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. [horrible mis-implementation of user hostility is worse than no implementation, perfect implementations do nto exist]
<p> I would like Spectrum to additionally have first class support for at
Looks fine
+cannot be inspected and audited. One of the advantages of Spectrum's +Linux base is the extremely wide hardware support that Linux offers, +so the only blocker for POWER9 support is support in crosvm for +virtualizing that architecture, which is outside the expertise of +anybody currently working on Spectrum but would be a very welcome +contribution.
Looks frank and true
<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.