
RISC-V Community: "ARM Architecture: Understand the Facts" - kasbah
https://www.arm-basics.com/
======
writepub
There's a big misunderstanding that open source, in and of itself, is more
secure. Time and again this has been proven wrong (remember heartbleed?)

Where open source does benefit is a more timely and fair fix to a reported
security bug. A company's closed source implementation may not be in as much
of a hurry to fix security bugs if there isn't an immediate effect on the
bottom line

Also, how's open source supposed to minimize fragmentation? Desktop Linux has
a hundred flavors and even with a standardized ABI, there's no guarantees on a
single binary working seamlessly across distros ( which is the reason for this
like flatpack to exist)

~~~
jononor
Open source _can_ introduce a kind of de-factor standardization when some
project becomes the go-to solution for some domain, with almost everyone using
it and contributing improvements. It is a type of network effect, the feedback
loop being made possible by the open source development model. Examples
include the Linux kernel, the GCC compiler[1] and even OpenSSL (which is what
made heartbleed such a big deal).

Of course there still exists a long tail of alternatives, there is no stopping
that in an open source world.

1\. Arguably shifting to LLVM/clang these days. But note that clang for
instance implements a huge amount of GCC compatible behavior (like commandline
flags), instead of inventing their own.

------
pertymcpert
How on earth is adding new features to the architecture in updates seen as
fragmentation? Is everyone supposed to stick with v8.0? Moron.

