On 06/18/2017 03:14 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:56 PM, zap <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] > http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook > Send large attachments to [email protected] _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list [email protected] http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to [email protected]
