
An Open Letter to Intel - varjag
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/
======
gtrubetskoy
All Dr. Tanenbaum is saying is that it would have been the classy thing to let
him know, nothing more.

Professor Tanenbaum is one of the most respected computer scientists alive,
and for Intel to include Minix in their chip and not let him know is kind of
unprofessional and not very nice to say the least. That is his only (and quite
fair) point.

~~~
jhasse
> and for Intel to include Minix in their chip and not let him know is kind of
> unprofessional and not very nice to say the least.

I guess Minix' license, which allows this kind of behaviour, is the very
reason Intel chose Minix in the first place. I imagine it would be very
complicated to get management approval for informing Dr. Tannenbaum about the
usage in Intel's ME.

IMHO if he has a problem with the way things worked out, he should have chosen
a different license. For example the MIT license requires the copyright and
license to be included in distributions.

~~~
rahiel
The Minix 3 license contains [0]:

    
    
        * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
        notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
        documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
    

So it looks like Minix's license does require the copyright/license to be
included in distributions.

[0]: [https://github.com/Stichting-MINIX-Research-
Foundation/minix...](https://github.com/Stichting-MINIX-Research-
Foundation/minix/blob/master/LICENSE)

~~~
teilo
The strict meaning of "Redistributions" in that clause means that Intel would
have to be distributing the OS itself as a product in binary form. Deploying
it in an embedded system, and selling that embedded system, particularly in a
form where the user does not have access to the OS as a product, does not meet
that definition. Tanenbaum himself concedes this point in this letter.

~~~
varjag
This is quite debatable, not something I'd bet a court case on.

One of my libraries with BSD 3-clause license was used in a U.S. government
project. It did require particular hardware and couldn't really be deployed by
any random user but they honored the mention clause without any prodding on my
part.

My Bosch kitchen appliances came with a whole bunch of software licenses for
embedded subsystems, even GPL ones. So it seems actual lawyers in a huge
international corporation decided it constitutes distribution.

~~~
jethro_tell
>So it seems actual lawyers in a huge international corporation decided it
constitutes distribution.

I mean, they could also just assume that shipping three sheets of paper with
each washer is just cheaper than finding out.

~~~
varjag
…which still supports my point is that it's hardly trivial and clear-cut
issue.

------
rbanffy
> this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the
> maximum amount of freedom to potential users

I'm sorry, but I don't feel free because of that.

What I see is that I have proprietary code I never saw, never vetted and which
I don't (and shouldn't) trust that's running on all my computers (not all, but
you can get it) and that I don't have the freedom to remove, examine, modify
or replace. There are already a lot of blobs that aren't audited by anyone
outside their manufacturers running a lot of basic functionality on my
computers. I don't need another blob running on god mode on my CPUs.

So, no. The use of the BSD license here is harming everyone but Intel.
Hopefully, we can make it harm Intel if we make it clear (with our purchasing
power) it is not cool to force us to run software we don't trust. It only
serves to show that the BSD license preserves the freedom of the developers
and packagers AT THE EXPENSE of the users.

~~~
mseebach
You're conflating different things. Intel is free to use MINIX which is
exactly the freedom the creator of MINIX intended when selecting the license.
You are not a party to that transaction.

That Intel uses this software for a purpose you disagree with is immaterial to
this discussion. Had MINIX not been available under a permissive license,
Intel would have found some other (but presumably more expensive) way to
largely achieve the same thing. They did not come up with and implement the
management engine because MINIX was BSD licensed.

~~~
madez
> You're conflating different things. Intel is free to use MINIX which is
> exactly the freedom the creator of MINIX intended when selecting the
> license. You are not a party to that transaction.

We are not a first party in that transaction, but feel very much the
consequences. Therefore it does involves others. Most actions have an
influence on others and therefore there are responsibilities for the
consequences.

If you sell lower quality concrete to a building company which builds a dam
that break and kills many people, then you have blood on your hands and should
be treated as such, even though you were not a first party in the dam
construction.

> That Intel uses this software for a purpose you disagree with is immaterial
> to this discussion.

It is very much not immaterial. It _might_ be legally irrelevant, but it is
not without importance.

> Had MINIX not been available under a permissive license, Intel would have
> found some other (but presumably more expensive) way to largely achieve the
> same thing. They did not come up with and implement the management engine
> because MINIX was BSD licensed.

