Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Released: First PC Based On Russia's Homegrown "Baikal" Processor (t-platforms.ru)

Posted by timothy on from the shoot-reliably-even-in-rough-conditions dept.

WheatGrass writes to note that the company T-Platforms has introduced the first mass production unit based upon the Russian Baikal-T1 processor, mentioned here last in 2014. The new Baikal-based workstation is called the "Meadowsweet terminal," according to T-Platform's official website; the feature list says it's running a Debian-based Linux distro. "Congratulations, Russia," Says WheatGrass. (According to Google's translation of this Russian-language story at RG.RU Digital, "[Y]ou can install many conventional applications, such as the LibreOffice office suite, Firefox web browser, and so on, the developers say," but the main use seems to be as a thin client.)

60 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Russian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's a MIPS CPU, built by TSMC.

    I assume there were some Russians involved in the design. But that's true of all major CPUs too.

    1. Re:Russian? by thoughtspace · · Score: 1

      Poor bastards had to revive the near dead MIPs Linux kernel.

    2. Re:Russian? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, I looked it up and Baikal Electronics purchased a license for the MIPS instruction set. From there, they implemented the instruction set on their own. It's not their first chip, so I assume the used their own I/O designs from other chips. It is a Russian chip. TSMC is just a foundry. Do you make a big deal about what kind of printer people use to print papers?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:Russian? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Do you make a big deal about what kind of printer people use to print papers?

      Well, actually I think creating the printer is more of an accomplishment than pressing ctrl-p.

      (This one could had been continued into pressing ctrl-c, ctrl-v, ctrl-p in case of a design made by someone else ;D)

    4. Re:Russian? by slashping · · Score: 1
      Still wouldn't call it "homegrown", if it's a modified MIPS.

      I assume the used their own I/O designs from other chips

      If we're going to assume, I assume they just licensed the I/O cores. It's a lot cheaper and simpler to buy a working design off the shelf.

    5. Re:Russian? by Hentes · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I don't know what the motivation for a homegrown CPU was, but if the goal was to build something secure with no foreign backdoors then using a foreign foundry defeats that.

    6. Re:Russian? by slashping · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you give somebody a low level chip design, rather than the source code, it would be very hard for them to add a backdoor.

    7. Re:Russian? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

      Do you make a big deal about what kind of printer people use to print papers?

      I depends if it is one of the printers that adds yellow dots

    8. Re:Russian? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Thanks. That was the first question in my mind. I guess they could try porting ReactOS to it, since NT once ran on the MIPS

    9. Re:Russian? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Naah, just port ReactOS to it. Or ask Microsoft if they could spare the source code of NT 3.51.

    10. Re:Russian? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      > Do you make a big deal about what kind of printer people use to print papers?

      Personally? Nope. I do not. However, you can bet your ass that the people who print and publish think that sort of thing is very important. They want to know brand, model, model variations, value-adds, accessories, layout, layout equipment, assembly, assembly method, conveyor system, and they even want to know things like the ink and the brand of ink. And those aren't even the half of it. On top of that, they don't just want to know for themselves, they want to know what the rest of them are doing in the industry or in their individual shops.

      They're actually quite keen on knowing that information.

      Not that I don't get what (I think) you're trying to say but that's a horrible analogy, unless I'm missing something. I suppose it's possible that I'm missing something. It can and does happen. I don't actually know much about the printing industry but I did end up having to have to learn some few things about it. I actually own a part of a small printing house and was recently given the chance to invest in a second one. They are not a newspaper printing company (either one of them) but they both do print some newspapers.

      Print is not dead - it's still alive and well. Newspapers aren't doing so well but print, in and of itself, isn't doing bad at all. I've already made back the money from the first investment (they wanted to buy some new equipment and the bank would not extend their credit, a similar situation with the second one but I've not yet said yes or no to that one) and I expect they'll be buying my share of the business back soon.

      Seeing as I'm here and bored... Heh, I should link 'em. They do specialty orders and do online orders.

      They print specialty stuff and can work with some fancy papers now. They're not a huge outfit or anything. They've located themselves into what was a shoe factory. They only rent half of it but they've got four machines now and all four do a few things differently though there's some overlap. They don't just print but they also bind. They can work on fancy card stock, parchment type stuff, and things like that. They've got one piece of equipment, made in Germany, that they got not too long ago which is how I got involved. I guess it was about four years ago now. Anyhow, they can do fancy leather-bound books that look like they're old rough-cut paper. They're actually made of a recycled paper but they don't do the recycling themselves.

