How else is there any progress when the community's just pulling everyone down with this "it's no good if it isn't completely perfect" crap?
The parent comment is right to point out this computer has a fully functioning Intel ME, running it's secret, unaudited, possibly backdoored, firmware on the co-processer which runs even when switched off, and can interact with the rest of the system undetected. Any "secure" system with this foundation isn't really secure.
IMHO a product which would focus more on this (like libreboot laptops) can make a bigger claim on doing something for security than this.
Care to elaborate?
> It still has a backdoor baked in.
True, but this does not explain or validate your previous statement. You are saying: "A has these pros and this con, B has the same con but none of the pros, hence A and B are the same". This sounds like a poor argument to me.
> Keep on downvoting because you disagree, though.
I believe that you are being downvoted because your last two comments are poorly articulated.
This project is about having a standard, physically secure computer that anyone can use – as open as we can make it. All these concepts are important, and they mean that x86 and flawless out-of-the-box Windows support are not optional. There are reasons everyone is using x86, even in the security community and in governmental agencies around the world: compatibility, performance, and security. Make no mistake, some of us own Yeeloongs, and others are veterans of the silicon industry. We would love to ship a completely free and usable desktop processor, but we know very well that there is no alternative. Some people seem to think that switching to AMD can solve problems related Intel’s Management Engine (ME), microcode, or SMM. It doesn’t, as there are equivalents of these technologies in all recent x86 processors.