[goldinfra]

Coupling requires more integration work, including writing and testing custom firmware. Oxide will be a tiny market player for a long time, even if things go very well. Are AMD and Broadcom really going to spend as much time helping Oxide as they do helping Dell? Of course not, Oxide's order volume will be a rounding error.

I'm sure they'll improve their processes over time but the lag will probably always be a non-zero value. Hopefully they'll be able to keep it low enough that it's not an important factor but as a customer it's certainly something one should consider.

It would be surprising if they don't run into some nasty issue that leaves their customers 6+ months behind on servers or switches at some point.

[mlindner]

From listening to their talks they've actually gotten pretty good direct responses from AMD and AMD likes them quite a bit. They've done what no other system integrator has done and brought up the CPU without using AMD's AGESA firmware bootloader. By simplifying the system they've reduced the workload on what they need to handle.

The talk here talks about that from about 32:15 : https://www.osfc.io/2022/talks/i-have-come-to-bury-the-bios-...

As to your second point, unless AMD somehow becomes supply constrained and only wants to ship to their most important customers first I don't see a future where there would be any lag. Again, the delay this time is from how long it took from company start until product release. Future delays will be based on the time it takes from them getting early development parts to released products, which they could even possibly beat Dell to market on given the smaller company size and IMO more skilled employees.

> It would be surprising if they don't run into some nasty issue that leaves their customers 6+ months behind on servers or switches at some point.

I mean they've already hit tons of nasty issues, for example finding two zero-day vulnerabilities in their chosen security processor. They've shown they can work around issues pretty well.

[DrScientist]

> it would be surprising if they don't run into some nasty issue that leaves their customers 6+ months behind on servers or switches at some point.

I just think your premise is wrong - most customers don't care about not having the absolute latest and greatest. Indeed they will often avoid them because

1. They are new so more likely to have as yet undiscovered issues ( hardware or drivers ).

2. If you buy top end, they sell at a premium well above their performance premium.

ie the customers who are perennially chasing the latest hardware are in the minority.

[goldinfra]

Most customers care about having the best of the available options. Rarely would any company deliberately choose to be behind where their competitors can be.

1. The way to run into undiscovered issues is to choose a completely custom firmware/hardware/software stack that almost no one else in the world is running.

2. Not sure where you're getting this from. There is almost always a price:performance calculation that results in current generation smashing the previous generation with server and switch hardware. Often this means not buying the flagship chips but still the current generation.

And a major reason to get off old generations of hardware is that they become unavailable relatively quickly. It's always easier to buy current generation hardware than previous generation hardware, especially a couple years into the current generation. This has nothing to do with chasing the latest hardware.

[DrScientist]

> And a major reason to get off old generations of hardware is that they become unavailable relatively quickly.

That's not in the customers interests per se- in fact it's a pain. Having control of their own stuff could mean they could offer a much longer effective operational life.

> The way to run into undiscovered issues is to choose a completely custom firmware/hardware/software stack that almost no one else in the world is running.

What breaks stuff is change - sure when they are starting up it's higher risk - but again if they can manage the lifecycle better, not have change for changes sake, then they could be much more reliable.

> Not sure where you're getting this from.

I was talking about not taking the flagship stuff - which is typically a few months ahead of the best price/performance stuff.