This site popped up on the radar for me this morning.
It's currently down - perhaps there was a public backlash, the server overheated, or something - but at least the Internet Archive still has a copy:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180710130206/https://riscv-basics.com/
Time to start a riscv-netbook mailing list, perhaps? ;-)
David
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 5:13 PM, David Boddie david@boddie.org.uk wrote:
This site popped up on the radar for me this morning.
yeah. interestingly the bullet-points 3 and 5 are *actuallly legitimate concerns*. the RISC-V Foundation is over-controlled by UCB Berkeley, via a structure that is similar to the failed Google Project Ara ("it's open as long as you sign our secret agreement and don't publish information we don't want you to").
It's currently down - perhaps there was a public backlash, the server overheated, or something - but at least the Internet Archive still has a copy:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180710130206/https://riscv-basics.com/
Time to start a riscv-netbook mailing list, perhaps? ;-)
:)
On Jul 10, 2018, at 13:37, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote: interestingly the bullet-points 3 and 5 are *actuallly legitimate concerns*. the RISC-V Foundation is over-controlled by UCB Berkeley,[0] via a structure that is similar to the failed Google Project Ara ("it's open as long as you sign our secret agreement and don't publish information we don't want you to").
Are you referring to "Design Assurance"(as 3) and "Security"(as 5)?
Seems like an advertisement specifically against risc-v by and for ARM.
I'm sorry to hear about those terms on a project with any pretensions of being "open".
Notes: [0] UCB stands for "University of California at Berkeley" so the intermediate form is normally "UC Berkeley".
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Richard Wilbur richard.wilbur@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2018, at 13:37, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote: interestingly the bullet-points 3 and 5 are *actuallly legitimate concerns*. the RISC-V Foundation is over-controlled by UCB Berkeley,[0] via a structure that is similar to the failed Google Project Ara ("it's open as long as you sign our secret agreement and don't publish information we don't want you to").
Are you referring to "Design Assurance"(as 3) and "Security"(as 5)?
fragmentation risk and cost.
Seems like an advertisement specifically against risc-v by and for ARM.
indeed... one that that has been well-researched and partly has merit. other aspects definitely do not.
I'm sorry to hear about those terms on a project with any pretensions of being "open".
i know. i was... extremely optimistic and hopeful when i started hearing about RISC-V, particularly that it was intended to solve mny of the issues and mistakes made in RISC design over the past 30+ years.
however that quickly turned to shock, then puzzlement, and now i'm wondering where to go from here, as i learned over time that the UC B team behind RISC-V, although they have achieved absolutely fantastic things, are... unable to let go of control of the development process, shall we say.
it comes down basically to them being technically brilliant. sufficiently brilliant that they are unable to appreciate that other people may have very good reasons for wanting to do something quite differently from how they envisaged it should be done.
there are many many examples from a huge range of levels of needs, from a huge range of diverse contributors. the MIT Team for example, who want to do research into formally-secure processors, *specifically* require "Total Store Order" memory semantics. as in, when a memory access (load or store) is requested, the order is ABSOLUTELY guaranteed to be preserved (and speed and cacheing and out-of-order execution can go take a running jump).
however.... the RISC-V memory model was *specifically* designed by UC B with some *specific* design criteria and *specific* optimisations and a lot of research.... consequently MIT had to fight tooth and nail just to get a single one-page chapter put into the specification.
anyway.
i'll be in Chennai next week, i'm giving a talk on the Libre RISC-V SoC.
l.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 01:26:35 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Richard Wilbur richard.wilbur@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2018, at 13:37, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote: interestingly the bullet-points 3 and 5 are *actuallly legitimate concerns*. the RISC-V Foundation is over-controlled by UCB Berkeley,[0] via a structure that is similar to the failed Google Project Ara ("it's open as long as you sign our secret agreement and don't publish information we don't want you to").
Are you referring to "Design Assurance"(as 3) and "Security"(as 5)?
fragmentation risk and cost.
Seems like an advertisement specifically against risc-v by and for ARM.
indeed... one that that has been well-researched and partly has merit. other aspects definitely do not.
