Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by blihp 1614 days ago
At this point, I think that's become a cop-out on their part. If they really want to make their vision of truly open hardware a reality, they need to roll up their sleeves and make it happen.

Mostly open (due to reverse-engineering) FPGAs are a thing, SkyWater is a thing, RISC-V is a thing. Take one of the open source RISC-V designs, design and build a test system using an FPGA[1] (or more than one... depending on what is needed) so you've got something to put on a board, once the design is validated use SkyWater to produce a small run of actual chips to replace the (proprietary) FPGA(s) and produce a 100% open CPU etc. as needed.[2] Sure, performance will be dismal compared to the latest silicon from Apple/Intel/AMD but it will be infinitely better than the Unobtainium processor / system they continue to fantasize about.[3] Yes, they'll probably have to jettison things like cellular and probably WiFi support due to IP issues. (note: that's not to say a wireless solution would be impossible, just that it wouldn't be one of the widely deployed or mainstream ones[4]) I understand that this isn't a simple task but how would it be more work than whining for decades with virtually nothing to show for it (given their requirements) on the hardware front?

Build a bad open source device that you can iterate on rather than complaining about for-profit companies behaving like for-profit companies. Right now open source hardware is decades behind and sitting around waiting doesn't seem to be accomplishing much.

[1] Better yet, design a fully open source FPGA of their own. Sure, it will be a couple/few decades behind the state of the art. But it would provide a starting point to build on.

[2] Of course this would take multiple iterations. One approach would be to see if Google would sponsor this as part of their partnership with SkyWater. Worst case, the FSF might have to do some light fundraising for the iterations.

[3] Again, it would likely be a couple of decades or more behind the state of the art. This too would provide a starting point. Then they could use the finished product as a fund raising aid (i.e. sell it) to fund future iterations.

[4] Open source SDR is a thing, for example.

1 comments

IMHO, we need a free hardware foundation today just like we needed FSF in the 80-90's.
I'm with you, and that's probably a good summary of my point. At this stage it's probably safe to say that the FSF isn't likely to ever add much value in the hardware realm.