Open Hardware doesn't fix problems in silicon that has already been manufactured. It might help with the next generation but it won't prevent bugs from appearing in the first place.
Bear in mind that the reason Open Source software works so well is that the marginal cost of (re)production is close to zero and that there are (comparatively) minimal capital costs. Really you just need a PC and a lot of time. Open Hardware is a worthy goal but it's going to be a LOT trickier to pull off in the real world for
Of course, when Linux was new the argument was that an OS was just too big for a bunch of Free Software fans to manage. Only a big corporate structure could support development of anything as complex as an OS.
Open hardware is harder, but probably not impossible. It isn't a magic cure all, but it would tend to be free of corporate decisions like "we need 10% more performance, cheat here and nobody will notice" simply due to the open nature.
The patent swamp is a problem for that, but given how dependent the w
But Linux isn't an OS. It's a kernel. It only works because there already existed a libc, compiler toolchain, shell, and a vast suite of programs people already wanted to use.
And a CPU architecture is the same. It's not enough to have a nice core, you have to also have cache, a system bus interface, a RAM interface, clock distribution, MMU, and so on. None of that stuff is easy or fun.
there already existed a libc, compiler toolchain, shell, and a vast suite of programs people already wanted to use.
All created by those free software fans that "lacked the large corporate structure needed to produce anything as complex as an OS".
And a CPU architecture is the same. It's not enough to have a nice core, you have to also have cache, a system bus interface, a RAM interface, clock distribution, MMU, and so on. None of that stuff is easy or fun.
All created by those free software fans that "lacked the large corporate structure needed to produce anything as complex as an OS".
" Producing" an OS from scratch is incredibly hard and requires a massive effort, coding the missing piece of an otherwise complete software environment by "assembling" existing software into a workable OS is much, much easier. Linux stands on the shoulder of a massive army of GNU and open source developers that came before Linux bought his 80386 CPU.
Yes, in other words they found a replacement for the big corporate structure that worked as well or better. Note I never claimed one person would create a CPU.
When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers.
-- The Wall Street Journal
Freedom demands Open Hardware also (Score:0)
OpenCores.org
J-Core.org
riscv.org
gaisler.com
OpenSPARC
There is a path forward, but it will take Fab relationships and people willing to test and then buy the first practical and fully open systems...
Open hardware is going to be hard (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Hardware doesn't fix problems in silicon that has already been manufactured. It might help with the next generation but it won't prevent bugs from appearing in the first place.
Bear in mind that the reason Open Source software works so well is that the marginal cost of (re)production is close to zero and that there are (comparatively) minimal capital costs. Really you just need a PC and a lot of time. Open Hardware is a worthy goal but it's going to be a LOT trickier to pull off in the real world for
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, when Linux was new the argument was that an OS was just too big for a bunch of Free Software fans to manage. Only a big corporate structure could support development of anything as complex as an OS.
Open hardware is harder, but probably not impossible. It isn't a magic cure all, but it would tend to be free of corporate decisions like "we need 10% more performance, cheat here and nobody will notice" simply due to the open nature.
The patent swamp is a problem for that, but given how dependent the w
Re: (Score:0)
But Linux isn't an OS. It's a kernel. It only works because there already existed a libc, compiler toolchain, shell, and a vast suite of programs people already wanted to use.
And a CPU architecture is the same. It's not enough to have a nice core, you have to also have cache, a system bus interface, a RAM interface, clock distribution, MMU, and so on. None of that stuff is easy or fun.
dom
Re: (Score:2)
there already existed a libc, compiler toolchain, shell, and a vast suite of programs people already wanted to use.
All created by those free software fans that "lacked the large corporate structure needed to produce anything as complex as an OS".
And a CPU architecture is the same. It's not enough to have a nice core, you have to also have cache, a system bus interface, a RAM interface, clock distribution, MMU, and so on. None of that stuff is easy or fun.
And yet, RISC-V exists.
Re: Open hardware is going to be hard (Score:2)
All created by those free software fans that "lacked the large corporate structure needed to produce anything as complex as an OS".
" Producing" an OS from scratch is incredibly hard and requires a massive effort, coding the missing piece of an otherwise complete software environment by "assembling" existing software into a workable OS is much, much easier. Linux stands on the shoulder of a massive army of GNU and open source developers that came before Linux bought his 80386 CPU.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in other words they found a replacement for the big corporate structure that worked as well or better. Note I never claimed one person would create a CPU.