4 ms·

>> I don't understand what the fandom thinks they're going to get > A better world mostly, and many practical benefits along the way. That's the magical think

>> I don't understand what the fandom thinks they're going to get > A better world mostly, and many practical benefits along the way. That's the magical thinking. There's logical leaps required to get from the current status quo to the proposed future state. A CPU architecture and core design is orthogonal to almost every other market force in the industry. Let me make sure I'm explicit since people tend to get very tribal when anyone says anything about their "team". I have no problem at all with RISC-V as an architecture. I do not care if my next phone or laptop has an ARM chip or RISC-V chip. As long as my laptop does laptop stuff and my phone does phone stuff the CPU instructions executing do not matter to me. I'm also writing zero assembler for any non-trivial personal or professional project. So long as compilers and toolchains exist for my system the ISA is an academic discussion for me. I have no problem with RISC-V existing or "winning". In terms of the world being "better" with RISC-V, that's just a weird statement. The architecture doesn't offer anything actually new to the industry. There's nothing fundamental about the architecture that makes anything better. The ISA has implementation gotchas that make for problematic or complicated compiler implementations. Its extensible nature also provides a huge surface area for minor implementation specific incompatibilities. Two similar RISC-V chips may not be drop-in replacements for one another. So it's not like the overall RISC-V design is objectively better than any other ISA. The open source nature of RISC-V is an academic improvement over closed core designs. I'm a random guy and I have the same access to most of the same compilers as Google, Amazon, or anyone else. I can compile Linux on any commodity computer I own. I don't need a clean room or expensive equipment to do software development or even deployment. If I write something you want to use the marginal cost of acquiring it for you is effectively zero. Open source software is unreasonably effective because of that trivial marginal cost of reproduction. Unlike the Linux kernel you can't compile a CPU core and reboot and get some performance gain. You might be able to build a 4004[0] in your garage you're not going to be building a CPU you can drop into your laptop or phone. At least not one that would be able run at any reasonable speed. Open source hardware is not bad. It just doesn't solve any of the very real problems of producing hardware. It doesn't obviate the challenges or costs of developing new process nodes or chemistries. It doesn't help the marginal costs of producing hardware. If you're just buying fully finished chips it's not like you're getting a discount because the manufacturer saved some money on the core design. They'll still charge whatever the market will bear and pocket the savings. The idea that open hardware will make the world better does not seem like a supportable statement. You're not getting a discount on an Android phone because someone patched a bug in the Linux kernel in their spare time. [0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-high-school-student-whos-building-his-own-integrated-circuits https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-high-school-student-whos-build...

panick21_ 2y ago
> The architecture doesn't offer anything actually new to the industry. There is more to live then technical specification. The change in the license and the development pattern and the business model does actually matter. I suggest you watch some talks by Krste Asanovic who created the RISC-V project, he explained exactly this point. > Open source software is unreasonably effective because of that trivial marginal cost of reproduction. Its open hardware isn't as good as open software. Yes we know. Sadly we don't have a universal 3d printer. But that doesn't mean its worthless. > Unlike the Linux kernel you can't compile a CPU core and reboot and get some performance gain. Have you never used an modern FPGA? > It just doesn't solve any of the very real problems of producing hardware. If you have a narrow point of you of only considering manufacturing but if you broaden your point of view and look at the whole value chain, it absolutely does. And you know who agrees with me, tons of companies who have invested in RISC-V and the ecosystem. If you don't believe me, I suggest you watch this video from Google where they explain why they are doing what they are doing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EczW2IWdnOM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EczW2IWdnOM You can find videos like that from other companies, including hardware companies. > It doesn't obviate the challenges or costs of developing new process nodes or chemistries. I didn't know that producing hardware was the same as developing knew nodes. In your mind, the only thing that matters is the cost of new node development? Nothing else in the whole world matters to producing computer hardware? > It doesn't help the marginal costs of producing hardware. It helps the fixed cost, and the smaller your run is, the more important that is. And it actually does improve marginal cost in many cases, if you don't pay license fee anymore. Again, go and watch the talks by Krste, he explains a lot of other point that matters around this question and why RISC-V took off with so many companies, both producers and consumers. As I pointed out, PCB went threw similar progression (and is still going). And this has been incredibly helpful to the whole industry. > If you're just buying fully finished chips it's not like you're getting a discount because the manufacturer saved some money on the core design. They'll still charge whatever the market will bear and pocket the savings. If there is a high quality core in the class you are looking for, and each manufacturer has access to that same IP, then competition will drive the IP value of that core to zero. That's basic economics. And that's exactly what groups like CORE-V are trying to do. This exact same thing happened with software as well. It used to you would pay for things like a compiler. Because it was an important value add. But once there is an open source compiler you can't charge money for it anymore. Funny how plenty of companies who buy a lot of chips, like industrial manufacturing companies have invested into the CORE-V project. Yet you claim it provides no value. Do these people just hate money? Or are they doing it out of the good of their own heart? Or do they understand something you missed? Consider watching presentation from Thales on that topic for example. > The idea that open hardware will make the world better does not seem like a supportable statement. You're not getting a discount on an Android phone because someone patched a bug in the Linux kernel in their spare time. Again, you seem to lack a basic understanding of economics. I am not getting a discount for a bug fixed in linux because the linux is already free. So the discount has already happened. You are literally missing the whole point of open source. The whole point is that bugs are getting fixed DESPITE ME NOT PAYING ANYTHING. As long as all competitors have access to the same code, non of them can extract value from it but are still 'forced' to provide it. Open cooperation has produced a system where the improvement cost are incredibly wide spread and the benefit are even wider spread. To the point where almost nobody can actually demand money for it. And thanks to this economic reality, we all benefit from this process. The literal exact same process works for for hardware designs as well. Chips before going into manufacturing are literally just code and configuration. The value of that can be driven down. We are just not as far along and of course manufacturing has cost.

