• just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    170
    ·
    2 months ago

    He’s being misquoted by the headline. He FEARS that it will make the same mistakes. Let’s be clear about RISC is here in the first place: an open-source hardware architecture. Anyone with enough money and willpower to fork it for their needs will do so. It’s anyone’s game still. He’s just simply saying that the same type of people who took over ARM and x86 are doomed to make the same mistakes. Not that RISC-V is bad.

    • bitfucker@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m being pedantic here but RISC-V is not a hardware architecture as in something that you can send to a manufacturer and get it made. It is an ISA. How you implement those ISA is up to you. Yes there are open implementations but I think it is important to distinguish it.

        • bitfucker@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          So does x86. The difference is license. Just like how Intel and AMD have a VERY different design (implementation) as of now, so does RISC-V. Any vendor can implement it however they want, but they won’t have to pay anyone for using RISC-V ISA

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    smells like linus thinks there is going to be an ever increasing tech debt, and honestly, i think i agree with him on that one.

    RISCV is likely going to eventually overstep it’s role in someplaces, and bits and pieces of it will become archaic over time.

    The gap between hardware and software level abstraction is huge, and that’s really hard to fill properly. You just need a strict design criteria to get around that one.

    I’m personally excited to see where RISCV goes, but maybe what we truly need is a universal software level architecture that can be used on various different CPU architectures providing maximum flexibility.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      2 months ago

      but maybe what we truly need is a universal software level architecture that can be used on various different CPU architectures providing maximum flexibility.

      I think that’s called Java.

    • arality@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 months ago

      software level architecture that can be used on various different CPU architectures providing maximum flexibility.

      I’ve only done a little bare metal programming, but I really don’t see how this is possible. Everything I’ve used is so vastly different, I think it would be impossible to create something like that, and have it work well.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        theoretically you could do it by defining an architecture operations standard, and then adhering to that somewhat when designing a CPU. While providing hardware flexibility as you could simply, not implement certain features, or implement certain other features. Might be an interesting idea.

        That or something that would require minimal “instruction translation” between different architectures.

        It’s like x86. except if most of the features were optional.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          It sounds like you’re just reinventing either the JVM (runtime instruction translation), compilers (LLVM IR), or something in between (JIT interpreters).

          The problem is that it’s a hard problem to solve generally without expensive tradeoffs:

          • interpreter like JVM - will always have performance overhead and can’t easily target arch-specific optimizations like SIMD
          • compiler - need a separate binary per arch, or have large binaries that can do multiple
          • JIT - runtime cost to compiling optimizations

          Each is fine and has a use case, but I really don’t think we need a hardware agnostic layer, we just need languages that help alleviate issues with different architectures. For example, Rust’s ownership model may help prevent bugs that out of order execution may expose. It could also allow programmers to specify more strict limits on types (e.g. non-zero numbers, for example), which could aid arch-specific optimizations).

    • nixcamic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      universal software level architecture that can be used on various different CPU

      Oh we already have dozens of those haha

  • lps@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Well regardless, the world needs alternatives that are outside of restrictive US patent law and large monopolistic control. Thank god for pioneers:)

    • erwan@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      ARM Inc is an English company owned by a Japanese company

  • BobGnarley@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    RISC-V is the only shot we have at usable open source hardware. I really, really hope it takes off.

  • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It’s open source nature protects against that. People mistake Linus as being in the same boat as Stallman but Linus was only open source by circumstance, he kind infamously doesn’t seem to appreciate the role open source played in his own success.

    It already directly addresses the mistakes of x86 and ARM. I don’t know what he is so worried about.

    • cmhe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Protects against what?

      What I read here is just a vague critic from him of the relation between hard- and software developer. Which will not change just because the ISA is open source. It will take some iterations until this is figured out, this is inevevable.

      Soft- and hardware developers are experts in their individual fields, there are not many with enough know-how of both fields to be effective.

      Linus also points out, that because of ARM before, RISC-V might have a easier time, on the software side, but mistakes will still happen.

      IMO, this article doesn’t go into enough depths of the RISC-V specific issues, that it warrants RISC-V in the title, it would apply to any up and coming new ISA.

  • magnolia_mayhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Maybe, but the point is that it’s open. There’s a much higher chance that one of the companies that builds parts will make good decisions.