I hope they need to spend a lot of money and energy and effort for taking
others freedom away. The cheaper it is for them, the more likely they do it.

~~~
mseebach
Your beef is with Intel and the ME (specifically, the inability to disable
it), not with Dr. Tanenbaum, MINIX or the BSD license. There is no causal
chain from these to the Intel ME.

It may feel good to have a target to direct anger at, but it's not the right
target and it's counterproductive. Free software, including that under the BSD
license, has made computing vastly safer.

~~~
sillysaurus3
_[the BSD license] has made computing vastly safer._

You have to at least stop and wonder whether that's true, though.

Your point of view and their point of view are both valid.

Unfortunately, both of you can be right, and we all have to live with that
ambiguity.

------
simias
I can't tell if this is earnest or 2nd degree. Can people more familiar with
Mr Tanenbaum's style enlighten me?

Because if this is earnest I'm quite seriously baffled. I don't mind BSD at
all and I won't comment on the political side of things but why on earth would
you rejoice that you worked for free (I assume?) for Intel only to have your
work end up in some user-hostile module forced on the users? Is Tanenbaum
egotistical enough that merely having his work be "the most widely used
computer operating system in the world" justifies everything? And then he uses
that to argue that BSD is superior to GPL because this way big companies can
use the code without giving anything back? Great success.

~~~
avar
Of course it's earnest. If it wasn't he wouldn't have picked the BSD license,
which rejects the notion that you're poorer today than yesterday just because
someone started using some software you wrote.

~~~
lmm
The notion of the GPL is that end users are poorer if they don't have source
available and can't fix bugs in the code they're using. Intel ME, meaning
people are running systems with exploitable vulnerabilities that they can't
fix, is one of the clearest arguments in favour of it.

~~~
wolfgke
One can also fix bugs without source code available (it is just harder). The
Intel ME's problem rather is that one perhaps can fix bugs, but not upload the
bug fixes back to the chip because of the required signature.

~~~
lmm
Both those things are problems (it's possible to work around the signature
issue, but it makes it a lot harder, just as with not having source code). And
both are addressed by the GPLv3.

------
tarruda
> when companies have told me that they hate the GPL because they are not keen
> on spending a lot of time, energy, and money modifying some piece of code,
> only to be required to give it to their competitors for free

Some piece of code that also cost time (and possibly someone's else money) to
develop, and that they got for free?

~~~
Radim
This struck me as bizarre as well.

You're thanking someone because you relicensed your hard work so they can use
it for free (BSD) and you complied?

All for the stated reason that they don't have to relicense their work to
other people so they could use it for free?

 _/ facepalm_

It's like some version of the Stockholm syndrome, deserves a name.

~~~
Wintamute
You seem to be having a problem understanding why people would be motivated to
release genuinely free software. Open source can mean complete freedom,
including the freedom to take the software, modify it, gain a competitive
advantage and generate economic value, according to the license choice of the
original author.

~~~
geocar
> You seem to be having a problem understanding why people would be motivated
> to release genuinely free software.

Yes, I do have a problem understanding why people work for free.

I don't see cops working for free, or bankers, or chip designers, or the guy
who served my dinner working for free. Even Andrew doesn't work for free.

I can understand licensing software that was built or purchased using
[socialist] tax dollars under the GPL for moral reasons, but I don't
understand why I have to pay Andrew to help Intel maintain their competitive
(size) advantage.

~~~
Wintamute
How are you paying Andrew? That makes no sense.

~~~
geocar
Andrew S. Tanenbaum works for a publicly funded (tax dollars) research
university.

~~~
ddalex
That would be tax euros, actually.

------
arximboldi
> If nothing else, this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley
> license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users.

Interesting conclusion, considering one of the "features" of the Intel ME is
precisely to limit what _the final user_ can do with their computer.

~~~
amelius
Yes. And it also allows others (e.g. the three-letter agencies) to spy on the
user.

I wonder how Tanenbaum feels about all that.

~~~
pulse7
If Minix's license wouldn't be BSD, they would use some other BSD licensed OS
or develop it's own...

~~~
Radim
Does this argument have a name? _" If I didn't do [SOME HORRIBLE THING X],
someone else would, so I might as well do it myself?"_

When googling, I only found this:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/3wclk6/even_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/3wclk6/even_if_i_dont_do_it_someone_else_will_does_this/)

~~~
kodablah
Bad phrasing. The argument is more like "If [this awesome thing X] wasn't
available, people would have to find a maybe-less-than-desirable alternative."
The name for it is practicality.