panick21_ 2y ago

> The architecture doesn't offer anything actually new to the industry. There is more to live then technical specification. The change in the license and the development pattern and the business model does actually matter. I suggest you watch some talks by Krste Asanovic who created the RISC-V project, he explained exactly this point. > Open source software is unreasonably effective because of that trivial marginal cost of reproduction. Its open hardware isn't as good as open software. Yes we know. Sadly we don't have a universal 3d printer. But that doesn't mean its worthless. > Unlike the Linux kernel you can't compile a CPU core and reboot and get some performance gain. Have you never used an modern FPGA? > It just doesn't solve any of the very real problems of producing hardware. If you have a narrow point of you of only considering manufacturing but if you broaden your point of view and look at the whole value chain, it absolutely does. And you know who agrees with me, tons of companies who have invested in RISC-V and the ecosystem. If you don't believe me, I suggest you watch this video from Google where they explain why they are doing what they are doing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EczW2IWdnOM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EczW2IWdnOM You can find videos like that from other companies, including hardware companies. > It doesn't obviate the challenges or costs of developing new process nodes or chemistries. I didn't know that producing hardware was the same as developing knew nodes. In your mind, the only thing that matters is the cost of new node development? Nothing else in the whole world matters to producing computer hardware? > It doesn't help the marginal costs of producing hardware. It helps the fixed cost, and the smaller your run is, the more important that is. And it actually does improve marginal cost in many cases, if you don't pay license fee anymore. Again, go and watch the talks by Krste, he explains a lot of other point that matters around this question and why RISC-V took off with so many companies, both producers and consumers. As I pointed out, PCB went threw similar progression (and is still going). And this has been incredibly helpful to the whole industry. > If you're just buying fully finished chips it's not like you're getting a discount because the manufacturer saved some money on the core design. They'll still charge whatever the market will bear and pocket the savings. If there is a high quality core in the class you are looking for, and each manufacturer has access to that same IP, then competition will drive the IP value of that core to zero. That's basic economics. And that's exactly what groups like CORE-V are trying to do. This exact same thing happened with software as well. It used to you would pay for things like a compiler. Because it was an important value add. But once there is an open source compiler you can't charge money for it anymore. Funny how plenty of companies who buy a lot of chips, like industrial manufacturing companies have invested into the CORE-V project. Yet you claim it provides no value. Do these people just hate money? Or are they doing it out of the good of their own heart? Or do they understand something you missed? Consider watching presentation from Thales on that topic for example. > The idea that open hardware will make the world better does not seem like a supportable statement. You're not getting a discount on an Android phone because someone patched a bug in the Linux kernel in their spare time. Again, you seem to lack a basic understanding of economics. I am not getting a discount for a bug fixed in linux because the linux is already free. So the discount has already happened. You are literally missing the whole point of open source. The whole point is that bugs are getting fixed DESPITE ME NOT PAYING ANYTHING. As long as all competitors have access to the same code, non of them can extract value from it but are still 'forced' to provide it. Open cooperation has produced a system where the improvement cost are incredibly wide spread and the benefit are even wider spread. To the point where almost nobody can actually demand money for it. And thanks to this economic reality, we all benefit from this process. The literal exact same process works for for hardware designs as well. Chips before going into manufacturing are literally just code and configuration. The value of that can be driven down. We are just not as far along and of course manufacturing has cost.