4 ms·
You realize that you're just moving the ball around on who provides what, right? Someone has to write that software that "describes itself to the OS" and rather
by mlindner 4y ago
You realize that you're just moving the ball around on who provides what, right? Someone has to write that software that "describes itself to the OS" and rather than having the hardware describe itself to the OS, why can't the OS itself determine what hardware it has?
That "describes itself to the OS" part is actually often being done by a complete OS as well.
> Unfortunately, UEFI/ACPI or simliar seems to be going nowhere in the ARM world, so it doesn't seem installing Windows/Linux is going to be as easy on ARM as on x86 anytime soon.
That's a really good thing. Bryan rants about ARM trying to go that way and thinks it's a terrible idea. I'm glad it's failing, assuming that's actually the case.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago> Bryan rants about ARM trying to go that way and thinks it's a terrible idea. I'm glad it's failing, assuming that's actually the case. I'd be curious why because the PC model seems to be way more user-friendly, competition-friendly, and long-term-reliable than the current ARM model. I wish I could just download an ISO of Android 13 and install it on almost any Android phone like I could Windows.
- mlindner 4y agoWell it's in the talk, he spends considerable time on the subject in fact. I suggest taking a watch.
- eschaton 4y agoThe PC model worked because a lot of people put a lot of blood sweat and tears into making it work and then embraced the sunk cost fallacy to a degree only previously seen in politics and religion. Open Firmware—between the device tree system and the bytecode driver system—plus ELF provide a truly universal boot protocol for 32-bit and larger systems. And not only that, major and tractable implementations are now Open Source too, including things like the bytecode compilers. It’s practically unconscionable that modern ARM and RISC-V don’t simply require Open Firmware boot support.
- snvzz 4y agoIn RISC-V, the boot model is standarized. There's SBI (from years ago, where the open implementation opensbi is used by most boards) and UEFI (implemented not in any random way, but after SBI runs, and as per the spec published earlier this year). All the pieces are in place for RISC-V to effectively dodge boot chaos. Way before the server/workstation RISC-V hardware hit the market. In ARM, it's a mess. Because ARM took way too long to do way too little re: boot standardization.
- raxxorraxor 4y agoYou also have to look at ARMs largest customers. This influences development and the most prominent aren't necessarily interested in ARM becoming a more open platform. Which it fundamentally isn't just as x86.
- THENATHE 4y agoIt is wildly easier to get a mouse to tell the operating system first off that it is a mouse, than it is for the operating system to analyze the mouse and make that determination for itself. Imagine scaling that up to GPUs! The device needs to describe itself because IT is unique.
- mlindner 4y agoIn fact the mouse doesn't tell the operating system that it's a mouse. The operating system reads that off as part of the hardware USB handshake what the device is. USB is an example of a system done largely correctly as compared to all the other processors embedded into a SoC.
- stefan_ 4y agoBased on USB descriptors filled out by the mouse vendor and sent by the mouse. Thanks for playing.
- 95014_refugee 4y agoThis is perhaps the first time I've heard "USB" and "correctly" in a clause without a negative. I encourage you to spend more time with it. Meet your hero. Get to know it. Understanding will surely follow. 8)