Re: [PATCH www 2/1] design.html: mention aarch64 as well as x86_64

[Alyssa Ross <hi@alyssa.is>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1778 bytes --]

> >I'd like to continue to link to x86 Considered Harmful somewhere in
> >the text, but couldn't figure out how to fit it in since there's not
> >really anywhere I'm talking about x86 specifically rather than all
> >architectures.  I'd appreciate suggestions for how I might do that.
>
> I think it is nice to have «why not ARM» and «why not x86*» sections
> when you have an implementation that you are justifying, and no doubts
> on the way-cheaper attack level (there must be a memory attack on Sway
> given a hijacked browser, mustn't there be?)
>
> Right now, you getting a restful break is more useful than picking
> wording on choices Spectrum cannot yet afford to make.

Yeah good idea but absolutely.  I just want to make sure that while I'm
having the break I don't have to worry that people are looking at the
website and getting the impression that I'm going to be able to do
something I'm not.

> > <p>
> >-Ideally, all Spectrum packages, x86_64 and ppc64le, would be built on
> >+Ideally, all Spectrum packages, for all architectures, would be built on
> > POWER9 hardware.  Even if a user has to trust the x86_64 computer
>
> _Ideally_ on diverse hardware with more than one transparent-ish
> platform, because lack of blobs to load does not mean lack of backed-in
> vulnerable functionality. Open POWER9 cores help, but do not prove
> faithful implementation on a specific chip in your hands, all that
> stuff.
>
> I would put as
> «
> Ideally, all Spectrum packages, for all architectures, would be built on
> diverse hardware including a platform with POWER9 level of openness.
> »
>
> But, again, this a bridge to burn once it is crossed, or something.

Yeah sounds good, I think I'll just go with exactly that phrasing.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]