      At any rate... That's a horrible analogy!!! ;-) There are some people who really, really want to know what type of printer was used. Some of them are really neat. You can print there on that machine, but it's slower and more expensive, so you can "break" it and cut out a part of the process and just print it on a different machine and then skip that whole first section and feed the now-printed stock into it. At that point, you almost don't even touch it. It cuts it or folds it. It can sew it or glue it. It attaches a cover. You can insert things in multiple places and even make a partial loop so things go back around and get more added to it cumulatively before it goes to the next stage which would be binding.

      After binding, you can actually get another chunk to this system and it will pack them, wrap them, count them, and even can inspect them (to some degree). It can stitch and hot-glue the bindings. It's all really kind of neat and all sorts of fancy. You can add to it and grow it as you grow your printing company. The way it is now, it can take 2 to 8 people to fully operate it. It could go as low as one operator (more a tender) or you can get them to stretch whole building lengths I guess. I've seen it and seen it in action and got to see what it looked like during the install.

      I just did a quick Google and I can't find the name of the manufacturer. They're from Germany, I know that much. It's green. That's probably not that helpful. But, it's mostly green, some gray, a few monitors and inputs, and

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. Low-end MIPS processor by AaronW · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's basically a low-end MIPS 32-bit processor. You can basically get everything that's in the chip as off-the-shelf cores. MIPS is popular because it's quite a bit cheaper to license than ARM. I'm surprised they didn't go with a 64-bit MIPS core since it's been available for a very long time.

    Once nice thing about MIPS is that it's very easy to add your own instructions to it via coprocessor 2. My employer has used COP2 to add a lot of encryption and hashing instructions to their MIPS cores. ARM does not allow you to add your own instructions. The only thing that's mildly interesting is the 10G Ethernet support, but then that will be limited by the 32-bit MIPS. I'm not sure if it's a cache-coherent core but my guess is that it's not, which adds significant overhead in my experience since every buffer must be invalidated when it's received and flushed when transmitted. In MIPS this is done by issuing CACHE instructions for every cache line used in the buffer.

    Since it lacks a decent sized L2 cache the performance is going to suck.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    1. Re:Low-end MIPS processor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      10 years ago you would've been pointing out how great it is that Linux works on it, but Windows never would. Now it's, "ah, your processor sucks".

      I mean, if you're going to make fun of something, how about that they're putting this in a computer with a PS/2 connector (no doubt there are many that still use this, mostly because the Russian economy is a wasteland, no thanks to western sanctions).

    2. Re:Low-end MIPS processor by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's also unclear where, or even if, you can buy the thing (having CPU from Soviet Russia, or at least Putinstan, would be cool :-). So it seems like a different version of something like the Ci20 Creator, which has been around for awhile.

    3. Re:Low-end MIPS processor by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The only interesting feature is that it can actually be built on fabs located in Russia. Mostly for military and highly-sensitive government customers as it's not even remotely cost-effective. On the other hand, it's also likely to NOT have NSA backdoors.

    4. Re:Low-end MIPS processor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The only interesting feature is that it can actually be built on fabs located in Russia. Mostly for military and highly-sensitive government customers as it's not even remotely cost-effective. On the other hand, it's also likely to NOT have NSA backdoors.

      Well, that means that Russian companies could be willing to pay a lot for them. While their own government will be snooping in they won't hand the information over the overseas competition.
      It also means that US consumers might be interested too. While the Russian government might be snooping on them Russian is not likely to hand over the information to anyone who is interested in what you do in your home.

      Yes, it has come to the point where enemies of my government benefits more from protecting my freedom than my government does.

    5. Re:Low-end MIPS processor by Megol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      USB: complex interface requiring a software stack on both the host and the device.
      PS/2: simple interface, reliable, a few rows of code is all that's needed to interface to the keyboard. The device in turn need very little extra code over the scanning logic.

      When it comes to keyboards and mice the PS/2 interface is generally superior, the reason USB keyboards/mice are used nowadays is that USB is the standard interface.

      TL;DR in almost all cases PS/2 is superior to USB for keyboard/mouse interfacing.

    6. Re:Low-end MIPS processor by slashping · · Score: 1, Informative

      USB is good enough, and doesn't require a special connector. And the complexity of the interface is a solved issue.

