5 ms·

What even is Oxide Computer? It makes no sense - it was publicized with all sorts of anti-blob, freedom, and posts about management engines and a sort of altern

What even is Oxide Computer? It makes no sense - it was publicized with all sorts of anti-blob, freedom, and posts about management engines and a sort of alternative to RaptorCS/IBM (which now has blobs again)... Yet most of that stuff is now buried/removed and Oxide Computer is just a hardware platform with unnecessary lock-in. For the bunker of the rich to be able to run their own mini-cloud? Sure. For anything else it seems like a bad design.

throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
It's a mainframe. You use it like you use mainframes, but probably easier, as they're adopting more modern functionality. You won't be aware you're using it, just like you aren't aware when you use a zSystem.
- Anon_Is_Truth 3y ago
  [dead]
steveklabnik 3y ago
> Yet most of that stuff is now buried/removed Nothing has changed with regards to our anti-blob and pro-open source stances. I am not sure what you're referring to here. > with unnecessary lock-in. What lock-in are you referring to here? The way that things run on the rack is via virtual machines, you can run virtual machines on many providers. We even have a terraform provider so that you can use familiar tools instead of the API directly, if you believe that is lock-in (and that stuff is all also fully open source).
- temptemptemp111 3y ago
  I don't expect anyone to see my comments unless they're really looking since I've been shadow banned for many years now - so I appreciate your reply. To be clearer regarding my questions: - What happened to Project X (supposedly coreboot++ for latest AMD CPUs)? It seems dead, despite being more reported on than Oxide's attempts in working with AMD (to achieve the same outcomes, presumably - what's the difference?). Loads of well meaning people have approached this with virtue, innocence and skills; perhaps another approach is needed that fully respects the dynamic between the user, the chip manufacturers and the governments and banks they're in debt to. - Does Oxide attempt to sandbox, completely remove or 'verify as benign' aspects like the PSP? For example, if someone could verify that the PSP cannot possibly be affected over the network, then peace of mind could be more affordable regarding things like supply chain attacks and bad actors with AMD/Intel/Apple management engine secrets. Not referring to software lock-in, just hardware. And it isn't very nefarious like other hardware lock-in (serialization, see Rossmann Group). Just hardware on the rack-level: replacing oxide gear & upgrading oxide gear (not sure about repair, that could be easy). And if the offering were of a less blobby architecture, then many of us would be happy to pay a bit more for the hardware as a system. However, if the hardware platform is FOSS, then it won't be unnecessarily difficult to mix and match and integrate the Oxide gear with other DC-class gear.
  - steveklabnik 3y ago
    So, your comment was not dead when I saw it. This reply was, but apparently now has been vouched for. > What happened to Project X (supposedly coreboot++ for latest AMD CPUs)? I don't recall what you're referring to specifically, maybe this was a thing before I started at Oxide. I do know that we deliberately decided to not go with coreboot. I believe the equivalent component would be phbl[1]. It boots illumos directly. Bryan gave a talk about how we boot[1][2] with more reasoning and context. > Does Oxide attempt to sandbox, completely remove or 'verify as benign' aspects like the PSP? The general attitude is still "remove or work around every binary blob possible," but the PSP is unfortunately not able to be worked around. > However, if the hardware platform is FOSS We fully intend to do this, by the way. Just haven't yet. It'll come. 1: https://github.com/oxidecomputer/phbl https://github.com/oxidecomputer/phbl 2: https://www.osfc.io/2022/talks/i-have-come-to-bury-the-bios-not-to-open-it-the-need-for-holistic-systems/ https://www.osfc.io/2022/talks/i-have-come-to-bury-the-bios-... 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33145411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33145411
    - temptemptemp111 3y ago
      To see more on "Project X", see the Phoronix article on it. At the very least, it would be resourceful if the Oxide devs had a chat with the Project X devs who have since given up - learnings can be had and time can be saved. And yes, coreboot itself is now untennable, but is also kind of a slang for the a category of deblobbed software.
      - mlindner 3y ago
        If you're referring to this: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Project-X-AMD-Zen-Coreboot https://www.phoronix.com/news/Project-X-AMD-Zen-Coreboot This seems to make no mention of Oxide at all. Perhaps you're connecting two different unrelated organizations together as Oxide appears to have never had any relation to it. I think you're just perhaps confused about what the situation is.
        temptemptemp111 3y ago

throwawaaarrgh 3y ago

It's a mainframe. You use it like you use mainframes, but probably easier, as they're adopting more modern functionality. You won't be aware you're using it, just like you aren't aware when you use a zSystem.

