On Sat, 2009-12-05 at 17:08 -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Soner Tari <so...@comixwall.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-12-05 at 21:30 +0100, Matthieu Herrb wrote: > >> Making hardware is a lot more difficult than writing software. So it takes > >> more resources and more skills. > > > > Sorry Matthieu, but I have to say that this is utter bullshit, and I > > believe such underestimation is the underlying reason that many software > > suck. > > I think the point is the tools to make software are more readily > available than the tools to make hardware. Let's say so you want to > make a graphics card. Let's also say that you're only interested in > playing quake3. What does it take to party like 1999? About 150 MHz > on a 180nm process. And what does it cost to fab some 180nm chips? > More than I've ever spent on all the computers I've ever written > software with.
To read his comments with such meaning, I would have to replace the words "difficult" and "skills" in his sentences with others. However, assuming that's really the intended meaning, yes you are right, investment to produce hardware or semiconductors is very high (so I cannot do it at home). But that's hardly a concern for venture capitalists or corporations like IBM, Intel, etc., hence hardly a reason for the lack of open hardware. (Unless of course the definition of "open" here is equated to "homemade".) On the other hand, when I look at open source software, things do not seem too bright either (although I can do it at home): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems So, I believe the reasons behind these should be searched somewhere else other than skills or costs. (Looking at other posts in this thread, I regret that I've ever sent my first reply. So, back to silent mode again...)
