@rysiek I wish it were so easy.

AMD is generally a "good guy" (or... gal?) only by virtue of being an underdog. When they come up on top, their behavior changes rapidly, and not for the better.

No big corp is your friend.

@drq @rysiek Maybe so, but they're in no immediate danger of being so "on top" that they get as arrogant as Intel has over the past decade or three.

@drq absolutely. But I also need computing devices, and I have to work within a particular crappy world. I can try to change it a bit here and there, but CPU design happens not to be my forte. 🤷‍♀️

@rysiek @drq One data point for you: I've been using an AMD Threadripper with Fedora for about 3½ years, and it's been absolutely stable. (Unlike my Nvidia graphics card, which has been a drip-drip-drip of misery since the beginning.)

@aral @drq Linux is also proprietary. Many nonfree stuff in it or problematic license so unless you modify it to remove those craps, it's a nonfree software running on your computer. @lxo and @jxself handle Linux-Libre. People (well at least some of them) can use it. I run Debian on my machine which also runs a modified version of Linux to get rid of nonfree stuff.

@aral The question is not about how "corporate" something is or not, the question is what does it actually do. And this seems first and foremost to pave a way for implementing microtransactions-style business model in *actual* hardware, silicon space.

@drq @aral trying to understand: Is the implication here that linux is officially adding support for hobbled CPUs that you need to pay additional money _after_ buying to unlock features of?

@masukomi Yes. It's not necessarily Linux' fault though, I think, because the alternative would be "we're not working on these devices", I suppose.

@aral

@drq @aral yeah. hard choice. There are ivory tower idealistic choices, and then there are practical ones.... :/

@masukomi @drq And then there are things not being what we might think they are. Linux is a corporate operate system that happens to be open source. Surveillance capitalism runs on Linux. Yes, some of us also use it for other reasons (and thank goodness it exists) but let’s not kid ourselves that the reason it does is anything but because it meets corporate needs and gets corporate funding. And my point is that the corporations that fund/develop Linux likely don’t have any objections to this.

@aral >Linux is a corporate operate system that happens to be open source
Linux isn't even an OS, yet alone "open source".
Linux is a kernel, that is free software, although it does have a bunch of proprietary software in it in violation of the license (which can be removed to make it all free software).
>Surveillance capitalism runs on Linux
I would say that it's helped just as much as GNU than Linux, as GNU lets you use bash scripts.
A tool is not bad, just because people can do bad things with it.
>it meets corporate needs and gets corporate funding
I don't really care about this, as long as it's under a free software copyleft license - that way they can't get you.
The corporate funding isn't the problem, that fact the corporations keep violating the GPLv2 with no recourse is the problem.

@Suiseiseki Corporate funding is always a problem. Funding matters.

@drq Which I’m sure Linux’s biggest names: IBM, etc., have absolutely no problem with.

@aral @drq And the alternatives are...?

@eivind @aral @drq Libreboot by https://mas.to/@libreleah at least attempts to negotiate with the hardware level, or is this discussion strictly about the mainframes?

@drq @aral Oh, I think it very much is a question of how corporate something is. I have yet to see a monetization strategy that does not revolve around some value-subtracted feature. Not that I approve of working for free, but between no volunteer work and no cynical monetization gimmicks I see no possible solution. Or even a middle ground, such as allowing some antifeature categories and disallowing others. Seems those goalposts always get moved eventually.

@shuro Same as I propose with stuff like DRM, Games as a Service, etc. I propose asking Intel, what is it they're actually trying to do here, who is it going to benefit and at whose expense, and, ultimately if it even should be legal or not.

@shuro In my view, point of sale is where the seller forfeits all decision-making power over a good for a buyer in exchange for money.

This is clearly an attempt to retain control over a good after a point of sale, and cripple the product for good if that fails. This is the root of all evil. This is what creates this unhealthy power dynamic we all know and love as "DRM". This is DRM in hardware.

@drq Wait until SDS turns into SDSaS with recurring pay-as-you-go subscriptions :)

@drq It just seems weird that here you link SDS support in Linux, not Intel themselves.

As for your question I am sure the answer will be "cheaper and more available CPUs for everyone" :)

@shuro Well, that's where I find out hardware news. Because if it doesn't work in Linux, I don't care :)

As for your answer, well that's what they always say. It's the corporate version of "go fuck yourself", really. And we need to demand real answers.

@drq "Fuck you, now pay me" is their usual answer.

I am not sure this can be solved through free market means.

@shuro Yep.