Anon_Is_Truth 3y ago
[dead]

steveklabnik 3y ago

> Yet most of that stuff is now buried/removed Nothing has changed with regards to our anti-blob and pro-open source stances. I am not sure what you're referring to here. > with unnecessary lock-in. What lock-in are you referring to here? The way that things run on the rack is via virtual machines, you can run virtual machines on many providers. We even have a terraform provider so that you can use familiar tools instead of the API directly, if you believe that is lock-in (and that stuff is all also fully open source).

temptemptemp111 3y ago
I don't expect anyone to see my comments unless they're really looking since I've been shadow banned for many years now - so I appreciate your reply. To be clearer regarding my questions: - What happened to Project X (supposedly coreboot++ for latest AMD CPUs)? It seems dead, despite being more reported on than Oxide's attempts in working with AMD (to achieve the same outcomes, presumably - what's the difference?). Loads of well meaning people have approached this with virtue, innocence and skills; perhaps another approach is needed that fully respects the dynamic between the user, the chip manufacturers and the governments and banks they're in debt to. - Does Oxide attempt to sandbox, completely remove or 'verify as benign' aspects like the PSP? For example, if someone could verify that the PSP cannot possibly be affected over the network, then peace of mind could be more affordable regarding things like supply chain attacks and bad actors with AMD/Intel/Apple management engine secrets. Not referring to software lock-in, just hardware. And it isn't very nefarious like other hardware lock-in (serialization, see Rossmann Group). Just hardware on the rack-level: replacing oxide gear & upgrading oxide gear (not sure about repair, that could be easy). And if the offering were of a less blobby architecture, then many of us would be happy to pay a bit more for the hardware as a system. However, if the hardware platform is FOSS, then it won't be unnecessarily difficult to mix and match and integrate the Oxide gear with other DC-class gear.
- steveklabnik 3y ago
  So, your comment was not dead when I saw it. This reply was, but apparently now has been vouched for. > What happened to Project X (supposedly coreboot++ for latest AMD CPUs)? I don't recall what you're referring to specifically, maybe this was a thing before I started at Oxide. I do know that we deliberately decided to not go with coreboot. I believe the equivalent component would be phbl[1]. It boots illumos directly. Bryan gave a talk about how we boot[1][2] with more reasoning and context. > Does Oxide attempt to sandbox, completely remove or 'verify as benign' aspects like the PSP? The general attitude is still "remove or work around every binary blob possible," but the PSP is unfortunately not able to be worked around. > However, if the hardware platform is FOSS We fully intend to do this, by the way. Just haven't yet. It'll come. 1: https://github.com/oxidecomputer/phbl https://github.com/oxidecomputer/phbl 2: https://www.osfc.io/2022/talks/i-have-come-to-bury-the-bios-not-to-open-it-the-need-for-holistic-systems/ https://www.osfc.io/2022/talks/i-have-come-to-bury-the-bios-... 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33145411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33145411
  - temptemptemp111 3y ago
    To see more on "Project X", see the Phoronix article on it. At the very least, it would be resourceful if the Oxide devs had a chat with the Project X devs who have since given up - learnings can be had and time can be saved. And yes, coreboot itself is now untennable, but is also kind of a slang for the a category of deblobbed software.
    - mlindner 3y ago
      If you're referring to this: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Project-X-AMD-Zen-Coreboot https://www.phoronix.com/news/Project-X-AMD-Zen-Coreboot This seems to make no mention of Oxide at all. Perhaps you're connecting two different unrelated organizations together as Oxide appears to have never had any relation to it. I think you're just perhaps confused about what the situation is.
      - temptemptemp111 3y ago