• oce 🐆@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Does that mean I will have more choice in which surveillance agency I want to be spied by?

  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Our hardware has its own problems.

    We rely way too much on x86 and ia64 architecture, both of which have only two big manufacturers in the world. That’s not good because it’s almost monopolies.

    It would be better to have simpler chipsets that can be produced by more manufacturers worldwide, and especially ones that can be produced by smaller regional manufacturers.

    On top of that we shouldn’t distribute compiled binaries for the x86 and ia64 chipsets; instead program code should be distributed like .wasm, in a hardware-independent way, and compiled on the target device. That would enable that hardware can use any chipset it wants and there are no software incompatibilities because of it.

    • melfie@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      I have been waiting impatiently for WASM to really take off. I’d imagine that some day, it will be the most popular way to build software.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        My thoughts are “Why do they need one?”. It’s not like UEFI stops you doing anything.

        UBIOS’s unique features over UEFI include increased support for chiplets and other heterogeneous computing use-cases, such as multi-CPU motherboards with mismatching CPUs, something UEFI struggles with or does not support. It will also better support non-x86 CPU architectures such as ARM, RISC-V, and LoongArch, the first major Chinese operating system.

        [citation needed]

        I would say this is about increasing the level of control of the platform, not about technological issues.

        Edit: For example, here’s the RISC-V UEFI specification.

        • HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          It’s about having a home grown option. Can’t trust Americans not to backdoor everything, and that generally conflicts with China’s desire to backdoor everything.

          • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            america cannot really backdoor a specification. uefi is not software, but a specification, upon which firmwares can be built. that’s another story that we happen to be calling the firmware on our computers “the uefi”, but really there are quite a few different proprietary uefi implementations out there already.

            so, if that ws the reason, they could have just created their own UEFI firmware, and not something different