[Arm-netbook] mali gpu reverse engineering lkcl may ignore

[zap]

On 06/18/2017 03:14 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:56 PM, zap <calmstorm at posteo.de> wrote:
>
>> Hmm...  just out of curiosity, what is your plan then? to make your own
>> processors from lowrisc?
>  replying in part to bill here as well: yes.  and to use MIAOW for
> OpenCL and ORSOC GPU for actual rendering.  it won't be perfect but it
> will be a start.
>
>  bill: nvidia are in the difficult position of likely having been
> pressurised by governments to lock down what is effectively viewed in
> military terms as a a weapon (the rest of us just call it a "GPU").
> if you recall many years ago, iraq i believe it was purchased
> thousands of sony PS1s to make a supercomputer.
>
>  as there is an ongoing arms race in that regard it is only the latest
> processors which are likely to fall under, for example, U.S. BXPA
> Weapons-Grade "Munitions" classification.  given the fact that it is
> after a couple of years that the source code is no longer
> DRM-restricted, we have a correlation that fits with the ongoing
> evidence.
>
>  now, as long as a replacement (libre) processor is well below the
> "state of the art" but is otherwise perfectly acceptable for
> mass-volume electronics purposes, it will fall outside of this
> potential trap.
Please use lowrisc if you do this option, they already are libre. Their
stuff is licensed under gpl3. That should also mean its easier to,
load/less risk of idiots trying to but proprietary crap into it and get
away with it like google does. bleh... google is so awful.


>> its not a bad idea, but I think until that is an option... we should use
>> still use some form of arm.
>  indeed.  it may sound strange but when there is no other option (and
> by that i mean *exhaustive* analysis finds no other option) i do not
> mind "crossing the line" into what would traditionally be viewed by
> software libre purists as "unacceptable territory" *IF* in doing so it
> is part of a long-term strategy to *REPLACE* the very thing being
> leveraged [to make money etc. etc.]
>
>  for example: many software libre supporters flatly refuse to even
> *install* Windows NT... but if i had taken that attitude i would not
> have broken the NT Domains protocol, over 20 years ago.
>
>  it is the same here:
I am glad wine was created, too bad that I cannot plan windows 95 games
through wine yet... completely I mean.

>> Unless you know of other options.
>  nope, i don't.  always looking though.
That is good.
>
>> Just curious but what other options are there? Also, I think that makes
>> it more reasonable to reverse engineer their products just to piss Arm
>> off. They don't like their products being reverse engineered anyways...
>> so why not do that to annoy them for their unethical acts? Besides it
>> could make them realize that their evil actions need to be changed.
>  and remove the one thing which would otherwise teach them a lesson?
>
>  i see both perspectives: i just believe that they are sufficiently
> arrogant in their power and beliefs that it is unlikely that they will
> change their minds.  they've been told by their engineers countless
> times.  they've been told by users countless times.  they've been told
> by businesses who would otherwise buy more of their products countless
> times.

Dunno, I thought it was a good idea.
>
>> Its not my favorite idea, but its better than letting mali run
>> unchecked. In my opinion.
>  yehyeh, i hear ya.
>
>> You are of course free to disagree but that's my stance.
>  no it's good to hear.  thx zap.
>
> l.
Tell me what you think of lowrisc when you get a chance. I mean as a
base for your processors. heh.
> _______________________________________________
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
> Send large attachments to arm-netbook at files.phcomp.co.uk