Re: [PATCH v1 5/6] site: faq: change x86 to AMD64.

[Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli]

On Mon, 13 May 2024 11:05:40 +0200
Adrien 'neox' Bourmault <neox@gnu.org> wrote:
> >  Given the current state of Intel hardware with the Management
> > Engine, it -is our opinion that all performant x86 hardware newer
> > than the AMD +is our opinion that all performant AMD64 hardware
> > newer than the AMD Family 15h CPUs (on AMD's side) or anything
> > post-2009 on Intel's side is defective by design and cannot safely
> > be used to store, transmit, or process sensitive data. Sensitive
> > data is any data in which a data
> 
> Here, I'm a bit annoyed since we're talking about AMD and Intel
> implementations, so I would prefer to stick with x86 here. GNUtoo,
> what do you think ?

Originally I extracted these changes from the original patch because I
wanted to convey that older 32bit systems might not have the issues
mentioned. But honestly I'm unsure how to do it right.

I only left AMD64 because it was part of the original patch but I
really wonder what is better between '64bit x86', AMD64, or even 'x86'
as it was originally.

My main concern here not only with this patch but also with what's in
that FAQ in the first place. I want to make it easy to understand
for people that do not know what an ISA is and that barely heard about
'32bit' '64bit' and x86 or 'ARM'.

Here are the contenders:

- 64bit x86 has 2 technical terms instead of one but if people heard of
  x86 and 64bit they might understand it. Maybe if people only
  understand 64bit they'll guess what it is about. Or maybe 2 terms is
  harder than one.

- AMD64 is more cryptic but has only one term and it's easily confused
  with 'AMD'.

- x86 is more well known but then you can't easily rule out that old
  32bit computers are not affected.

Another option could also be to drop this patch completely and try to
later on rework the FAQ instead.

For instance we could try another strategy not to have to talk about
specific ISAs ("Laptops/PC older than") or explain what "x86" is, only
use brand names, etc.

I've also left the FAQ as unreviewed as there might be a lot more to
fix than that. For instance the word 'incompetent' is being used to
describe problems that are not technical but more political /social /
economical.

In the long run, some of the questions in the FAQ could also be moved
directly inside the documentation. For instance if we have a chapter
about using/interacting with GNU Boot and booting with GNU Boot, 'How do
I change the BIOS settings?' could be directly described there in a
subsection.

Denis.

pgp7Fw4IMuNiQ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature