the cpu itself. That was a bit expensive for intel with the pentium fdiv bug... amd did not replace the first phenoms as well. Those updates are signed, so it is impossible (if you dont get the secret key somehow) to put custom code in there.
    Last edited by Kano; 07-02-2012 at 06:02 PM.

  5. #35

    Default

    kano: "bridgman most likely refers to the fact that newer cpus can get bugfixes via software. These can be part of the bios or the os can upload em. In debian you can search for microcode and find the intel update tools. Usually that was introduced to fix/disable functions which do not work correctly without replacing the cpu itself. That was a bit expensive for intel with the pentium fdiv bug... amd did not replace the first phenoms as well. Those updates are signed, so it is impossible (if you dont get the secret key somehow) to put custom code in there."

    Nice "software" feature kano but it's still software if you can do this.
    And the FSF definition is clear at this point if software on your main cpu manipulate the behavior of your hardware by closed source code then it's per definition not open source/free software hardware.
    Such a microcode update process must be open source to control the behavior chance to make sure no back door is placed into your pc.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,630

    Default

    no, that would be a very bad idea. the need for a signed update is to protect you from those attacks which would be very lowlevel. your paranoia did not go away with your new nick, not good best: sell all pcs.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maldorordiscord View Post
    He also would focus differently he would point out that you're a mental fascist and you just want run your virtual genocide against handicaped people like Qaridarium here.
    As you just have done. By the way, I couldn't care less about Qaridarium's handicaps, if there are any at all. He was not banned for being handicapped, he was banned for being a troll. Calling me a fascist will not change anything about that, but makes it more clear that you are in fact Qaridarium.

    By the way, do you really think the forum authorities would be that dumb to not recognize you as Qaridarium when you don't change your posting style?

  8. #38

    Default

    kano: "no, that would be a very bad idea. the need for a signed update is to protect you from those attacks which would be very lowlevel. your paranoia did not go away with your new nick, not good best: sell all pcs."

    You really believe in "closed source" as a security model ?
    There is a big wikipedia article about the question what is the better security model open or closed source:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_so...tware_security
    My personal logical conclusion is that the open-source security model is more secure.
    And about your personal attack: I don't know the "paranoia" status of Qaridarium but for me its not a question about irrational feelings like paranoia.
    For me it's more about freedom of choice. I can buy both but i'm sure the opensource solution is more secure.

  9. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
    As you just have done. By the way, I couldn't care less about Qaridarium's handicaps, if there are any at all. He was not banned for being handicapped, he was banned for being a troll. Calling me a fascist will not change anything about that, but makes it more clear that you are in fact Qaridarium.

    By the way, do you really think the forum authorities would be that dumb to not recognize you as Qaridarium when you don't change your posting style?
    Check your writing skills I said nothing to you. It was just an example for "Qaridarium" style.
    He was really a troll? I didn't noticed that because right now you are the "off-tropic" troll in this thread.
    Your last question is really philosophical because "how stupid can a authoritarian be?" is a very interesting question.
    I think I can't give a answer because i can't put into words how dump.
    Anyway they just don't share your opinion that I'm the super dangerous Qaridarium otherwise they would banned me already.
    I'm right or I'm wrong?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    205

    Default

    You are right, this is off-topic. So I took the short route and reported you for obviously being Qaridarium and therefor circumventing their decisions, just in case they didn't notice your re-appearance. Let's just wait how they decide and not further derail this thread. If you are getting banned the next time please be so kind to mail me your next pseudonym, so that I can put you to my ignore list as soon as you appear on the forum.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •