On 06/18/2017 03:14 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:56 PM, zap calmstorm@posteo.de wrote:
Hmm... just out of curiosity, what is your plan then? to make your own processors from lowrisc?
replying in part to bill here as well: yes. and to use MIAOW for OpenCL and ORSOC GPU for actual rendering. it won't be perfect but it will be a start.
bill: nvidia are in the difficult position of likely having been pressurised by governments to lock down what is effectively viewed in military terms as a a weapon (the rest of us just call it a "GPU"). if you recall many years ago, iraq i believe it was purchased thousands of sony PS1s to make a supercomputer.
as there is an ongoing arms race in that regard it is only the latest processors which are likely to fall under, for example, U.S. BXPA Weapons-Grade "Munitions" classification. given the fact that it is after a couple of years that the source code is no longer DRM-restricted, we have a correlation that fits with the ongoing evidence.
now, as long as a replacement (libre) processor is well below the "state of the art" but is otherwise perfectly acceptable for mass-volume electronics purposes, it will fall outside of this potential trap.
Please use lowrisc if you do this option, they already are libre. Their stuff is licensed under gpl3. That should also mean its easier to, load/less risk of idiots trying to but proprietary crap into it and get away with it like google does. bleh... google is so awful.
its not a bad idea, but I think until that is an option... we should use still use some form of arm.
indeed. it may sound strange but when there is no other option (and by that i mean *exhaustive* analysis finds no other option) i do not mind "crossing the line" into what would traditionally be viewed by software libre purists as "unacceptable territory" *IF* in doing so it is part of a long-term strategy to *REPLACE* the very thing being leveraged [to make money etc. etc.]
for example: many software libre supporters flatly refuse to even *install* Windows NT... but if i had taken that attitude i would not have broken the NT Domains protocol, over 20 years ago.
it is the same here:
I am glad wine was created, too bad that I cannot plan windows 95 games through wine yet... completely I mean.
Unless you know of other options.
nope, i don't. always looking though.
That is good.
Just curious but what other options are there? Also, I think that makes it more reasonable to reverse engineer their products just to piss Arm off. They don't like their products being reverse engineered anyways... so why not do that to annoy them for their unethical acts? Besides it could make them realize that their evil actions need to be changed.
and remove the one thing which would otherwise teach them a lesson?
i see both perspectives: i just believe that they are sufficiently arrogant in their power and beliefs that it is unlikely that they will change their minds. they've been told by their engineers countless times. they've been told by users countless times. they've been told by businesses who would otherwise buy more of their products countless times.
Dunno, I thought it was a good idea.
Its not my favorite idea, but its better than letting mali run unchecked. In my opinion.
yehyeh, i hear ya.
You are of course free to disagree but that's my stance.
no it's good to hear. thx zap.
l.
Tell me what you think of lowrisc when you get a chance. I mean as a base for your processors. heh.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk