10 ms·

How about using old hardware for longer and building optimized software that performs great even on old hardware?

by butz 5y ago

fny 5y ago
This isn’t about computers. It’s about all the other things that have chips in them. Look up SiC chips in particular, they’re in everything.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  The simple things with chips in them don't (or shouldn't) have the expected growth of computing power that makes parts obsolete. Like, if a washing machine or a car's fuel injector needs some chips, we should be able to reuse chips from older washing machines and older fuel injectors which we generally throw out because of a mechanical failure with all their electronics intact, but currently it seems that all these chips get just discarded, no one cares about them.
  - Gigachad 5y ago
    It would seem exceedingly difficult to reuse chips at scale. The software and pcb is deigned around one microcontroller in particular and it is not trivial to swap them out with others. So if I design my washing machine around a particular chip, I could order a million of them for 5 cent each, or I would have to: * somehow identify other models which have the chip * find 1 million of them about to be discarded * rip them open, desolder, collect these parts * discard the rest of the machine * do this for about 10 cents per washing machine combined with the fact that washing machines usually last a decade and will be dying out over a time period spread out over 10-20 years after manufacturing time. How on earth would it be possible to pull off and by that time, these chips will be very obsolete / impossible to order new ones.
    - ant6n 5y ago
      How about creating the standard for a small set of some sort of industrial raspberri pi, with a replacable (or flashable) ROM?
      - Gigachad 5y ago
        The cost and difficulty of this task is monumental and the rewards are so small. These chips literally cost cents and outside of global disasters, they are quite easy to buy in the millions. And it isn't just micro controllers that are out of stock basic passive components are missing as well. It would cost an absolute fortune to strip all of these parts off older machines. No one wants to pay $6000 for a washing machine made of scrap parts which may fail and are long since obsolete so they can no longer be reordered.
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      Well, you're assuming that the manufacturers would get involved with specific disassemblies, the realistic process would be that the current process of mass recycling random home appliances (which is mandatory at least where I live) when these appliances are ripped open to recycle e.g. metals would also include desoldering the electronic parts, sorting and testing them and putting them back into circulation. We don't do that, probably because it's far too expensive because disassembly is less automated than assembly, but a genuine shortage of core components (the set of which would not/should not change over 10-20 years) could be helped this way. A big assumption that I'm making is that you would be extract the exact same components from many different devices, so you can build a washing machine with a component supply that's part new components and part 'reused' from all kinds of older washing machines, fridges or cars or smart toasters or whatever. This IMHO is true for generic electronic components (which are quite cheap but still add up in volume) but might not hold for chips - however, my initial argument probably was that if "chips-for-not-so-powerful-appliances" currently are structured to not be interchangeable, then perhaps they should be.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  I'm looking at the supplier websites and trivial parts like 10 cent microcontrollers have over a year wait times. This is why I have been waiting for months to have the dryer I ordered and there is still no delivery date set. I would have no issues going out and buying the latest macbook right now but basic other products are missing.
mrfusion 5y ago
Or build low tech versions of products. No one really wants a smart tv for example.
- ahtihn 5y ago
  That's just not true. Most people are happy to have Netflix and other streaming apps integrated directly in their TV without having to acquire an external device.
  - tluyben2 5y ago
    I thought I would hate them but accepted my fate and got one last year after our not so smart TV died after 18 years. I had no bad experiences so far: very smooth ride.
    - hkt 5y ago
      This sort of thing put me off for life: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/samsungs-warning-our-smart-tvs-record-your-living-room-chatter/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/samsungs-war...
      - tluyben2 5y ago
        Yes, that's mostly why I did not want one. But unless we go open everywhere it gives us all a worse experience and anxiety to think about. First of all we need phones to change as those are, well in my opinion, worse than TVs. But I agree: why not a smart TV with fully FOSS Linux? Using the browser and vlc and such, it would be quite perfect for most people if packaged right.
  - Tenoke 5y ago
    Sure, but it is a bit counter-productive to have no non-smart options for people like me who just plug it to a device instead. Even if I look at my parents' TVs - all smart but they don't need or use that, they just watch cable.
  - 5y ago
qualudeheart 5y ago
I’m a proponent of that. Just rewriting old java or python monsters in an efficient language like Rust would easily give us an order of magnitude better efficiency. A special class of theorem provers could be developed, proving that a program runs below a certain level of spacetime complexity. This would entail a great increase in energy efficiency. I also endorse holy information warfare against inefficient proof of work cryptocurrencies and a transition to efficient proof of stake.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  I like Rust, but gosh it produces the second-biggest bloated binaries I've ever seen. (Yes, it's mostly people using it wrong, though apparently I'm one of them.) The only thing worse is C++. (Again, probably people using that wrong, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.) Java and Python, by comparison, are tolerable, even when people use them wrong; when Java programs are huge, that's usually because of a mass of hideous “business logic” rather than a billion dependencies.
  - qualudeheart 5y ago
    For binary size you could use my hypothetical theorem prover ensuring a binary size below a certain point. That would come at some kind of compile time or efficiency cost since you couldn’t anymore optimise for those but I’m sure that’s something one could opt for. I don’t think binary size matters though. Storage is very cheap these days.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      People keep saying that. I have 1.8 GiB available for all my build files, and that's only because I keep deleting the build files of my other projects (meaning they have to be recompiled whenever I go back to them). Storage matters for me. At least the prices are almost normal again, now that Chia's over.
      - qualudeheart 5y ago
908B64B197 5y ago
Bunch of SoCs and board have horrible patched binary drivers that will never be kept upstream. Once the OEM sold the board, they made all the money so they don't care about long term support.

How about using old hardware for longer and building optimized software that performs great even on old hardware?

by butz 5y ago

How about using old hardware for longer and building optimized software that performs great even on old hardware?

fny 5y ago

This isn’t about computers. It’s about all the other things that have chips in them. Look up SiC chips in particular, they’re in everything.

PeterisP 5y ago
The simple things with chips in them don't (or shouldn't) have the expected growth of computing power that makes parts obsolete. Like, if a washing machine or a car's fuel injector needs some chips, we should be able to reuse chips from older washing machines and older fuel injectors which we generally throw out because of a mechanical failure with all their electronics intact, but currently it seems that all these chips get just discarded, no one cares about them.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  It would seem exceedingly difficult to reuse chips at scale. The software and pcb is deigned around one microcontroller in particular and it is not trivial to swap them out with others. So if I design my washing machine around a particular chip, I could order a million of them for 5 cent each, or I would have to: * somehow identify other models which have the chip * find 1 million of them about to be discarded * rip them open, desolder, collect these parts * discard the rest of the machine * do this for about 10 cents per washing machine combined with the fact that washing machines usually last a decade and will be dying out over a time period spread out over 10-20 years after manufacturing time. How on earth would it be possible to pull off and by that time, these chips will be very obsolete / impossible to order new ones.
  - ant6n 5y ago
    How about creating the standard for a small set of some sort of industrial raspberri pi, with a replacable (or flashable) ROM?
    - Gigachad 5y ago
      The cost and difficulty of this task is monumental and the rewards are so small. These chips literally cost cents and outside of global disasters, they are quite easy to buy in the millions. And it isn't just micro controllers that are out of stock basic passive components are missing as well. It would cost an absolute fortune to strip all of these parts off older machines. No one wants to pay $6000 for a washing machine made of scrap parts which may fail and are long since obsolete so they can no longer be reordered.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    Well, you're assuming that the manufacturers would get involved with specific disassemblies, the realistic process would be that the current process of mass recycling random home appliances (which is mandatory at least where I live) when these appliances are ripped open to recycle e.g. metals would also include desoldering the electronic parts, sorting and testing them and putting them back into circulation. We don't do that, probably because it's far too expensive because disassembly is less automated than assembly, but a genuine shortage of core components (the set of which would not/should not change over 10-20 years) could be helped this way. A big assumption that I'm making is that you would be extract the exact same components from many different devices, so you can build a washing machine with a component supply that's part new components and part 'reused' from all kinds of older washing machines, fridges or cars or smart toasters or whatever. This IMHO is true for generic electronic components (which are quite cheap but still add up in volume) but might not hold for chips - however, my initial argument probably was that if "chips-for-not-so-powerful-appliances" currently are structured to not be interchangeable, then perhaps they should be.
Gigachad 5y ago
I'm looking at the supplier websites and trivial parts like 10 cent microcontrollers have over a year wait times. This is why I have been waiting for months to have the dryer I ordered and there is still no delivery date set. I would have no issues going out and buying the latest macbook right now but basic other products are missing.

mrfusion 5y ago

Or build low tech versions of products. No one really wants a smart tv for example.

ahtihn 5y ago
That's just not true. Most people are happy to have Netflix and other streaming apps integrated directly in their TV without having to acquire an external device.
- tluyben2 5y ago
  I thought I would hate them but accepted my fate and got one last year after our not so smart TV died after 18 years. I had no bad experiences so far: very smooth ride.
  - hkt 5y ago
    This sort of thing put me off for life: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/samsungs-warning-our-smart-tvs-record-your-living-room-chatter/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/samsungs-war...
    - tluyben2 5y ago
      Yes, that's mostly why I did not want one. But unless we go open everywhere it gives us all a worse experience and anxiety to think about. First of all we need phones to change as those are, well in my opinion, worse than TVs. But I agree: why not a smart TV with fully FOSS Linux? Using the browser and vlc and such, it would be quite perfect for most people if packaged right.
- Tenoke 5y ago
  Sure, but it is a bit counter-productive to have no non-smart options for people like me who just plug it to a device instead. Even if I look at my parents' TVs - all smart but they don't need or use that, they just watch cable.
- 5y ago

qualudeheart 5y ago

I’m a proponent of that. Just rewriting old java or python monsters in an efficient language like Rust would easily give us an order of magnitude better efficiency. A special class of theorem provers could be developed, proving that a program runs below a certain level of spacetime complexity. This would entail a great increase in energy efficiency. I also endorse holy information warfare against inefficient proof of work cryptocurrencies and a transition to efficient proof of stake.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
I like Rust, but gosh it produces the second-biggest bloated binaries I've ever seen. (Yes, it's mostly people using it wrong, though apparently I'm one of them.) The only thing worse is C++. (Again, probably people using that wrong, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.) Java and Python, by comparison, are tolerable, even when people use them wrong; when Java programs are huge, that's usually because of a mass of hideous “business logic” rather than a billion dependencies.
- qualudeheart 5y ago
  For binary size you could use my hypothetical theorem prover ensuring a binary size below a certain point. That would come at some kind of compile time or efficiency cost since you couldn’t anymore optimise for those but I’m sure that’s something one could opt for. I don’t think binary size matters though. Storage is very cheap these days.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    People keep saying that. I have 1.8 GiB available for all my build files, and that's only because I keep deleting the build files of my other projects (meaning they have to be recompiled whenever I go back to them). Storage matters for me. At least the prices are almost normal again, now that Chia's over.
    - qualudeheart 5y ago

908B64B197 5y ago

Bunch of SoCs and board have horrible patched binary drivers that will never be kept upstream. Once the OEM sold the board, they made all the money so they don't care about long term support.