Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Android Ported to RISC-V

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 98 posts

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#51

Post by varispeed »

zamadatix wrote: post #30
varispeed wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The products containing code or chips that are not allowed could be incorporated in the same regime as illegal drugs - so trading or possessing a device with such operating system or technology could be deemed illegal.

I'm more talking the 1.4 billion people in China that need CPUs when you try to tell them they can't use ARM or RISC or etc. not the 330 million in the US that want something manufactured. We've already import restricted Android devices from e.g. Huawei, it has had no impact to their need for CPU designs for them though.

So if it is their internal market, because of how big they are, there is nothing that you can do unfortunately. Only impose further sanctions that will eventually escalate to a war. In that sense China won, because no country can afford to stand up against them in a meaningful way.

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#52

Post by stjohnswarts »

coldtea wrote: post #17
d3ckard wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's good though. That means they have to invest in R&D instead of depending on exploiting cheap labour to brute-force their way into the market. If they invest in R&D, they need creative people who are up to date. Such people tend to bring change to the society at large(I'd say democracy is really good for creativeness to flourish). Basically, the goal is not to expunge them from the market, the goal is to make th…

> That's good though. That means they have to invest in R&D instead of depending on exploiting cheap labour to brute-force their way into the market. Using cheap labor, copying foreign products, and bypassing copyright worked for the US, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan when they were in their own economic rise, and thus far has been working for China. > Basically, the goal is not to expunge them from the market, the goal is…

Lots of countries followed the same trek, quit singling out the USA and Europe. The history of those two are the history of mankind. I'm kind of tired of people trying to make me as someone who took part in none of that as basically the same. All we can do is realize those acts were evil and move forward and look for peace and tolerance between everyone. I'm not going to bear the burden of thousands of years of uncivil activity of the ancestors of all of us.

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#53

Post by bhouston »

I expect RISC-V to match Apple's ARM implementations efficiency/speed within the decade. This is a long time but it is a very lofty goal as Apple's ARM implementation is a moving target to RISC-V has to move faster.

But it likely will come close to converging around 5 years from now -- at least somewhat competitive in core count and single core performance.

Interesting times.

I look forward to the first AMD Ryzen-like chipset designs for ARM and RISC-V. That is an innovation that is just waiting to be taken advantage of by these newer architectures.

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#54

Post by kls »

zozbot234 wrote: post #33
kls wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

was the number 1 reason why the South had a garbage economy I am not sure what the implication of garbage economy is, but the south was fairly wealthy antebellum. So much so that they supported a large tax base for the federal government which they resented, it lead to the nullification crisis in 1832 and started the long road to the civil war. Southern universities where also considered to be some of the best in the…

> the south was fairly wealthy antebellum. Not so much when you properly account for the enslaved population. It's just not sensible to only count free citizens, that's clearly a misleading impression.

It is not a misleading impression, the south as a territory was fairly wealthy for much the same reason that todays California is fairly wealthy, that does not mean that the wealth distribution was good, nor does it mean that I advocate for a return to that system as it was abhorrible. The south was a shining example of wealth concentration and the ability to control that it brings. But economically it was strong, so strong that they had a slogan that cotton was king. The implication was that the European powers and their need for the souths exports would drag them into the war on the souths side. It was prides folly to think ]their economic hand was that strong, and they certainly overplayed it, but it was strong and that is why they felt they could play it.

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#55

Post by simonh »

sudosysgen wrote: post #45
numpad0 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is sense of mystique associated with the Soviet Union but the best they managed to build were AKs, Soyuz, Chernobyl, all interesting and robust in its own ways but not all that competitive in terms of performance, so,

Soyuz is still, to this day in 2021, the cheapest and most reliable way to get people in LEO. By any performance metric it was and still is the best tool for the job. Same for the AK, it was reliable and accurate at a fraction of the cost which is why it is so popular still today. There is a lot more to engineering than top performance. Reliability and cost is just as important. When you factor that in, it's clear th…

Price per seat to NASA on Soyuz was $90m each, while per seat on Falcon 9 it works out at about $55m under the current contract. Bear in mind that contract was signed before SpaceX had recovered any first stage boosters, so that's not taken into account in the pricing yet. Soyuz certainly had a good run though.

