
Backers of Open-Source Chips Launch Startup - poindontcare
http://www.wsj.com/articles/backers-of-open-source-chips-launch-startup-1468242001?mod=rss_Technology
======
lifeisstillgood
I recently looked into buying a new laptop, and found minifree.org, who supply
libreboot BIOS chips.

What astounded me was that Intel post 2008 and AMD post 2011 have seperate
management chips that mean essentially any motherboard is rooted at the start.

I still need to dive into the complexities (I knew about Intel ME but assumed
we could get round it somehow) but we need these open chips more than ever.

~~~
yuhong
AFAIK AMD PSP don't have access to the network unlike Intel ME. Intel AMT is
actually a useful feature for some large organizations.

~~~
jordigh
The NSA is a pretty large organisation, yes.

------
pella
[https://www.sifive.com/](https://www.sifive.com/)

[https://www.sifive.com/about/press/](https://www.sifive.com/about/press/)

------
pella
or [http://www.anandtech.com/show/10488/sifive-unveils-
freedom-p...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/10488/sifive-unveils-freedom-
platforms-for-riscvbased-semicustom-chips)

------
kumarski
relevant: [http://efabless.com](http://efabless.com)

------
Kinnard
I wonder if open-sourcing can help keep Moore's Law going.

~~~
ashitlerferad
Other way around. The end of Moore's law means that open source chips actually
have a chance to compete:

[http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/design/the-death-
of-...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/design/the-death-of-moores-
law-will-spur-innovation)

~~~
wyager
Here's my theory on why open-source products (given enough time to develop)
are often _higher_ quality than their closed-source non-free counterparts:

Industry has a vested interest in maximizing returns. This means that it tends
to pump out very practical, usable products, but often gets stuck at local
maxima. It makes more sense for Intel to keep hammering away at x64 than to
switch to a possibly better architecture, even if switching might be better in
the very long run. OSS is driven not only by industry, but also by academics
(who have a vested interest in doing highly experimental research) and
hobbyists (who have a vested interest in quality and simplicity). This
additional set of interests means that OSS is being pulled in more directions
and is more likely to escape local maxima. If software was entirely driven by
industry, we'd probably still be using FORTRAN or something.

Now, the problem is that open source projects tend to have fewer resources and
less time pressure, so development is slower. This is fine for computer
science, where an academic who develops a novel language or algorithm can
reasonably expect it to be cutting-edge for quite a while and still in use
decades in the future.

On the other hand, processor design moves so fast that the only way to keep up
is to dump tons of money and man-hours into pursuing the latest and greatest
as aggressively as possible.

As the pace of processor development slows down (if it does), it will give a
chance for the slower, but higher-quality, work of academics and hobbyists to
catch up.

I am looking forward to all sorts of esoteric architectures implemented on all
sorts of esoteric theories to come out of the woodwork. We're very likely to
find some good stuff that we haven't thought of yet.

~~~
legulere
I think it really depends on which type of software and which part of quality
you look at. The good open source software is mostly written at companies
(like linux for example), but I guess having a few hobbyists and academics in
there kind of helps. One field open source is usability, as you usually need
to pay usability experts and conduct expensive experiments.

You're right that the hardware field is totally different from the software
field, however you have to see that instruction sets, which is what RISC-V is
about hardly ever change. Today's x86 processors are still compatible with
8086 from 1976 (and assembly compatible with 8008 from 1972). Similarly ARM is
from 1985.

The thing that's keeping hobbyists out is that producing ASICs is prohibitly
expensive.