------
mcguire
I am saddened that Tannenbaum's only comment about the existence and purpose
of the Management Engine is in a postscript, and a very weak one at that:

" _Many people (including me) don 't like the idea of an all-powerful
management engine in there at all (since it is a possible security hole and a
dangerous idea in the first place), but that is Intel's business decision and
a separate issue from the code it runs._"

------
eecc
Well, if Minix was developed on NL and EU taxpayer dime it’s quite
disconcerting that it’s now being used to potentially bug the computers of
those same taxpayers.

I’m sure nobody would agree to paying for that, so why on earth does this man
feel entitled to give away the product of “our” taxes without any restriction

~~~
boomlinde
As far as I am concerned I am not paying for my computer to be bugged. MINIX
is a research project that is useful and interesting in its own right. That's
what the EU is funding. GPS, the internet and the microchip were also publicly
funded technologies. I don't think that anyone should object to the funding of
these inventions because there are dubious uses of them (all of them sometimes
in involuntary surveillance).

Ideally, bugging computers is a legislative issue, and the contract between
the vendor of the particular technology employed to do it (in this case not
even particularly built for that purpose) and its user is irrelevant.

~~~
eecc
Considering we have laws prohibiting the sale of surveillance technology to
states suspected of human rights violations, as well as the sale of goods
intended for misuse according to our own ethical standards (think medicines
used in lethal injection executions) it would be quite asinine to look the
other way claiming that fulfilling that particular research purpose exhausts
all further uses.

Particularly if it’s potentially used against us, citizens.

~~~
boomlinde
Looking at MINIX as "surveillace technology" or "intended for misuse" (isn't
that an oxymoron?) is stretching the definition very inclusively – it's an
operating system. Yes, people that use computers for bad things sometimes use
operating systems to facilitate those bad things. Whether you buy a license
for Microsoft Bob or use MINIX for free is beside the point.

I specifically did not suggest "looking the other way" either, I just don't
think the problem is open source operating system software that anyone can
benefit from, it's _involuntary surveillance_ , and I think that should be
addressed legislatively rather than inhibiting publicly available research on
very broadly applicable subjects.

Conversely, you could look at other research like the microchip, GPS and the
Internet, all publicly funded to fulfill some defense purpose, and all having
more than occasionally been used for indiscriminate surveillance. Would we be
better off without these things? I don't necessarily assume a "no" to that,
but it is fair to say that there are plenty of uses of these technologies that
have had positive effects on society.

------
josteink
> If nothing else, this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley
> license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users.

The Berkeley license gives software _publishers_ (which are not users) maximum
amount of freedom.

As an actual X86 _user_ who cannot remove or change this unwanted piece of
code running on my machine, I politely disagree about the freedom given to me.

~~~
bm1362
It sounds like there might be a (very tiny) market for an entirely audited GPL
stack. Intel made a sound, responsible decision for everyone involved except
the privacy crowd.

------
bartkappenburg
From his CV:

 _One of the early users of MINIX was Linus Torvalds. He began modifying MINIX
to add new features that he thought were needed. Over a period of time he had
modified almost everything and launched it as a new operating system, Linux.
It is fairly safe to say that had I not written MINIX there would have been no
Linux._

~~~
ekianjo
The last sentence is quite pretentious and completely unprovable. And if Linux
had not existed we would have had GNU Hurd way earlier in all likelihood.

~~~
digi_owl
Torvalds himself seems to have claimed that had Hurd been usable back then, he
would never have taken Linux as far as he did. Minix seems to have been barely
on his radar, if at all.

~~~
fermigier
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX#Relationship_with_Linux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX#Relationship_with_Linux)

 _The design principles Tanenbaum applied to MINIX greatly influenced the
design decisions Linus Torvalds applied in the creation of the Linux
kernel.[citation needed] Torvalds used and appreciated MINIX,[17] [...] Early
Linux kernel development was done on a MINIX host system, which led to Linux
inheriting various features from MINIX, such as the MINIX file system._

~~~
digi_owl
>[citation needed]

Hilarious...

------
throwaway246810
CVE-2017-5689 revealed that the AMT would _accept an empty password, allowing
full remote code execution_. Tanenbaum portrays his BSD-licensed OS underlying
this junk as a demonstration of "the maximum amount of freedom", and his only
concern is that he would have liked to have known how popular this OS is now.
If there was ever an example as to programmers being completely oblivious as
to the ramifications of distributing their creations, this is it.

~~~
abiox
i'm not sure what your point is, exactly. do you imagine that if only minix
didn't exist, this would never have happened?

------
therealmarv
nah, Linus Torvalds wins. I really really doubt that Minix is more deployed
than Linux... just think of three examples (and there are probably many more
examples):

* Linux in all variants running in billions of VMs and Containers.

* Android.

* There are not only Intel chips out there.

So Kudos to Dr. Tanenbaum but adding all numbers I don't think we have Minix
nearly as much deployed as Linux ;)

~~~
pjmlp
When Fuchsia gets more mature you can eventually remove Android from that
list.

The stable NDK APIs are not Linux specific, ANSI C and C++ libraries are OS
agnostic, and as of Android 8 the syscalls are white listed.

~~~
josteink
> When Fuchsia gets more mature you can eventually remove Android from that
> list.

And Android can finally throw out its biggest chunk of meaningfully open-
source source-code so far (from an end-user/modder perspective).

At that point Android is not going to be meaningfully open any more, and might
as well be considered a closed platform on par with iOS.

I wonder how/if that will impact the platforms popularity.

~~~
Fnoord
Fuchsia is open source [1] [2] though not specifically GPL. It uses a myriad
of licenses.

> I wonder how/if that will impact the platforms popularity.

It won't. Vast majority of users don't care about open source, and developers
won't have to care. The kernel and userland get replaced, but the underlying
Android OS (excluding GApps) remains open source.

[1] [https://github.com/fuchsia-mirror](https://github.com/fuchsia-mirror)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fuchsia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fuchsia)

~~~
Crespyl
With both the kernel and userland being replaced what, exactly, do you
consider the Android OS to consist of?

I assume you're referring to the Java based frameworks and Dalvik/ART runtime
pieces, but I would usually consider those part of userland, and your comment
is a little unclear.

------
Crontab
I don't understand why people put stuff out under the Berkley License and then
complain about a lack of credit or a lack of reimbursement (in support or
money) for the use of their code. Isn't that the actual point of the license?

~~~
jvdh
The point of the letter is that there is something as being polite.

Intel telling him about it at some point would have been polite.

~~~
techdragon
Especially considering they reached out to him and asked for modifications,
such as the #ifdefs which he happily obliged them with.

------
zeveb
> I have run across this before, when companies have told me that they hate
> the GPL because they are not keen on spending a lot of time, energy, and
> money modifying some piece of code, only to be required to give it to their
> competitors for free.

Nonsense; the GPL does not require that one's _competitors_ receive code, but
rather one's _users_. It further requires that one may not prevent them from
giving the code to others, with the same rights.

Thanks to the BSD, Intel's users are unable to patch, modify or extend the
hardware & software they have bought.

> If nothing else, this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley
> license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users.

I think that I've demonstrated that the freedom has not accrued to _users_ but
rather to Intel.

~~~
ctw
> Nonsense; the GPL does not require that one's competitors receive code, but
> rather one's users.

What's stopping an Intel competitor from also being a user? Am I wrong that
all it would take is for an Intel competitor to buy an x86 computer with an
Intel processor and then demand the source code? If that's the case, then it
hardly seems like nonsense to me.

------
rplnt
> I guess that makes MINIX the most widely used computer operating system in
> the world, even more than Windows, Linux, or MacOS.

I very much doubt that there's more (modern) Intel CPUs in the wild than
there's say android devices (not containing Intel CPUs).

~~~
hawski
> (...) computer operating system (...)

I guess that by "computer" he means "desktop".

~~~
fnord123
He doesn't know what he means. Linux is deployed on more than 1/cpu through
VMs.

~~~
charonn0
> He doesn't know what he means.

I'm pretty sure he does.

~~~
fnord123
I'm pretty sure if you pressed him on it, he would change goalposts to suit
his fantasy.

