Slashdot Mirror
'Is It Time For Open Processors?' (lwn.net)
Linux kernel developer (and LWN.net co-founder) Jonathan Corbet recently posted an essay with a tantalizing title: "Is it time for open processors?" He cited several "serious initiatives", including the OpenPOWER effort, OpenSPARC, and OpenRISC, adding that "much of the momentum" appears to be with the RISC-V architecture. An anonymous reader quotes LWN.net:
The [RISC-V] project is primarily focused on the instruction-set architecture, rather than on specific implementations, but free hardware designs do exist. Western Digital recently announced that it will be using RISC-V processors in its storage products, a decision that could lead to the shipment of RISC-V by the billion. There is a development kit available for those who would like to play with this processor and a number of designs for cores are available... RISC-V seems to have quite a bit of commercial support behind it -- the RISC-V Foundation has a long list of members. It seems likely that this architecture will continue to progress for some time.
Here's some of the reasons that Corbet argues open souce hardware "would certainly offer some benefits, but it would be no panacea."
Here's some of the reasons that Corbet argues open souce hardware "would certainly offer some benefits, but it would be no panacea."
- "While compilers can be had for free, the same is not true of chip fabrication facilities, especially the expensive fabs needed to create high-end processors... It will never be as easy or as cheap as typing 'make'..."
- "Without some way of verifying underlying design of an actual piece of hardware, we'll never really know if a given chip implements the design that we're told it does..."
- "Even if RISC-V becomes successful in the marketplace, chances are good that the processors we can actually buy will not come with freely licensed designs..."
- "Finally, even if we end up with entirely open processors, that will not bring an end to vulnerabilities at that level. We have a free kernel, but the kernel vulnerabilities come just the same. Open hardware may give us more confidence in the long term that we can retain control of our systems, but it is certainly not a magic wand that will wave our problems away."
"None of this should prevent us from trying to bring more openness and freedom to the design of our hardware, though. Once upon a time, creating a free operating system seemed like an insurmountably difficult task, but we have done it, multiple times over. Moving away from proprietary hardware designs may be one of our best chances for keeping our freedom; it would be foolish not to try."
... but it takes a massive amount of money to design and make chips. It's not going to happen "open source" unless some very wealthy individual or organization decides to do so for altruistic reasons.
I don't respond to AC's.
That $80M is the cost to use a fab - the cost in setting up the masks to have the fab make your processor. Building a modern fab is on the order of tens of billions of dollars.
You don't follow world news do you.
China built 25,000km high speed rail in 5 years, through deserts, glaciers, mountain ranges, forests, how many km have the Germans built?
Chinese trains have become so good that Germany's Deutsche Bahn wants to buy them.
According to DW columnist Frank Sieren, the railway can no longer afford to give preferential treatment to German companies.
http://www.dw.com/en/sierens-c...
Chinese train technology rolls into Germany
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/w...
China is on track to build high-speed rail in just about every corner of the world
https://qz.com/292321/china-is...
France and Germany now have to team up to compete with China
France-Germany rail merger aims to take on China
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/2...
The deal aims to counter China's growing clout in global rail markets. Beijing stepped up its efforts in 2015 by merging two big companies into state-backed giant CRRC, which describes itself as "the world's largest supplier of rail transit equipment."
I'm not sure how useful this would be today, but clearly the 68000 was far superior to an 8088 (or even an 8086). My guess is that Intel's segmented address approach sucked-up about 20% of developer productivity on the PC. All those crazy memory models would have never existed had IBM chosen the 68000. Not to mention Extended Memory and Expanded Memory.