3 ms·

>x86 is going to stick around for a long time It won't. Due to its licensing, x86 does not stand a chance against RISC-V. Especially not after Apple, Microsof

by snvzz 2y ago

>x86 is going to stick around for a long time It won't. Due to its licensing, x86 does not stand a chance against RISC-V. Especially not after Apple, Microsoft and others (e.g. Box64) have demonstrated ability to run x86 code elsewhere reasonably well, thus providing a clear migration path. These actions by AMD and Intel are seen as a desperate attempt to keep x86-64 relevant. As non-x86 hardware increasingly shows up and runs legacy code with little issue, x86 is doomed.

netbsdusers 2y ago
It's exactly because of licencing that the situation with RISC-V is a world of proprietary SoCs with no consistency, as opposed to the open system that is an x86 PC. (That the ISA is or isn't open is trifling and matters to neither user nor kernel developer.) Essentially every single board requires its very own custom port of your preferred OS. I will wait for x86's doom, but it will take patience. After all, people have been saying it's dying and will be replaced by some RISC alternative for over 30 years now.
- snvzz 2y ago
  >It's exactly because of licencing that the situation with RISC-V is a world of proprietary SoCs with no consistency, as opposed to the open system that is an x86 PC. (That the ISA is or isn't open is trifling and matters to neither user nor kernel developer.) Essentially every single board requires its very own custom port of your preferred OS. Can you cite any sources for this? What makes you say this? Can you cite one (1) example? I ask because it is entirely inconsistent with my experience with the available SoCs and their boards. They all implement the specs that were available at the time of design. Sometimes drafts out of necessity. And all of them use OpenSBI as their machine mode firmware. This is false to the point it reads like FUD to me; It couldn't be further detached from reality.

by snvzz 2y ago

netbsdusers 2y ago

It's exactly because of licencing that the situation with RISC-V is a world of proprietary SoCs with no consistency, as opposed to the open system that is an x86 PC. (That the ISA is or isn't open is trifling and matters to neither user nor kernel developer.) Essentially every single board requires its very own custom port of your preferred OS. I will wait for x86's doom, but it will take patience. After all, people have been saying it's dying and will be replaced by some RISC alternative for over 30 years now.

snvzz 2y ago
>It's exactly because of licencing that the situation with RISC-V is a world of proprietary SoCs with no consistency, as opposed to the open system that is an x86 PC. (That the ISA is or isn't open is trifling and matters to neither user nor kernel developer.) Essentially every single board requires its very own custom port of your preferred OS. Can you cite any sources for this? What makes you say this? Can you cite one (1) example? I ask because it is entirely inconsistent with my experience with the available SoCs and their boards. They all implement the specs that were available at the time of design. Sometimes drafts out of necessity. And all of them use OpenSBI as their machine mode firmware. This is false to the point it reads like FUD to me; It couldn't be further detached from reality.