------
andromaton
The open letter is not about licensing or private attribution. It's the
slowest come back I've ever seen. In 1992, Tanenbaum wrote "LINUX is
obsolete". Linus and Tanenbaum docked it out about microkernels. Linux became
very widely used. Intel secretly made Minix even more so. Linus eyes must be
rolling.

------
remy_luisant
Another question is: Does the ME use SQLite? Some other database? If so, how
many times is it bundled in there?

[https://www.sqlite.org/mostdeployed.html](https://www.sqlite.org/mostdeployed.html)

I wonder how drh would feel about it.

------
sixdimensional
This brings a nice context to the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants"
[1]. Who's the giant, in reality?

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants)

------
rcdwealth
I was expecting to see his reaction on privacy issues and maybe to announce
the next version to be GPL-ed, but no, he is just asking for "thank you" by
Intel. However, it was never their strategy to release out all information
hidden deep inside their chip.

------
JohnStrange
Can't someone please find and publish a hack that allows anyone to use the
Minix for his own purposes? I'd rather have a commercial antivirus vendor
control my "machine in the machine" than some arbitrary 3 letter agency from a
foreign country.

~~~
Retr0spectrum
[https://www.blackhat.com/eu-17/briefings/schedule/#how-to-
ha...](https://www.blackhat.com/eu-17/briefings/schedule/#how-to-hack-a-
turned-off-computer-or-running-unsigned-code-in-intel-management-engine-8668)

------
mdemare
Incidentally, ast also runs [http://electoral-vote.com/](http://electoral-
vote.com/), since the 2004 elections. Posts marked (V) are by him.

------
infinity0
> this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the
> maximum amount of freedom to potential users.

I find it incredible how ~ast can consider the intel ME to be achieving "the
maximum amount of freedom" to potential users. He even criticises it in the
very next paragraph.

More generally, I find it incredible how people can view the attempts (by
copyleft) to restrict the freedom to restrict others, as attacks on freedom.

------
antirez
I'm very skeptic about people saying that with GPL things would go
differently. I see it more real world that Intel would either pick something
else and inferior, or rewrite it from scratch producing some kind of internal
corporate little monster. Result: a very widely distributed product would be
worse, developers working at Intel having to deal with some only-internal
project without outside applications or interest, and so forth. Now at least
they: 1) Work at an open code. 2) May contribute fixes in the future. 3)
Developers can use the experience to use the same code base elsewhere in the
future. 4) Who joins and knows Minix can be productive faster without learning
something internally produced. BSD _sounds like_ a license that allows
companies to steal value, but in that case it only improves the global
outcome. On the other side BSD is a bit of a real problem in the cloud because
it limits two of the most important business models of OSS code: services and
products, but only in case of software you sell as-a-service.

------
mmcclellan
I first heard the Minix thing in this talk:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iffTJ1vPCSo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iffTJ1vPCSo)
which I found, I think via a HN thread. Anyway, most of the articles rehash
this talk and IMO its a solid 30 minute investment.

------
JepZ
It is interesting to see that Andrew S. Tanenbaum released this letter to the
public (probably to show that he was not directly involved in deploying Minix
to all those chips), while saying that he is okay with the closed source
nature, as long as there are _good reasons_ to do so (to prevent causing any
problems for him and for the person who made the decision at Intel).

Hey Andrew, if you have no problem with Minix running as a spy OS inside
everybody's computer, please make that clear and write:

"I appreciate Intel's use of my work to potentially backdoor everyone's
systems and am proud to have had such a _huge_ impact on the world. If it
helps to keep Minix being the most used OS in the world, I hereby grant
everybody (not just Intel) to use me and my work without any restriction under
the terms of the BSD license."

~~~
matthewmacleod
That's an absolute non-sequitur and I think you know that.

There is no reason that MINIX could not have been used in the ME even if it
were GPLd, for example…

~~~
JepZ
That whole letter is about how much better the BSD license is than the GPL. If
Minux would have been GPLd Intel would have had to open source the ME and
therefore didn't use e.g. Linux.

I have not particular Problem with the BSD license (I use it myself sometimes)
but give the facts that since years hackers are trying to convince Intel and
AMD to relase their ME/PSP source code [1] (to safe us all from deeply
infectable hardawre and unrestricted surveillance), I find it disgusting how
Tanenbaum uses the situation to drive the discussion towards BSD vs. GPL and
how right he was that the BSD provides the maximum amount of freedom to
potential users.

In my opinion he should have said something like he knows that the BSD license
also grants Intel the right to use it for whatever they want, but given the
magnitude of the technological impact he supports the public interest to open
source the ME and asks AMD to do the same with their PSP.

That way he could have used his role as the Minix inventor for the sake of
transparency.

[1] Top question here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_crea...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_creators_of_athlon_radeon_and_other/)

~~~
matthewmacleod
I don't think that Tanenbaum has any responsibility whatsoever to make that
request.

