6 ms·

Why isn't he mad he doesn't have the chip wiring diagrams? I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just wondering, at what point should a FOSS enthusiast be content no

• fleitz 16y ago
  I think thats an individual choice dependent on how you allocate scarce and valuable resources. For some open source is a moral imperative that must be upheld at any cost. For others it's a nice to have. It's a bit like self-reliance, for some it's important to sacrifice more wealth to increase their self-reliance, in the end it's really what aspect(s) of your life you want to maximize. The issue with wiring diagrams is that most don't have a chip fab in their basement so the benefit they receive from having wiring diagrams is mostly intangible. I think for most people it's far more important to have a CPU that executes a popular ISA (ie. x86) than to have wiring diagrams. Similarly, most users receive intangible benefits from having access to the kernel source, as they will never modify it. I suppose if you had access to a chip fab and needed to modify your CPU design frequently it would be important.
  • alain94040 16y ago
    [slightly rephrased] The issue with source code is that most don't compile their OS so the benefit they receive from having source code is mostly intangible. I think for most people it's far more important to have a CPU that executes a popular OS (ie. Windows) than to have source code. Similarly, most users receive intangible benefits from having access to the wiring diagrams, as they will never modify it. I have long argued that software and hardware are the same from a source code perspective. Have you ever looked at the source code for a CPU? I have (many CPUs: ARM, Intel, and more). It's just code like if/else statements and assignments. Just like C (plus the extreme concurrency). Manufacturing? Yes, it's an issue. In theory, I could wave the FPGA argument, although it's not a practical solution.
    • tome 16y ago
      This is a fallacy that I'd like to see removed from arguments about free software. It doesn't matter if you don't have the skill to modify it as long as others do have the skill and freedom to modify it. They'll make changes for you! See: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1351656 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1351656
      • alain94040 16y ago
        I agree it's a fallacy. Just note that I wasn't falling into that trap. The original author to whom I was responding was. My point was entirely about whether hardware source code should be treated differently from software source code.
    • ZeroGravitas 16y ago
      Didn't sun "open source" sparc? Doesn't ARM succeed partly because their licensing is more "open"? Now that the necessary software is mostly open I wouldn't be surprised to see people moving down the stack into firmware and hardware.
      • hvs 16y ago
        I'm sure that you know this, but "open" and "patented" are not mutually exclusive. Lots of codecs are "open source" but you can't use them commercially without paying money to someone (e.g. MPEG-LA).
        • fleitz 16y ago
          ARM licenses the source code for the ARM platform so you can build your own SoC. I think ARM PLC is fabless.
• metachris 16y ago
  Everybody has a different threshold, and I am thankful that some people have a very high one.
• wheels 16y ago
  Historically he's been pretty consistent on this and more pragmatic than it would seem at the surface: he's content with going as far as possible given a "free" alternative. When he started writing the GNU system he was doing it on BSD, which he didn't consider free with the older BSD license.
• deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]