I'm sorry to hear about those terms on a project with any pretensions of being "open".
i know. i was... extremely optimistic and hopeful when i started hearing about RISC-V, particularly that it was intended to solve mny of the issues and mistakes made in RISC design over the past 30+ years.
however that quickly turned to shock, then puzzlement, and now i'm wondering where to go from here, as i learned over time that the UC B team behind RISC-V, although they have achieved absolutely fantastic things, are... unable to let go of control of the development process, shall we say.
it comes down basically to them being technically brilliant. sufficiently brilliant that they are unable to appreciate that other people may have very good reasons for wanting to do something quite differently from how they envisaged it should be done.
<snip>
I thought that riscv was based on "prior art" such that any license that restricts it would be untenable.
Assuming that faith in riscv is misplaced, what about Epiphany? The Parallela (FPGA) board in no longer developed, but the processor is still an OSS arch, right?
Thanks
Misplaced might be an over-exaggeration.
This issue seems virtually identical to the issues with SystemD. The establishment wants to do their own thing, after getting bored of their own principles, eventually someone needs to build a stable fork and all will return to normal eventually, so long as there are individuals that still care and still act like they care.
Part of getting bored of one's own principles is getting burnt out. That happened with pulseaudio and that happened with fastbooting SystemD.
Really this feels normal and ''probably'' healthy. Even whole organizations can burn out. I guess this is how to cope.
Perhaps, Luke, this aggression you/many perceive from these individuals is less arrogance and more a reaction to overwhelming pressure, don't ya think now that I say? : D
Not to be an annoyance, but you seem to have been so busy that you missed my reply and I do think it was important.
Thanks.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 09:18:46 -0400 David Niklas doark@mail.com wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 01:26:35 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Richard Wilbur richard.wilbur@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2018, at 13:37, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote: interestingly the bullet-points 3 and 5 are *actuallly legitimate concerns*. the RISC-V Foundation is over-controlled by UCB Berkeley,[0] via a structure that is similar to the failed Google Project Ara ("it's open as long as you sign our secret agreement and don't publish information we don't want you to").
Are you referring to "Design Assurance"(as 3) and "Security"(as 5)?
fragmentation risk and cost.
Seems like an advertisement specifically against risc-v by and for ARM.
indeed... one that that has been well-researched and partly has merit. other aspects definitely do not.
I'm sorry to hear about those terms on a project with any pretensions of being "open".
i know. i was... extremely optimistic and hopeful when i started hearing about RISC-V, particularly that it was intended to solve mny of the issues and mistakes made in RISC design over the past 30+ years.
however that quickly turned to shock, then puzzlement, and now i'm wondering where to go from here, as i learned over time that the UC B team behind RISC-V, although they have achieved absolutely fantastic things, are... unable to let go of control of the development process, shall we say.
it comes down basically to them being technically brilliant. sufficiently brilliant that they are unable to appreciate that other people may have very good reasons for wanting to do something quite differently from how they envisaged it should be done.
<snip>
I thought that riscv was based on "prior art" such that any license that restricts it would be untenable.
Assuming that faith in riscv is misplaced, what about Epiphany? The Parallela (FPGA) board in no longer developed, but the processor is still an OSS arch, right?
Thanks
On Monday, July 30, 2018, David Niklas doark@mail.com wrote:
Not to be an annoyance, but you seem to have been so busy that you missed my reply and I do think it was important.
Yes. Very limited time in chennai. Have to focus
On 2018-07-10 at 18:13:12 +0200, David Boddie wrote:
It's currently down - perhaps there was a public backlash, the server overheated, or something
it has been taken down by arm themselves after their own staff complained:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/10/arm_riscv_website/
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' valhalla-l@trueelena.org wrote:
On 2018-07-10 at 18:13:12 +0200, David Boddie wrote:
It's currently down - perhaps there was a public backlash, the server overheated, or something
it has been taken down by arm themselves after their own staff complained:
thanks for the tip, elena. there's another one on phoronix - https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ARM-RISC-V-Facts
i couldn't help but put this in:
https://slashdot.org/submission/8382672/arms-own-employees-complain-about-an...
i'm kinda surprised that there's not been a slashdot article yet about this, so if you feel it should be on the front page do vote it up.
l.
arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
-
David Boddie -
David Niklas -
Elena ``of Valhalla'' -
Jean Flamelle -
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton -
Richard Wilbur