Totally. "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."
That quote's been stuck in my head ever since I saw Jobs doing the commencement speech at Stanford on YouTube. I've been wanting to build a computer again more and more ever since my usual vendor started using proprietary screws to keep me out of my laptop (it works... I don't really feel like reinventing the screwdriver head...) Like I said, I don't believe that I have the requisite knowledge to do silicon design myself, even if it has gotten cheap enough. If it makes you feel better, though, I do believe that an interim of the early 21st century ought to be as self-describing and self-implementing as possible, so I'm currently thinking about making two models. a) I want to play with software b) I want to play with FPGAs I've also thought about actually shipping something where the *only* option was to go with one of those FPGA development boards, and I haven't investigated the ramifications of going that route, but if I had to guess, I bet those boards cost more than the deployment boards, and I'm not sure what the difference is performance-wise. Thanks for recommending Silicon Squeak. Jecel's project is so awesome! And while I totally can't wait to have one:) I think what I can do this year will likely be limited to integrating off the shelf parts. That said, I'm hoping I can create something interesting even with those constraints. I've bounced email back and forth with Jecel, and I really like his point of view:) On May 25, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Max OrHai <[email protected]> wrote: > This sounds like a really cool project, and I hope you report to the list as > you make progress. Have you looked at Jecel Assumpcao's SiliconSqueak? An > awful lot can be done on the cheap with modern FPGAs, so long as you don't > stray too far from the conventional CPU design space... (For an example of > what I mean by too far, check out http://cellmatrix.com or > http://greenarraychips.com). I really wish more people designed whole > systems, both hardware and software, these days. > > -- Max > > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Casey Ransberger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello all, > > I've found myself with the first sizable chunk of free time I've had in > years. I've been having so much fun! But I must admit, after a bunch of > hustle-your-butt software work, the software part isn't completely satisfying > me. > > I miss taking apart computers. It's wonderful that they've gotten so small, > but it comes at a price, I think. No one's really figured out a way to make > something that small which leaves room for serviceability. When I was a kid, > I learned _so much_ with the case open. > > Somewhere I read about an XO installation where they found a little girl > who'd set up an assembly line and was doing her own repairs on other kids > laptops. No one asked her to, she just decided to do it. It really warmed my > heart:) and I couldn't help feeling some nostalgia, because I was *totally* > that kid. > > And when you add free time to life long love, well, hah! I'm gonna build a > computer this year. I was thinking it would be fun to throw out the Intel > architecture and look at alternatives. I know nothing of silicon, not really, > and so I'm liable to grab parts off of the shelf, though that visual-6502 > simulator I found on the web has me tempted all the same. > > For a CPU, I thought it might be interesting, and temporarily future-proof, > to go with something ARM. I know people have had the Squeak VM running on ARM > chips, which is sort of my only req'ment anymore, outside of the web browser > which lets me live in the modern world. But then I stopped. > > What about Frank? > > I have a feeling Frank should work anywhere, but since I've only seen things > Ian is doing, I thought I'd stop to ask. If I wanted to be able to run VPRI's > bits (if and) when they become generally available, is there a particular > chip architecture I should go with? > > Okay that's the first question. The other question is, was there anything in > particular about the Alto that folks on this list miss? Would the Alto make > an interesting case study for me to explore, or have modern computers > imitated it to the point where it isn't the thing to examine? I'm picking my > way through the wikipedia article, but it occurs to me that not having used > the thing, it might be hard for the details on the wiki to jump out at me in > any sort of "aha" moment. > > Not sure that the tech is at the point where I can hope to construct > something Dynabook-shaped, but I know that I can make one improvement to the > interim desktop design just by using a flat panel that will swivel into a > portrait orientation:) > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