The question about ME is totally, 100% orthogonal to the fact that it uses
MINIX, and I'd go further and argue that this is sort of the point – releasing
code as BSD is an explicit acceptance that it may be used in ways that one
disagrees with.

------
dep_b
For a while I sometimes had a thought if it were possible to put the OS
completely in EFI and run an application completely in cache since both types
of memory are quite big now. I mean I used to run Windows 95 with 8MB of RAM,
Linux with 1MB, while a Xeon already has 16MB of cache.

That should be one hell of a fast computer

------
signa11
the real danger (if you can call it that) now is that, this codebase will
start attracting a disproportionate number of eyeballs from security
researchers to blackhats etc. _everyone_ wants their hands on that always-on
backdoor embedded in the vast majority of modern machines. <shudder>

------
bm1362
For anyone unfamiliar with Minix, it appears to be a tiny OS:

> MINIX 3 is a free, open-source, operating system designed to be highly
> reliable, flexible, and secure. It is based on a tiny microkernel running in
> kernel mode with the rest of the operating system running as a number of
> isolated, protected, processes in user mode. It runs on x86 and ARM CPUs, is
> compatible with NetBSD, and runs thousands of NetBSD packages.[1]

Something about this [2] made me feel bad for the author, I can't imagine
building software for a few decades, getting excited about a conference and
then no one submitting any papers.

[1] [http://www.minix3.org/](http://www.minix3.org/)

[2] > Unfortunately, the MINIXCon 2017 conference had to be cancelled due to
the small number of talks submitted

------
znpy
I think it's foolish of Mr Tanenbaum to expect how Intel used Minix in their
super-secret project. I mean, it's super-secret. Telling him "Congratulation,
Minix is now the most widely used OS in every x86 pc, but we cannot tell you
why and how" would have blown pretty much everything. Any average person would
have done 2+2 and would have understood what was going on.

Beside this... I think it is important that this would not have happened if
Minix was licensed under the GPL. Not this way, at least. Intel would have had
to find another OS (possibly paying for it) or develop one ex-novo (again,
paying for it). So it would have happened anyway, but at least it would have
been much more expensive for Intel.

------
xmatos
Like it or not, that enforces the beauty of GPL. I'm positively sure, if it
wasn't it, linux wouldn't be in its position today. I actually prefer the
LGPL, as it doesnt spread through, or "contaminate", the rest of your code
base.

------
dbolgheroni
A lot of comments seems to converge on a license flamewar, almost blaming the
choice of MINIX on using a permissive license like the BSD.

It is not a license problem. Nor Mr. Tanenbaum position on "being glad" of
MINIX being used on billions of x86 computers. Intel hiding code on all chips
is the problem. Intel opening backdoors (maybe not intentionally, due to bugs)
is the problem. Not being able to _easily_ disable or update this code is the
problem.

If it wasn't the MINIX, Intel would use something else. If there wasn't, they
would write their own OS for it.

------
maxpert
I expected more intellectual letter from Tanenbaum. And I don’t know why they
myth of intel CPUs more than ARM CPUs is getting so much traction I don’t
think its true.

------
krylon
Has Intel responded to this in any way?

Ever since I first heard of the Management Engine, and of the various problems
this thing raises, I found it curious that Intel remained so quiet about it.

I can think of two plausible explanations: a) They do not want to draw any
more attention to this issue and are pulling a "reverse Streisand", if you
will. If so, there could be several reasons for them to act this way. Or, b),
they just don't care enough.

------
brianon99
Dear Tanenbaum, in case you are reading this, thank you for creating Minix. I
have the first edition of your Design and Implementation of OS. That enjoyable
read makes me a programmer now. Your insights is ever-lasting. Your humbleness
marks you as the best computer scientist. Thank you.