    7. Re:Low-end MIPS processor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Um, guys? Click on the links. It has both USB and PS/2. It's not an either/or thing.

    8. Re:Low-end MIPS processor by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      I too always wondered why more hasn't been made of MIPS64...
      64bit MIPS has been around since the early 90s, it has OS and compiler support which is extremely mature, and yet they didn't push this advantage and a lot of resources were instead diverted to 64bit ARM...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    9. Re:Low-end MIPS processor by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      And the complexity of the interface is a solved issue.

      Until you are booting a disk-damaged Windows computer with no PS2 interface and Microsoft's all-so-helpful disk check tells you to press any key to stop "repairing" your disk and then proceeds to destroy the data because the drivers for the USB keyboard aren't loaded yet...

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    10. Re:Low-end MIPS processor by Misagon · · Score: 1

      The USB "Human Interface Device" protocol, which is used by USB keyboards, mice and gamepads is not only complex because it is a layered protocol.
      It is complex also because it has a very free-form model: it allows the device to specify which protocol it speaks. And when an implementation can do things in many different ways then things can also go wrong in many different ways.

      For instance, there are actually a couple keyboard models that work well with Windows and Linux but not with Apple MacOS or iOS -- because Apple's USB HID stack follows a little bit stricter interpretation of the standard than the others.

      The most well-known issue however is that some USB keyboards don't work with some BIOSes or don't work with some BIOSes that are set to "Fast Boot" mode (or whatever it is called).
      To keep the USB stack needed inside a BIOS simple, all keyboards have to support a simple keyboard protocol called the "Boot Protocol". This protocol is an example in the USB "Human Interface Device" standard's documentation and it works over Low-Speed USB so most cheap keyboards and ready-made keyboard controllers use only this protocol even in "normal" mode.
      However, to enable it, the BIOS has to send the keyboard a special request -- yet several popular BIOSes neglect to do that, because: Hey, it worked on all these cheap keyboards!
      When the BIOS does not work with the more expensive keyboards that run Full Speed USB with lower latency and features such as N-key rollover, Media keys etc.. people tend to blame the keyboard when it is really the BIOS's fault.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    11. Re:Low-end MIPS processor by unixisc · · Score: 1

      It's basically a low-end MIPS 32-bit processor. You can basically get everything that's in the chip as off-the-shelf cores. MIPS is popular because it's quite a bit cheaper to license than ARM. I'm surprised they didn't go with a 64-bit MIPS core since it's been available for a very long time.

      That's what I'm wondering - why would anyone TODAY do a 32-bit CPU, aside from embedded applications? There were some really low cost MIPS CPUs in the 90s, such as the R4600 from IDT and Toshiba. So one could start from the spec sheet of one of those CPUs, and then add/remove any CPU instructions that were unneeded, and they'd have been just fine

    12. Re:Low-end MIPS processor by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Peking duck?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Low-end MIPS processor by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

      So I'd get better performance and security if I'd rolled my own on a decent FPGA chip?

    14. Re:Low-end MIPS processor by Trogre · · Score: 1

      PS/2 events generate hardware interrupts, meaning:

      1. Your input device will likely be more responsive.
      2. Your computer is more likely to power on properly with a keypress.

      USB by design does not make use of hardware interrupts.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    15. Re:Low-end MIPS processor by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      The thing about MIPS is that it is easy to implement yourself and the patents around unaligned loads which hampered third party implementations where invalidated 15 years ago. Coupled with a complete toolchain and mature Linux ports it is an attractive target for a country developing a CPU that is to be free of external sourcing issues.

  3. First step is the hardest by Max_W · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They built it to be used in government offices and companies. There is a suspicion in those parts that western CPUs are programmed on low level to record the information and send it periodically to a central server.

    1. Re:First step is the hardest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's entirely possible that Intel and AMD have backdoors in their CPU. I think there was something awhile back about suspicious activity by Intel.

    2. Re:First step is the hardest by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      If a computer on a government controlled network has both the capability and access to collect and send information out then they have a lot more series problems that could be easily addressed by semi competent network admins a 1000 fold cheaper than building a new processor and OS.

    3. Re:First step is the hardest by jouassou · · Score: 2

      Are you thinking about the Active Management Technology?

