4 ms·
I’m impressed by the political acumen it takes to get a Corp to release code as OSS. My career has seen at least two chunks of work that would have made great
by lifeisstillgood 2y ago
I’m impressed by the political acumen it takes to get a Corp to release code as OSS. My career has seen at least two chunks of work that would have made great OSS (ie potentially useful outside of the single company) but Incoukd not get past the final hurdle
And they would have been nice CV boosters as well (my real motivation!)
- baq 2y agoIt helps that Intel has been contributing to OSS since forever, they have good internal processes established and some orgs develop/contribute to OSS pretty much exclusively.
- bayindirh 2y agoI think the biggest contributor to these processes was going open source in their graphics drivers. They went from "we have tons of 3rd party IP in these!" to, "you don't need to download anything, it's in kernel mainline now" in a generation and they're off to the races after that. Maybe their Ethernet drivers were open before that, I don't remember but, video drivers made them pass a threshold in maturity IMHO.
- spookie 2y agoIntel embraced Linux when they bet big in datacenters in early 2002. The momentum they got from there, with Linux dominating the sector, made them realize how much of a benefit it is to have a free software stack. With Linux they were able to go head to head with the incumbents of the day. Linux and x86 became unbeatable in the space for 20 years. They have known how important it is. They won't forget.
- bayindirh 2y agoYes, however, they first made their hardware standard compliant rather than making their driver open source. The open source part came later, starting with CPU and chipset support, then Ethernet, then GPUs IIRC. The biggest and sweetest side-effect is Desktop/Personal use Linux support as long as the hardware doesn't do anything janky, or too janky.
- spookie 2y agoFair enough
- bombcar 2y agoThe ethernet ones were big for awhile, I can remember when you wanted to go out of your way to get something that worked with the e1000 driver if you wanted reliable, usable gigabit.
- fidotron 2y ago> they have good internal processes established There are a good number of people that would LOL at this statement, myself included. Maybe they have such processes now, because at one point . . . Well “mistakes were made”.
- kanwisher 2y agoI had one piece that made it open source (with blessing of 20 committees), then someone that didn't like me ran it back up the flag poll and pulled it back next day
- lifeisstillgood 2y agoOooff!
- dolmen 2y agoWell. It looks like abandonning software to the community. From the "P4 workflow" described at https://p4.org/ https://p4.org/ I see mentions of compiling to x86, but no mention of ARM, and no mention of BPF. So, as someone who discover it, I wonder if this project is still relevant in 2025.
- trimethylpurine 2y agoIs x86 dead for wire powered devices? Regardless, OSS is probably the best way to get it onto other architectures.
- neuroelectron 2y agoBasically, now you have to document x86. xD
- enragedcacti 2y agoI'm not familiar with P4 but with some quick digging it seems like the compiler does support eBPF as a target. Additionally, I don't think the compiler outputs x86 directly at all, and instead includes targets like DPDK which supports ARM in addition to x86. https://github.com/p4lang/p4c https://github.com/p4lang/p4c
- FuriouslyAdrift 2y agoThere's a bunch of network operating systems that use P4 (Arista EOS, Cisco NX-OS, IPinfusion OCNOS, Microsoft SONiC, etc)