------
_pmf_
That's a commendable level of passive-aggressiveness, but the whole affair
warrants it. I think it would have been for Intel's and the general public's
benefit (given the impact of potential issues) if there had been some
cooperation with Tanenbaum himself.

------
Bobbleoxs
What I never understand is under open source license of any sort, do people
generally expect credentials? Fame or money or both, do you think you should
get at least one? Just a question, no opinion on Mr Tanenbaum's letter per se.

~~~
jwilk
Some do, some don't.

The BSD licence that MINIX 3 uses actually requires giving credit:

 _Copyright (c) 1987, 1997, 2006, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands All rights reserved. Redistribution and use of the MINIX 3
operating system in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are
permitted provided that the following conditions are met:_

[...]

 _Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and
/or other materials provided with the distribution._

[...]

Source: [https://github.com/Stichting-MINIX-Research-
Foundation/minix...](https://github.com/Stichting-MINIX-Research-
Foundation/minix/blob/master/LICENSE)

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Exactly, a lot of people think of the BSD license as not reserving any rights,
but it actually does reserve a few rights, such as the preservation of the
copyright notice. A license that actually reserves no rights would be
something like CC0.

~~~
drewbug
Or the WTFPL ;)

------
ajnin
> These discussions were why we put MINIX 3 out under the Berkeley license in
> 2000

Is he implying that he chose that license specifically because Intel asked for
it ?

He claims that that license is the most user-friendly since it gives the user
the most freedom, which is true in that case, but he's missing the point, when
the FSF and other GPL proponents mention user freedom they talk about the end
user freedom, the one at the end of the chain that will have to use the
software (i.e. anyone who purchased a semi-recent Intel chip). When
considering the user community as a whole, it is clear that they globally get
less value from the project since changes don't have to (and don't) get
contributed back and they can't make changes to the software that they are
using.

Seems very short-sighted to claim a win here when the only 2 parties that
benefit are Intel and Tanenbaum's ego.

------
youdontknowtho
Does anybody remember the other x86 competitor of the 90's Cyrix? (Is that the
name?)

What happened to them. Is there anyone out there with an x86 IP license that
could build a super simple P3 or P4 class chip?

~~~
brohee
The Cyrix x86 IP was bought by VIA (by way of National Semiconductor), which
still makes low power x86 CPU, often found in SFF, low power PC.

~~~
youdontknowtho
seems like they could produce an eight core P4 equivalent without ME.

------
signa11
is it just me, or other folks here as well, also got the inkling that this was
just a veiled gloat ? not so sure if being complicit in intel's ME racket is
such a great honor...

------
mk89
This "letter" smells so passive-aggressive... brr...

~~~
mankash666
Exactly! The TLDR on it is - Intel followed the terms of the BSD license.

~~~
badsectoracula
Another way to read it is that thanks to the BSD license, Intel got an entire
OS for free to use for their backdoor core but that doesn't matter really -
the important part is that MINIX is now the most widely used OS in the world
:-)

------
g051051
From the Network World report:

> If you have a modern Intel CPU (released in the last few years) with Intel’s
> Management Engine built in, you’ve got another complete operating system
> running that you might not have had any clue was in there: MINIX.

That's different from Mr. Tannenbaum's claim:

> Thanks for putting a version of MINIX 3 inside the ME-11 management engine
> chip used on almost all recent desktop and laptop computers in the world.

What about all of the AMD system, or the systems that were built before IME 11
(or that just don't have it)?

~~~
abiox
what about them? i'm not sure what you're question is getting at.

~~~
g051051
I dispute the claim: "ME-11 management engine chip [is] used on almost all
recent desktop and laptop computers in the world". AMD chips are popular in
both consumer and business applications...there's no way that whatever
fraction of chipsets Intel delivers are "almost all". Furthermore, Intel's
documentation seems to state that this is a chipset feature, not a processor
feature:

> Currently, we support the following chipsets regardless of your system
> manufacturer or the motherboard in your PC:

> Intel® Q57/H57/H55/P55 Express Chipset

> Mobile Intel® QM57/QS57/HM57/HM55/PM55 Express Chipsets

The wording is sufficiently vague that I can't be 100% sure about it.