    4. Re:First step is the hardest by F.Ultra · · Score: 2

      I think that you vastly underestimate the complexity of protecting a network for a full scale targeted attack by some one as NSA with all their resources. For one thing they would hardly use the regular network for this at all.

    5. Re:First step is the hardest by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      A homebred processor and a variant of an open source OS does not achieve that protection from a full blown attack either. Or do you somehow think they can deploy all this with the NSA never getting their hands on it? The money spent creating this could be far better spent on good network and security which would achieve far more.

    6. Re:First step is the hardest by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Something tells me that the FSB know better than either you or me about this subject considering that they have been fighting the CIA and the NSA for decades. Now of course there is no proof that this new processor and OS have anything to do with the FSB but being able to produce 100% of the process in Russia is certainly something that the FSB would like very much. Of course the NSA will get their hands on it but I seriously doubt that they can influence the design or put their back doors into it (if the FSB is part of the project). During the Cold War the CIA never ever managed to get a single agent inside the KGB while the CIA itself where packed with KGB people and something tells me that Putin is more hard line than the old managers.

  4. Speaking of Russian computers by atomlib · · Score: 2

    Here is detailed review of another one— Elbrus 401-PC. It's completely in Russian but I think Google Translate can help. It includes hardware and software reviews as well as overview of developer tools and benchmarks. https://geektimes.ru/post/2703... https://geektimes.ru/post/2703... https://geektimes.ru/post/2703... https://geektimes.ru/post/2703...

  5. rofl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    chips from USA, chips from Russia... omg which evil empire's chip should I buy lol...

    1. Re:rofl by fisted · · Score: 2

      chips from USA, chips from Russia....it's all made in Taiwan!

      --
      CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
  6. This is ... not so good news by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, it's probably a dated design and all, and bluntly I don't care about the chip itself. I wonder WHY.

    Why is Russia making its own chips when computer chips are cheap and plentiful? It's way cheaper to simply buy a few. Why bother rolling your own? Well, there are exactly two reason why I would make my own hardware. One, I don't trust the existing manufacturers to not include backdoors and kill switches. This is what I hope the reason for doing it is.

    Two, because they may not be available anymore when the country they're made in is no longer friendly to mine. This is what I kinda fear the reason could be.

    We're not going to head for war, but I could see the international climate getting frostier in the near future.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:This is ... not so good news by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, Putin is much, but he ain't dumb. And neither are many of the people who move things about in that country. I spent quite a bit of time dealing with people in Russia and it's like they said in Red October, the average Russian doesn't even take a dump without a plan.

      Unless Vodka is involved, but let's assume such things are decided with a level head.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:This is ... not so good news by aliquis · · Score: 2

      Why is Russia making its own chips when computer chips are cheap and plentiful?

      To remain sovereign and not ruled by someone else.
      See the United states, the EU, UN, see TTIP.
      Why did the US wanted to have their own oil production? Same thing.
      I've got the impression that in my home country we can't rely on food from out own country, that may work just fine for now but not necessarily always.

    3. Re:This is ... not so good news by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Three: I (and/or some of my cronies) own a fab plant.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:This is ... not so good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wrong, and not only wrong but very wrong.

      I'm not a Slavic person, nor am I paranoid, but I very much fear things will go down in flames within a not too distant future. Why?

      If you had known your history, you'd have known how similar these days are to the period preceding WWII, with growing economical inequalities and populist politicians taking new ground by using unemployment, fear and contempt of the establishment to springboard their new lives.

      We are also living in a time where human lives are getting less and less worth, we have basically via Wall Street and the "downsizing" mantra reintroduced the view that the have-nots are to be considered cannon-fodder and little else.

      The third thing to considered is that we are constantly bathed in the "glories" of WWII, war is generally considered good, if it's only waged against the right people. The early 20th century had it's warmongers, among Winston Churchill, who himself claimed to "love war", we have ours. They are all united in their supreme contempt for the suffering of the common man, who is so alien to them he could just as well be an insect. No matter what happens, the 1-percenters won't feel a thing.

      So, what we have is an elite who is running our societies which is increasingly alienated from the rest of our society, just like the old time nobility, and which similarly has nothing but contempt for the rest of us, have absolutely no sense of responsibility and is totally in the hands of their corporate masters, just like in the past.

      You don't have to be paranoid to be worried.

    5. Re:This is ... not so good news by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      One, I don't trust the existing manufacturers to not include backdoors and kill switches. This is what I hope the reason for doing it is.

