4 ms·

> Whereas once you have a free ISA which is actually in widespread use, you could get some designs out of universities or major corporations which intend to use

> Whereas once you have a free ISA which is actually in widespread use, you could get some designs out of universities or major corporations which intend to use them rather than sell them as their primary business and then release the design for the same reason they do for Linux code, potentially under a copyleft-style license. We've had open ISAs for decades. The problem isn't with ISA licensing, the problem is cost-of-entry. Most people have a computer...it costs nothing to install Linux and GCC/rustc/Python/etc and start contributing to open source software. For open hardware, you need (at minimum) a decent FPGA for testing/development; but access to fabrication resources to be in anyway competitive. Don't get me wrong, I'm generally pro on RISC-V; I just don't think it's the revolution everyone is making it out to be.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Most people have a computer...it costs nothing to install Linux and GCC/rustc/Python/etc and start contributing to open source software. For open hardware, you need (at minimum) a decent FPGA for testing/development; That wasn't even true when open source got started. Typical access was to expensive mainframes and VAXen available only in universities and major corporations. PCs were only starting to become a thing and most people didn't have one. That model still works if you need something expensive. Get your university to buy one, or your company if it will save them $0.05/unit on the millions of devices they sell. Or you rent one in the cloud. You also might not need your own. A project gets started by someone who does have access to a decent FPGA, you want to contribute to it, great. They give you remote access to the FPGA. Meanwhile FPGA prices keep going down. > but access to fabrication resources to be in anyway competitive. Which is available to anyone, if you have customer demand. They've made millions of Raspberry Pis.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  > That wasn't even true when open source got started. Which is why it took off when computers became accessible; and continued growing with even further ubiquity. > You also might not need your own. A project gets started by someone who does have access to a decent FPGA, you want to contribute to it, great. They give you remote access to the FPGA. Cool, so we're back to bottlenecked accessibility. > Which is available to anyone, if you have customer demand. Not hobbyists. To reiterate, open hardware (including ISAs) is as old as open software. You're delusional if you think either are anywhere equivalent.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Which is why it took off when computers became accessible; and continued growing with even further ubiquity. So things like FPGA prices going down over time or being available to hobbyists via cloud providers. > Cool, so we're back to bottlenecked accessibility. Anyone with a computer and an internet connection can contribute, all they have to do is send an email to the project maintainers. It's obviously not as good as everybody already having the hardware, but it could be good enough to actually make it happen. > Not hobbyists. The model would be that there is a public repository with a design in it, anyone can contribute, and then every year or two they do a freeze and a production run which anyone can buy including the hobbyists who made contributions. It feels like your argument is that Debian can't exist because a hobbyist doesn't have the resources to build a whole operating system. One doesn't, but a million of them do, especially if they can start with a basic design released by a major corporation or university or government.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> Most people have a computer...it costs nothing to install Linux and GCC/rustc/Python/etc and start contributing to open source software. For open hardware, you need (at minimum) a decent FPGA for testing/development; That wasn't even true when open source got started. Typical access was to expensive mainframes and VAXen available only in universities and major corporations. PCs were only starting to become a thing and most people didn't have one. That model still works if you need something expensive. Get your university to buy one, or your company if it will save them $0.05/unit on the millions of devices they sell. Or you rent one in the cloud. You also might not need your own. A project gets started by someone who does have access to a decent FPGA, you want to contribute to it, great. They give you remote access to the FPGA. Meanwhile FPGA prices keep going down. > but access to fabrication resources to be in anyway competitive. Which is available to anyone, if you have customer demand. They've made millions of Raspberry Pis.

deaddodo 3y ago
> That wasn't even true when open source got started. Which is why it took off when computers became accessible; and continued growing with even further ubiquity. > You also might not need your own. A project gets started by someone who does have access to a decent FPGA, you want to contribute to it, great. They give you remote access to the FPGA. Cool, so we're back to bottlenecked accessibility. > Which is available to anyone, if you have customer demand. Not hobbyists. To reiterate, open hardware (including ISAs) is as old as open software. You're delusional if you think either are anywhere equivalent.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Which is why it took off when computers became accessible; and continued growing with even further ubiquity. So things like FPGA prices going down over time or being available to hobbyists via cloud providers. > Cool, so we're back to bottlenecked accessibility. Anyone with a computer and an internet connection can contribute, all they have to do is send an email to the project maintainers. It's obviously not as good as everybody already having the hardware, but it could be good enough to actually make it happen. > Not hobbyists. The model would be that there is a public repository with a design in it, anyone can contribute, and then every year or two they do a freeze and a production run which anyone can buy including the hobbyists who made contributions. It feels like your argument is that Debian can't exist because a hobbyist doesn't have the resources to build a whole operating system. One doesn't, but a million of them do, especially if they can start with a basic design released by a major corporation or university or government.