------
Tistel
competition keeps the herd healthy. Somebody should make an ARM laptop/desktop
that is not riddled with three letter government agency spyware (a ring -3 web
server! Hidden from the person who bought the CPU! Did I say you could do
that? Unbelievable). Also, from a basic CS standpoint, having a whole CPU
being wasted is inefficent.

~~~
drewbug
> Somebody should make an ARM laptop/desktop that is not riddled with three
> letter government agency spyware

[https://libreboot.org/docs/hardware/c201.html](https://libreboot.org/docs/hardware/c201.html)

------
Vektorweg
The modern conception of economic competition is disturbing.

------
neelkadia
We need bring your own processor tech now.

------
yohann305
what a nice guy this Dr Tanenbaum is. I don't know him, I wish i did

------
mankash666
How many non-copyleft mini OSes exist? It's likely that Intel engineers were
more familiar with the author's OS given the popularity of his book.

All that aside, Intel did exactly what the license allows them to do. The
license doesn't require a thank you note.

If it makes HN feel any better, Intel is among the leading contributors to
Linux, and MANY other open source projects. Intel doesn't expect a thank you
note for it

~~~
xfer
Intel contributes to Linux because they have horses in the race, it is not out
of charity.

~~~
0xFFC
Nothing is out of charity in this world. Not even charity itself.

------
mtgx
> If nothing else, this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley
> license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users.

Freedom in this case should refer to "freedom what to do with the code" not
freedom as in personal liberty, which is what _libre_ /GPL software is usually
about. So it's more like how the smartphones OEMs and carriers are "free" to
modify and lock-down the Android OS as much as they want.

------
thrillgore
He's gloating over a significant security flaw baked into Intel hardware.

~~~
nacs
His code is running on the vast majority of PCs produced, thats something to
gloat over regardless of whether he agrees with the usage or not.

~~~
thrillgore
I think i'd word my statements better if my software was involved in a big
security exploit, just to totally cover my ass now that the pentesters are
going to hammer my kernel.

------
noncoml
Wow. So he is super happy that his work is now more “widely used” than Linux,
and only butthurt about not getting enough recognition?

No word about the elephant in the room?

------
popee
And now I'm happy that Linux won

~~~
pjmlp
Won what?

\- Being the kernel of ChromeOS and Android, not accessible to majority of
userspace and easily replaceable by anything else (e.g. Fuchsia).

\- Lost to macOS and Windows on the desktop

It only won on the server room, and now it runs under Minix supervision.

~~~
jhasse
> and easily replaceable by anything else (e.g. Fuchsia).

If it's so easy, why hasn't it happen yet?

~~~
pjmlp
Most likely money and drivers.

Linux comes mostly for free, Fuchsia is still not mature enough and is 100% on
Google's budget.

However and this is what I always raise up to people rejoicing about Linux on
Android, using official Android images, there is very little Linux exposed to
application writers.

The Java Frameworks are naturally kernel agnostic, and the NDK APIs are quite
constrained, with the main goal of being used to implement Java _native_
methods or bring in C or C++ code into Android.

[https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/stable_apis.html](https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/stable_apis.html)

[https://developer.android.com/ndk/reference/index.html](https://developer.android.com/ndk/reference/index.html)

Anything else just isn't allowed and might kill the app as of Android 7.

[https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2016/06/android-
ch...](https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2016/06/android-changes-for-
ndk-developers.html)

[https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/07/seccomp-
fi...](https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/07/seccomp-filter-in-
android-o.html)

Hence why Termux needs to emulate many Linux behaviors.

~~~
josteink
> Linux comes mostly for free, Fuchsia is still not mature enough and is 100%
> on Google's budget.

Said differently: Linux works and is useful for everyone and has wide
corporate backing, while Fuchsia is only useful to Google.

I'll put my bets on which one persists in the long run based solely on that
premise.

------
ramshanker
The guy missed one hell of a point on his resume for better part of a decade!

More than that Personal satisfaction would be unimaginable given the magnitude
of deployment.

~~~
mfukar
Yeah, Andrew Fucking Tanenbaum needs to expand his resume.

~~~
ramshanker
Ohh, now that your replied in that tone, I googled him. :)

Obviously ammuters with non CS backgrounds can't be expected to know Who-is-
Who of CS history. Even if I knew him, how often people explicitly find out
the author of the articl? On mobile screen?

~~~
mcv
I suppose you're right, but he's famous enough that a lot of people in the CS
world recognise him by name, by initials, or by url.