      Given that Intel has Intel Management Engine, and AMD has the Platform Secure Processor, and both a dormant parts of the CPU always running with complete and total control of your machine on pretty much any of the latest series of processors. For the security concious this is a very real risk.

      The benefits are there, the Chip makers are effectively building server type machine control in on the processor level. But without disclosing exact implementation details or source code you CPU is now running untrusted 3rd party code.

    6. Re:This is ... not so good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >Well, Putin is much, but he ain't dumb.

      I hear this, but I don't think it's true. I mean, I saw a country that had great promise, but it continuing to do stuff that is confoundingly stupid. It's general all around failure can be atributed to nothing else but Putin's own stupidity, whether he appears that way or not.

    7. Re:This is ... not so good news by aliquis · · Score: 1

      To remain sovereign and not ruled by someone else.
      See the United states, the EU, UN, see TTIP.
      Why did the US wanted to have their own oil production? Same thing.
      I've got the impression that in my home country we can't rely on food from out own country, that may work just fine for now but not necessarily always.

      I could had thrown in why we here in Sweden developed so many weapon-systems for ourselves too.
      (Then again forging cannons was one of the first industries we had.)

    8. Re:This is ... not so good news by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You might want to point out one of his "stupidities". Considering his options, I think he pretty much made the most out of them, even in hindsight.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:This is ... not so good news by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Why is Russia making its own chips when computer chips are cheap and plentiful/quote>
      âIâ(TM)d move heaven and Earthâ(TM) to access Lavrovâ(TM)s emails â" former head of NSA and CIA
      http://on.rt.com/75nh

  7. Re:Buellar? Buellar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1985 called again, it wants to tell you to learn to spell. It's "Bueller", numbnuts.

  8. native speaker here... by dimko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Shebang is under Linux management. Can have LibreOffice + FireFox + many other programs. It can act as thin client. It's compatible with some GOST standards of encryption(similar standard to ISO in EU) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It has capability of connecting specific Russia manufactured USB devices used for encryption. It has 2 ethernet ports, 21,5' Display, 2-8 Gigs of RAM, 4 USB2.0 ports, has opportunity to connect SSD and memory cards(card reader I guess),

  9. Congratulations! by jouassou · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hope that they succeed. More competition in the CPU market is a good thing, and getting some international competitors based outside of the US/UK is also great.

    1. Re:Congratulations! by F.Ultra · · Score: 2

      you have to start somewhere. The US didn't start the space race with Soviet by landing on the moon.

  10. Re:PC Gaming History by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    You're definitely correct. Indeed, MW2 was one of the main bundling games. It was ported to basically every accelerator of the day, and bundled with most of them.

    Today you can get MW4 for free, it's still fairly fun.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Re:I certainly hope it is.... by FilatovEV · · Score: 2

    Although both products share the same name, they are produced by entirely different companies. You are certainly aware that Baikal is the name of a lake in Russia, aren't you?

  12. Re:And it runs PoetteringD by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    CPU processes you!

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  13. Re: MIPS; slow; just 5 W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who cares a fuck about IF Windows runs on it? The idea is to stay away of western backdoors.

  14. Re: I certainly hope it is.... by Izuzan · · Score: 1

    Yes fully aware. "Baikal" just never seems to go along with a quality product :)

  15. Re: I certainly hope it is.... by FilatovEV · · Score: 1

    Yet, I totally like the soft drink with that name. ;-)

  16. Re: MIPS; slow; just 5 W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Most convential apps will run, you simply compile them for the mips architecture. X86 isnt needed for anything.

  17. Re: I certainly hope it is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As I said, if not reliable, at least easily fixable. As my old commander used to put it, "the Russian combat vehicle which cannot be fixed with a sledgehammer and an iron-bar lever, does not exist." I had a friend who drove a Lada, he claimed it was much the same, the AK-47 I used once certainly was. Rough, big pieces, horrifically inaccurate, but would probably keep working even if an AFV drove over it.

  18. Re:Earth Shattering news! by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

    Actually, those technologies are developed and shared by entire world. One of companies that makes computer workstations happened to be based in Russia, nothing surprising about this at all. Russia, England, Germany, doesn't matter where exactly this stuff is designed. Until everyone get paranoid about hardware backdoors and the like, in no small part due to efforts of Snowden..