I don't see how an open processor would any better than a closed one.
Is it time for open processors?
11–20 of 236 posts
Re: Is it time for open processors?
#12If we see further fragmentation of cpu architectures it's not going to be fun for users and developers. Already the fragmentation of OS makes that cross platform is a big challenge. It would make the equivalent of a .net/java/webassembly/posix critical.
Almost all code today is written in languages that run in vms(java, .net), are interpreted (python, ruby, js), or easily compile across cpu architectures. Operating systems are a different story but changing the underlying ISA is really not a huge deal IME it’s harder to port to a new os than a new ISA.
It may be, but from a user point of view, unless the developer targeted that architecture, you are out of luck using that software. And then you end up with “I need software 1 but it only works on OS A and cpu X and I also need software 2 that only runs on OS B and cpu Y”. We are back in the 80s!
Re: Is it time for open processors?
#13I don't see how an open processor would any better than a closed one.
In many of the same ways that open software is usually better than closed software. In particular, greater scrutiny of specifications and microcode ought to lead to better quality outcomes.
This whole debate feels eerily similar to the emergence of open source software into the public eye, back in the 90s.
Re: Is it time for open processors?
#14If we see further fragmentation of cpu architectures it's not going to be fun for users and developers. Already the fragmentation of OS makes that cross platform is a big challenge. It would make the equivalent of a .net/java/webassembly/posix critical.
Perhaps the solution is some form of interoperability across processors. Where they primarily run one ISA but have a dynamic converter that can based on some flag interpret memory as code from a different ISA? As chip fabbers and ISAs compete eventually a clear winner emerges and these compatibility layers are mere curiosities just like 16-bit mode on modern x86 CPUs. Except wait, maybe this is just my cynicism talki…
Interop relies on a single standard as a benchmark and history tells us that people are incapable of being content with a standard that isn't exactly how they imagined it and would rather fragment and live and die on their own hill than play nice.
Re: Is it time for open processors?
#15Open does not mean better. This is not how our world works. Would be nice to have but I assume every Intel chip I can buy (even with the throtteling) will be more powerful and cheaper than any open processors. There is also much more than only architecture this thing (this works in software but not in hardware)... this would only work if a big player like AMD or Intel jumps on this ship (but it would be like giving a…
> but it would be like giving away intellectual property
Not necessarily if it is a "viral" license like gplv3 agpl, no?
Re: Is it time for open processors?
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps the solution is some form of interoperability across processors. Where they primarily run one ISA but have a dynamic converter that can based on some flag interpret memory as code from a different ISA? As chip fabbers and ISAs compete eventually a clear winner emerges and these compatibility layers are mere curiosities just like 16-bit mode on modern x86 CPUs. Except wait, maybe this is just my cynicism talki…
Interop relies on a single standard as a benchmark and history tells us that people are incapable of being content with a standard that isn't exactly how they imagined it and would rather fragment and live and die on their own hill than play nice.
I'm just amazed how we have two clipboards when I use Linux. Like we can't decide something so stupidly simple.
Re: Is it time for open processors?
#17Open does not mean better. This is not how our world works. Would be nice to have but I assume every Intel chip I can buy (even with the throtteling) will be more powerful and cheaper than any open processors. There is also much more than only architecture this thing (this works in software but not in hardware)... this would only work if a big player like AMD or Intel jumps on this ship (but it would be like giving a…
If one only considers power / speed and cost, then open will certainly mean worse.
However a processor with verifiable functionality has value. It's more trustworthy. It can be checked for accidental, or deliberate, security flaws.
In many scenarios, I don't care how fast a processor is, if it's leaking data then it's worthless.
Re: Is it time for open processors?
#18If we see further fragmentation of cpu architectures it's not going to be fun for users and developers. Already the fragmentation of OS makes that cross platform is a big challenge. It would make the equivalent of a .net/java/webassembly/posix critical.
Perhaps the solution is some form of interoperability across processors. Where they primarily run one ISA but have a dynamic converter that can based on some flag interpret memory as code from a different ISA? As chip fabbers and ISAs compete eventually a clear winner emerges and these compatibility layers are mere curiosities just like 16-bit mode on modern x86 CPUs. Except wait, maybe this is just my cynicism talki…
The ISA isn’t the biggest problem. The memory model (do I need to use memory fences here? How many different kinds of those are there?) can introduce hard to reproduce bugs.
Also, relative strengths of the OS (if thread creation is relatively slow, it may not be worthwhile to multi-thread a short code fragment; one OS might have three kinds of spin locks, another only two; if there are many registers, you may need larger stacks per thread, and may want to limit the number of threads in memory-constrained devices) are bigger ones.
Re: Is it time for open processors?
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost all code today is written in languages that run in vms(java, .net), are interpreted (python, ruby, js), or easily compile across cpu architectures. Operating systems are a different story but changing the underlying ISA is really not a huge deal IME it’s harder to port to a new os than a new ISA.
It may be, but from a user point of view, unless the developer targeted that architecture, you are out of luck using that software. And then you end up with “I need software 1 but it only works on OS A and cpu X and I also need software 2 that only runs on OS B and cpu Y”. We are back in the 80s!
Is this something the distribution maintainers are supposed to track? Let's say package x is available on Debian and decisions is available on the raspberry pi. The package maintainers on Debian side are the people who compile and ship the binaries for raspberry pi, no? Are the authors involved in this at all? Or is it that the package maintainers take a more handsfree approach and only build on platforms that the authors have said the software works on?
Re: Is it time for open processors?
#20Of course it is! What is this question? No, man, not yet. Everyone has a thing just for the closed ones. Instead of asking "Is it time...?" you just do it when it's time! Damn those click baits. Although, open as in OpenSSL made a bad name for open source, because without critical audits there is even less security in open, because then it might be wide open instead! In open source, when a thing is made and it works for the most, nobody freakin cares anymore!