4 ms·

Open does not mean better. This is not how our world works. Would be nice to have but I assume every Intel chip I can buy (even with the throtteling) will be mo

Open does not mean better. This is not how our world works. Would be nice to have but I assume every Intel chip I can buy (even with the throtteling) will be more powerful and cheaper than any open processors. There is also much more than only architecture this thing (this works in software but not in hardware)... this would only work if a big player like AMD or Intel jumps on this ship (but it would be like giving away intellectual property).

mcny 9y ago
> but it would be like giving away intellectual property Not necessarily if it is a "viral" license like gplv3 agpl, no?
DarqWebster 9y ago
If one only considers power / speed and cost, then open will certainly mean worse. However a processor with verifiable functionality has value. It's more trustworthy. It can be checked for accidental, or deliberate, security flaws. In many scenarios, I don't care how fast a processor is, if it's leaking data then it's worthless.
- therealmarv 9y ago
  For me this is an extreme view. If your security demands are that high I'm sure you will find even nowadays CPUs which are in that level of "trustworthyness" you want. One funny example: You can use a Raspberry Pi which is not affected by Meltdown or Spectre ;) https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/why-raspberry-pi-isnt-vulnerable-to-spectre-or-meltdown/ https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/why-raspberry-pi-isnt-vulne...
  - detaro 9y ago
    > For me this is an extreme view. Agreed, but for critical applications it might be appropriate. > If your security demands are that high I'm sure you will find even nowadays CPUs which are in that level of "trustworthyness" you want. One funny example: You can use a Raspberry Pi which is not affected by Meltdown or Spectre ;) Having the level of verificability the parent asks for is a lot more than "not affected by Spectre", and the Raspberry Pi is not very open in that regard.
  - DarqWebster 9y ago
    I understand that security is difficult, and that one can never be completely secure. But is wanting to know what my processor is doing, or wanting it to be free of undocumented, obfuscated, proprietary code that runs at a higher priority than any software, really that extreme a view? We base so much of human progress on these little wafers of silicon, it shouldn't be extreme to want to know what they do.
    - gatmne 9y ago
      >We base so much of human progress on these little wafers of silicon, it shouldn't be extreme to want to know what they do. Well said. I'll add that security is a threshold, and that computer systems are extremely complex. Every bit of openness -and the verifiability such openness affords- brings us closer to that ideal secure system.
- bastawhiz 9y ago
  > However a processor with verifiable functionality has value. It's more trustworthy. It can be checked for accidental, or deliberate, security flaws. Is this tractable for a chip with billions of transistors? I would think the people qualified for this already work at chip companies and are doing the work for a stable salary.
boomlinde 9y ago
What exactly is better, then? Certainly, the idea that "more powerful and cheaper" is better has its basis in a particular use case as much as "open" does. If you read the article instead of soapboxing based on the headline you'll find no argument for that open is somehow better, and acknowledges some of the glaring challenges, including cost and that it's not somehow as simple as building software.
IshKebab 9y ago
More powerful, probably. Cheaper? Ha ha ha! Intel has huge margins on its desktop processors. Until Ryzen they were basically a monopoly and set their prices to be very high. Look how much they dropped them after Ryzen. Risc-V is going to allow extremely cheap processors. They will probably not match Intel's single thread performance ever though.
- sbergot 9y ago
  I hope you realize that in the silicium industry scale has a huge impact on price. Unless an open processor sells as much as an Intel or AMD model, it will certainly cost more.

mcny 9y ago

> but it would be like giving away intellectual property Not necessarily if it is a "viral" license like gplv3 agpl, no?

DarqWebster 9y ago

If one only considers power / speed and cost, then open will certainly mean worse. However a processor with verifiable functionality has value. It's more trustworthy. It can be checked for accidental, or deliberate, security flaws. In many scenarios, I don't care how fast a processor is, if it's leaking data then it's worthless.

therealmarv 9y ago
For me this is an extreme view. If your security demands are that high I'm sure you will find even nowadays CPUs which are in that level of "trustworthyness" you want. One funny example: You can use a Raspberry Pi which is not affected by Meltdown or Spectre ;) https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/why-raspberry-pi-isnt-vulnerable-to-spectre-or-meltdown/ https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/why-raspberry-pi-isnt-vulne...
- detaro 9y ago
  > For me this is an extreme view. Agreed, but for critical applications it might be appropriate. > If your security demands are that high I'm sure you will find even nowadays CPUs which are in that level of "trustworthyness" you want. One funny example: You can use a Raspberry Pi which is not affected by Meltdown or Spectre ;) Having the level of verificability the parent asks for is a lot more than "not affected by Spectre", and the Raspberry Pi is not very open in that regard.
- DarqWebster 9y ago
  I understand that security is difficult, and that one can never be completely secure. But is wanting to know what my processor is doing, or wanting it to be free of undocumented, obfuscated, proprietary code that runs at a higher priority than any software, really that extreme a view? We base so much of human progress on these little wafers of silicon, it shouldn't be extreme to want to know what they do.
  - gatmne 9y ago
    >We base so much of human progress on these little wafers of silicon, it shouldn't be extreme to want to know what they do. Well said. I'll add that security is a threshold, and that computer systems are extremely complex. Every bit of openness -and the verifiability such openness affords- brings us closer to that ideal secure system.
bastawhiz 9y ago
> However a processor with verifiable functionality has value. It's more trustworthy. It can be checked for accidental, or deliberate, security flaws. Is this tractable for a chip with billions of transistors? I would think the people qualified for this already work at chip companies and are doing the work for a stable salary.

boomlinde 9y ago

What exactly is better, then? Certainly, the idea that "more powerful and cheaper" is better has its basis in a particular use case as much as "open" does. If you read the article instead of soapboxing based on the headline you'll find no argument for that open is somehow better, and acknowledges some of the glaring challenges, including cost and that it's not somehow as simple as building software.

IshKebab 9y ago

More powerful, probably. Cheaper? Ha ha ha! Intel has huge margins on its desktop processors. Until Ryzen they were basically a monopoly and set their prices to be very high. Look how much they dropped them after Ryzen. Risc-V is going to allow extremely cheap processors. They will probably not match Intel's single thread performance ever though.

sbergot 9y ago
I hope you realize that in the silicium industry scale has a huge impact on price. Unless an open processor sells as much as an Intel or AMD model, it will certainly cost more.