3 ms·

> RISC-V allows companies to make closed systems, but it also allows them to make open systems True, but can you recall any moment in history, where market for

> RISC-V allows companies to make closed systems, but it also allows them to make open systems True, but can you recall any moment in history, where market forces did not actually make producing "open" devices unprofitable? So, (imo) in theory, you are right, but in practice, (successful) companies will use the technology to create "even more closed" system, and worse: Make systems, where the user can't even tell, if he got an "open" system. > A small industry of open hardware That you will only be able to use in a lab/isolated_env, or illegally, because mandatory signing of FWs/BLs/OSs/APPs is just around the corner for consumer devices capable of speaking to the internet.

tossaway69 6y ago
mandatory for whom?
- stragies 6y ago
  I don't know, where you live, but in most of the world, certification/signing/encryption of RF-capable Devices/Firmware has been established rule for decades, with a few exceptions for dev-boards. TPM, ME, SB, the_recent_grub_fixes,etc are all steps putting in place a pervasive infrastructure, that will enable truly draconian control over our computing devices for the key-holders. And I have not reason not to believe, that somebody somewhere is waiting for a pre-text to implement full vertical stack control in law for his (region/country/domain). Perhaps "so that we can ensure, that the contact-tracing app gets installed everywhere, otherwise we'll all die!!11!". Or protecting us from Terrorism; that usually does the trick. This argument also works surprisingly well to argue against backdoor-less encryption protocols. See e.g. Australia (iirc) Do you not perceive a similar evolution? Note, TP,SB,ME could in theory be used to build "secure" systems, but currently they are (also) used to secure the PC against you, the buyer/user.
hakfoo 6y ago
> True, but can you recall any moment in history, where market forces did not actually make producing "open" devices unprofitable? I'd say that the early era of personal computers proved it. The Apple II and IBM PC were very open platforms-- thoroughly documented, developer friendly and made with very few parts you couldn't buy out of your favourite electronics distributor catalogue. They were riotous successes in large part because the open platform meant they didn't have to guess or corral the entire market. Remember that most of the killer apps of the era (VisiCalc, WordPerfect, dBase, 1-2-3, etc.) were third party, and it was largely aftermarket firms selling "six-in-one" cards, Sound Blasters, and Hercules graphics cards that patched the gaping holes in the PC's hardware design. Conversely, look at a machine like the TI-99/4 series: while on paper a decent machine for the time, it was as "closed" as a machine of the era could be: an unusually limited built-in development platform, and many of the desirable upgrades involved buying a very expensive expansion chassis. It's interesting to consider what the business tradeoffs of today's walled garden model are. Apple could choose to do a "pure hardware" play, or emulate the early 1980s IBM, where they offered some popular software via their own product line as a trusted source. The result would probably be a marginally larger total addressable market, as it would bring some customers and developers to the platform who needed something that could never clear the App Store before. But would the growth in market size compensate for the reduction in the average cut they can command from the market?
- als0 6y ago
  > IBM PC were very open platforms What about the whole debacle around the IBM BIOS?
  - hakfoo 6y ago
    I think they made a commented disassembly available officially, and there were definitely aftermarket books with blow-by-blow analysis. You could argue it was imperfect (not exposing every feature it could, and having performance costs, sent a lot of software to bypass it and pound hardware registers directly, creating that weird world of early clones that would run MS-DOS but not 1-2-3 or Flight Simulator) but it doesn't seem like a hostile gesture to external developers. Now it was definitely a legal hurdle if you wanted to make an outright clone, but by 1984 or so, Compaq and Phoenix had solved that problem.

tossaway69 6y ago

mandatory for whom?

stragies 6y ago
I don't know, where you live, but in most of the world, certification/signing/encryption of RF-capable Devices/Firmware has been established rule for decades, with a few exceptions for dev-boards. TPM, ME, SB, the_recent_grub_fixes,etc are all steps putting in place a pervasive infrastructure, that will enable truly draconian control over our computing devices for the key-holders. And I have not reason not to believe, that somebody somewhere is waiting for a pre-text to implement full vertical stack control in law for his (region/country/domain). Perhaps "so that we can ensure, that the contact-tracing app gets installed everywhere, otherwise we'll all die!!11!". Or protecting us from Terrorism; that usually does the trick. This argument also works surprisingly well to argue against backdoor-less encryption protocols. See e.g. Australia (iirc) Do you not perceive a similar evolution? Note, TP,SB,ME could in theory be used to build "secure" systems, but currently they are (also) used to secure the PC against you, the buyer/user.

hakfoo 6y ago

> True, but can you recall any moment in history, where market forces did not actually make producing "open" devices unprofitable? I'd say that the early era of personal computers proved it. The Apple II and IBM PC were very open platforms-- thoroughly documented, developer friendly and made with very few parts you couldn't buy out of your favourite electronics distributor catalogue. They were riotous successes in large part because the open platform meant they didn't have to guess or corral the entire market. Remember that most of the killer apps of the era (VisiCalc, WordPerfect, dBase, 1-2-3, etc.) were third party, and it was largely aftermarket firms selling "six-in-one" cards, Sound Blasters, and Hercules graphics cards that patched the gaping holes in the PC's hardware design. Conversely, look at a machine like the TI-99/4 series: while on paper a decent machine for the time, it was as "closed" as a machine of the era could be: an unusually limited built-in development platform, and many of the desirable upgrades involved buying a very expensive expansion chassis. It's interesting to consider what the business tradeoffs of today's walled garden model are. Apple could choose to do a "pure hardware" play, or emulate the early 1980s IBM, where they offered some popular software via their own product line as a trusted source. The result would probably be a marginally larger total addressable market, as it would bring some customers and developers to the platform who needed something that could never clear the App Store before. But would the growth in market size compensate for the reduction in the average cut they can command from the market?

als0 6y ago
> IBM PC were very open platforms What about the whole debacle around the IBM BIOS?
- hakfoo 6y ago
  I think they made a commented disassembly available officially, and there were definitely aftermarket books with blow-by-blow analysis. You could argue it was imperfect (not exposing every feature it could, and having performance costs, sent a lot of software to bypass it and pound hardware registers directly, creating that weird world of early clones that would run MS-DOS but not 1-2-3 or Flight Simulator) but it doesn't seem like a hostile gesture to external developers. Now it was definitely a legal hurdle if you wanted to make an outright clone, but by 1984 or so, Compaq and Phoenix had solved that problem.