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

71–80 of 98 posts

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#71

Post by notabee »

f00zz wrote: post #35
nix23 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>all interesting and robust in its own ways but not all that competitive in terms of performance, so, Really? The most performing rocket-engine for a long time was the Russian RD-170. The most impressive performing Fighter (aeronautic wise the Su-27) The fastest Sub also Russian, the biggest ICBM (R-36M) too and so on. >best they managed to build were AKs, Soyuz, Chernobyl The US did Agent Orange, Fat Man and Apollo…

Most Soviet computers were shoddy copies of Western models. DEC even left Easter eggs in Cyrillic on their silicon to Russian reverse-engineers: https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creatures/pages/russians.html

The Soviets almost built their own internet before the U.S. It was ironically killed by the bureaucrats that it would have largely made redundant.

https://strelkamag.com/en/article/what-happened-to-the-sovie...

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#72

Post by kls »

agurk wrote: post #70
kls wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the sentiment you are trying to express and to some degree I agree but I would argue that the AK is a really bad example that actually is probably the greatest example of the Soviet simple utilitarian technology. Out of all of the battle rifles designed (The big three being the AR, AK and FAL/SCAR) the AK has gone under the least amount of revisions, the biggest revision being the AK-74 where the Soviets…

> of all of the battle rifles designed (The big three being the AR, AK and FAL/SCAR) To be pedantic about terminology the Kalashnikov family of rifles are generally not Battle Rifles. Of your listed examples only the FN FAL and some models of the FN SCAR are considered Battle Rifles. Battle Rifles as a term came out in the 80s to distinguish between autoloading rifles soldiers had fielded since WW2 that weren't assau…

I tend to use the term battle rifle as representing rifles utilized by world militaries, I fully yield that you are correct, but I tend to try to stay away from the word assault rifle when trying to convey what I am saying due to it being an extremely loaded word now. Because the conversation can devolve into weather the AR-15, civilian AK etc. are classified in that group, by utilizing the term battle while not technically correct, infers meaning to the reader that I am specifically talking about rifles utilized by the military. That being said, I acknowledge that there is a stricter classification for the two groups and that my utilization of the term is not technically correct.

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#73

Post by simonh »

sudosysgen wrote: post #60
simonh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I doubt making a Soyuz and throwing it away is cheaper than building an F9 and reusing the first stage and booster 10 times. At that point the second stage would have to cost almost as much as an entire Soyuz stack.

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#74

Post by sudosysgen »

simonh wrote: post #73
sudosysgen wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I doubt making a Soyuz and throwing it away is cheaper than building an F9 and reusing the first stage and booster 10 times. At that point the second stage would have to cost almost as much as an entire Soyuz stack.

Making a Soyuz is really, really cheap. Something around 5 million dollars for the rocket. Most of the cost in a Soyuz launch isn't from building the rocket.

If it is the case then we will see SpaceX charging NASA less than a Soyuz launch amortized over the number of passengers per launch. But in 2021 it still isn't the case.

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#75

Post by agurk »

kls wrote: post #72
agurk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> of all of the battle rifles designed (The big three being the AR, AK and FAL/SCAR) To be pedantic about terminology the Kalashnikov family of rifles are generally not Battle Rifles. Of your listed examples only the FN FAL and some models of the FN SCAR are considered Battle Rifles. Battle Rifles as a term came out in the 80s to distinguish between autoloading rifles soldiers had fielded since WW2 that weren't assau…

I tend to use the term battle rifle as representing rifles utilized by world militaries, I fully yield that you are correct, but I tend to try to stay away from the word assault rifle when trying to convey what I am saying due to it being an extremely loaded word now. Because the conversation can devolve into weather the AR-15, civilian AK etc. are classified in that group, by utilizing the term battle while not tech…

What is, or is not, an Assault Rifle is clearly defined, whereas a lot of the confusion comes from the use of the similar term Assault Weapon which is less well defined/defined by cosmetic characteristics.

Perhaps using something like Military Rifle would allow you to refer to such without being technically wrong?

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#76

Post by tipsysquid »

alexhutcheson wrote: post #63
bhouston wrote: post #53

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-lik…

That might be true, but I wouldn't expect the microarchitectures that achieve this performance to be free (in either the "gratis" or "libre" senses of that word). Designing a superscalar application processor requires an enormous amount of work by engineers who are experts in their field, and that work needs to be compensated somehow. The ISA may be open, but there is no requirement for the microarchitecture implemen…

> I wouldn't expect the microarchitectures that achieve this performance to be free (in either the "gratis" or "libre" senses of that word)

I agree with you on this as an eventuality of risc-v. But my casual following of the space leads me to believe that a high-performance open baseline of these architectures will be available and customization/special purpose of these archs will be for purchase.

I'm hopeful some of the benefits will be contributed upstream.

As long as there is some competition in the architecture space (ARM, x86, risc-v), the more likely builders will share gains upstream to compete against rival platforms.

That's my wishful thinking at least.

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#77

Post by kls »

agurk wrote: post #75
kls wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to use the term battle rifle as representing rifles utilized by world militaries, I fully yield that you are correct, but I tend to try to stay away from the word assault rifle when trying to convey what I am saying due to it being an extremely loaded word now. Because the conversation can devolve into weather the AR-15, civilian AK etc. are classified in that group, by utilizing the term battle while not tech…

What is, or is not, an Assault Rifle is clearly defined, whereas a lot of the confusion comes from the use of the similar term Assault Weapon which is less well defined/defined by cosmetic characteristics. Perhaps using something like Military Rifle would allow you to refer to such without being technically wrong?

Good suggestion, I will utilize it in the future.

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#78

Post by pjmlp »

throwaway4good wrote: post #9
einpoklum wrote: post #5

It is actually worrying that there will be a push to run a Google-dependent platform on RISC-V's. After all, we know that a lot of functionality is closed into Google Play Services, so that AOSP is to a great extent a bait for being fully tied to Google. Even without relying on closed-source components, you're still relying on Google's interest and good will in maintaining that project. Instead, it's much more import…

There is Huawei HarmonyOS which I believe aims to be compatible with Android mobile apps but has a different kernel and is not reliant on Google mobile services.

HarmonyOS has nothing to do with Android, besides also supporting Java (proper Java not Android Java dialect), among its official languages.

https://developer.harmonyos.com/en/docs/documentation/doc-gu...

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#79

Post by brokenkebab »

bluGill wrote: post #56
coldtea wrote: post #17

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. 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.

USSR used slave workforce in the recent times, and didn't care that much about feeding them. If slaves are cheaply replaceable, economic incentives alone won't likely produce any reason for liberation.

Re: Android Ported to RISC-V

#80

Post by brokenkebab »

notabee wrote: post #71
f00zz wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most Soviet computers were shoddy copies of Western models. DEC even left Easter eggs in Cyrillic on their silicon to Russian reverse-engineers: https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creatures/pages/russians.html

The Soviets almost built their own internet before the U.S. It was ironically killed by the bureaucrats that it would have largely made redundant. https://strelkamag.com/en/article/what-happened-to-the-sovie...

That's not true on any reasonable scale. One just can't claim 'almost built X' for every failed attempt to secure financial support for a research institute to work in more, or less X direction.
Post reply on HN