A trusted website that compiles it from source and a way for you to go to a webpage and flash from there automatically. The FPV community does that all the time with a set of websites for their ESC, flight controllers, radio, all open source. You can add signatures etc but just a trusted website goes a long way vs a random blob preinstalled
That proves that the one they checked, had the correct firmware. It does not prove that the one from the next batch that you bought did. We are all technical people here we and understand that there isn’t really an easy way to do this that a random non-technical person could actually understand and use.
Isn't the person you're replying to suggesting people can update the firmware to the trusted version via a website? So it doesn't matter if you get one from 'the next batch' - provided you're on top of updating the firmware.
If only somebody could make a firmware that claims to have accepted the update, but then proceeds to not actually update itself. Read out the version string from the update and save it. Show that when asked what your version is.
You don't want to add untrusted binary download sources in your Linux system. Your distrib is already doing that. This is not strictly about "downloads from the internet" of course
Here: 20 years of desktops and laptops basically installing the latest kernel asap on Gentoo then Arch. I did break stuff, especially Gentoo, a lot... but out of those I maybe got hit once by a kernel regression?
I don't think people realize how long it takes for the kernel to eventually catch up with your hardware.
My one year old framework laptop motherboard STILL don't have properly implemented usb-c PD apis in the kernel today. Imagine if I took a 5y old kernel?
I'd LoVE to look into it but the news website is pure cancer ads before the video, no sound clock on sound that triggers another ad to you clock back, it restart an ad and you scroll a little bit and a top ad pops up while the bottom one is still there with like 3 words of the article readable.
I clearly remember Cuda being made for HPC and scientific applications. They added actual operations for neural nets years after it was already a boom. Both instances were reactions, people already used graphics shaders for scientific purposes and cuda for neural nets, in both cases Nvidia was like oh cool money to be made.
Parallel computing goes back to the 1960s (at least). I've been involved in it since the 1980s. Generally you don't create an architecture and associated tooling for some specific application. The people creating the architecture only have a sketchy understanding of application areas and their needs. What you do is have a bright idea/pet peeve. Then you get someone to fund building that thing you imagined. Then marketing people scratch their heads as to who they might sell it to. It's at that point you observed "this thing was made for HPC, etc" because the marketing folks put out stories and material that said so. But really it wasn't. And as you note, it wasn't made for ML or AI either. That said in the 1980s we had "neural networks" as a potential target market for parallel processing chips so it's aways there as a possibility.
reply