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#56

Post by bluGill »

coldtea wrote: post #17
d3ckard wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's good though. That means they have to invest in R&D instead of depending on exploiting cheap labour to brute-force their way into the market. If they invest in R&D, they need creative people who are up to date. Such people tend to bring change to the society at large(I'd say democracy is really good for creativeness to flourish). Basically, the goal is not to expunge them from the market, the goal is to make th…

> That's good though. That means they have to invest in R&D instead of depending on exploiting cheap labour to brute-force their way into the market. Using cheap labor, copying foreign products, and bypassing copyright worked for the US, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan when they were in their own economic rise, and thus far has been working for China. > Basically, the goal is not to expunge them from the market, the goal is…

The entire world benefited from slaves for a long time. Don't pick on the US, it was a universal practice. It isn't done now not for moral reasons (you can read the moral arguments of slave owners for a different moral perspective - it is "interesting"), but economic. Slaves need to be fed when they are not working, so better to let them figure that out for themselves when you don't have a job.

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#57

Post by sudosysgen »

simonh wrote: post #55
sudosysgen wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soyuz is still, to this day in 2021, the cheapest and most reliable way to get people in LEO. By any performance metric it was and still is the best tool for the job. Same for the AK, it was reliable and accurate at a fraction of the cost which is why it is so popular still today. There is a lot more to engineering than top performance. Reliability and cost is just as important. When you factor that in, it's clear th…

Price per seat to NASA on Soyuz was $90m each, while per seat on Falcon 9 it works out at about $55m under the current contract. Bear in mind that contract was signed before SpaceX had recovered any first stage boosters, so that's not taken into account in the pricing yet. Soyuz certainly had a good run though.

This was just Roscomos nickel and diming NASA. The actual cost per seat to Roscomos from the factory is around 19-22 million.

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#58

Post by bluGill »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #26
AlexAltea wrote: post #8

Related: https://www.cnet.com/news/chip-designer-arm-ditches-huawei-b... Unsurprisingly, this has been done by Alibaba-owned T-Head Semiconductor. The obvious result if Chinese vendors start facing obstacles to obtain licenses to manufacture ARM-based chips (or any other non-Chinese architecture). How can anyone expect that software/hardware-bans to global superpowers can result in anything but their software/hardwar…

The irony is that the Chinese strategy is the make the West dependent on it for various goods, while the US strategy is to ensure China is not dependent on it for the key goods the US has a competitive advantage over. Given that necessity is the mother of invention you can imagine that with China's economies of scale and cheap labor that they will have a competitive advantage sooner than later and the US will become…

China is dependent on the US for food. China was able to use Brazil for the past few years to work around Trump's trade policies (lets not get into that issue), but Brazil depleted their stores to do so, and in some cases had to import food from the US to replace the the food they exported the China.

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#59

Post by simonh »

sudosysgen wrote: post #57
simonh wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price per seat to NASA on Soyuz was $90m each, while per seat on Falcon 9 it works out at about $55m under the current contract. Bear in mind that contract was signed before SpaceX had recovered any first stage boosters, so that's not taken into account in the pricing yet. Soyuz certainly had a good run though.

This was just Roscomos nickel and diming NASA. The actual cost per seat to Roscomos from the factory is around 19-22 million.

Ok, I suppose on those terms we'd need to know the real cost to SpaceX after they have recovered the first stages and used them for a dozen satellite launches each. The fact is on commercial terms SpaceX has been undercutting the Russians for years now, and were doing so even before first stage and fairing recovery.

Edit: It looks like NASA has already agreed to allow SpaceX to re-use first stages and Crew Dragon capsules for crew flights as well, starting this year.

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#60

Post by sudosysgen »

simonh wrote: post #59
sudosysgen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was just Roscomos nickel and diming NASA. The actual cost per seat to Roscomos from the factory is around 19-22 million.

Ok, I suppose on those terms we'd need to know the real cost to SpaceX after they have recovered the first stages and used them for a dozen satellite launches each. The fact is on commercial terms SpaceX has been undercutting the Russians for years now, and were doing so even before first stage and fairing recovery. Edit: It looks like NASA has already agreed to allow SpaceX to re-use first stages and Crew Dragon cap…

We really don't. Roscomos doesn't make the rockets, it's the Russian NASA. The cost here is because of the middle man and the US having been dependent.

Be that as it may, today in 2021, the cheapest and most reliable way we have to send someone to LEO is to make a Soyuz and use that to send them.

Maybe eventually SpaceX will catch up in cost. But in 2021 it hasn't yet.

Post reply on HN