ARM: “RISC-V Architecture: Understand the Facts”(riscv-basics.com)
riscv-basics.com
ARM: “RISC-V Architecture: Understand the Facts”
https://riscv-basics.com/
122 comments
If this article is genuine (there are many comments arguing it might not be) I would consider it an excellent endorsement of RISC-V. If a company with an awesome engineering, like I consider ARM to be, is scared to the point of authoring some FUD, RISC-V has to be _really_ promising!
When I search for "risc-v basics arm" in Google, this article comes up first as a paid Ad.
So somebody is paying google to make this thing come up on top.
So somebody is paying google to make this thing come up on top.
Can you screenshot that and link to the screenshot? I don't see it marked as an ad.
I wish I did. It doesn't come up like that anymore.
Someone on reddit made a screenshot
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/8xbqlv/arm_launches_...
https://imgur.com/a/U2XGVee
Yes, I got the same one!
This is an utterly stupid move by ARM...if it's legit. Looks like it's a different domain registry than all the other ARM websites...not sure why, but that seems a bit fishy.
It might be the result of a PR firm doing something utterly inconsiderate and completely exceeding their mandate.
Some of the "facts" here are pretty weak. The "years of security expertise" is not really a feature I'd be proud of given the recent processor-level vulnerabilities that in fact, paint a very different picture about how traditional processor vendors treat security.
Even if there is some validity here, this is in surprisingly poor taste. I've known people who have worked for ARM. I wonder what they think about this.
Even if there is some validity here, this is in surprisingly poor taste. I've known people who have worked for ARM. I wonder what they think about this.
While I wouldn't choose a new architecture so eagerly, existence of this page (if real) does to some extent validate RISC-V as a potential solution.
Instead, of say, ARM M4+, A7, A53/A55, etc.
Instead, of say, ARM M4+, A7, A53/A55, etc.
Yeah, this years of security scrutiny argument is getting disproved. The recent processor vulnerabilities are one example. Another is how big corporates treat internal software: upgrade rarely and test very extensively. This has proven very fatal: WannaCry wouldn't have been possible if people had been at least updating to the most recent release and update.
I'd be happy to try out a RISC computer, actually it's quite sad that the CPU diversity got so little due to Intel/AMD.
I'd be happy to try out a RISC computer, actually it's quite sad that the CPU diversity got so little due to Intel/AMD.
OoO risc-v processors are also vulnerable to spectre...
Which RISC-V processors?
Any of them unless they have specific modifications for mitigation.
Any of them that uses speculative execution to be clear, if it wasn't apparent.
Potentially.
RISC-V foundation says not:
>No announced RISC-V silicon is susceptible, and the popular open-source RISC-V Rocket processor is unaffected as it does not perform memory accesses speculatively.
https://www.techpowerup.com/240310/risc-v-foundation-issues-...
Do you have a source?
>No announced RISC-V silicon is susceptible, and the popular open-source RISC-V Rocket processor is unaffected as it does not perform memory accesses speculatively.
https://www.techpowerup.com/240310/risc-v-foundation-issues-...
Do you have a source?
The rocket core isn't OoO, they even say so...
It says right there "No announced RISC-V silicon is susceptible."
Does someone actually make a RISC-V processor with out of order execution? Or is this a "They're going to make one eventually, so they'll have to address Spectre attacks before that happens" problem?
Does someone actually make a RISC-V processor with out of order execution? Or is this a "They're going to make one eventually, so they'll have to address Spectre attacks before that happens" problem?
Yeah, no shit, because there's no major RISC-V silicon that's OoO. If you solely look at ARM cores that don't speculate, then ARM cores aren't vulnerable either.
Also pretty sure BOOMv2 has been taped out: https://content.riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Wed0936...
Also pretty sure BOOMv2 has been taped out: https://content.riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Wed0936...
Well, the A8 was vulnerable despite being in order but it was a mediocre design with an unusually long pipeline for a core of its class. Of course even in order core speculate a little based on predicting branches and their pipeline lengths but there's a very limited window for things to go wrong without going OoO and almost all in order cores can't execute enough dependent instructions to leak data without realizing they took the wrong branch.
Yes, to be more precise, anything doing anything speculative with memory.
[deleted]
How would an open source processor be better from a security perspective? I might still be a little shell shocked from my attempts to setup a MythTV Box 10 years ago but this is what's running through my head:
"Did you RTFM?"
"Debain CPU doesn't have that issue."
"Just disable the ALUs in firmware, they're not necessary in modern processors anyways."
"That's been patched, just download processor v2.3.4.432 and send it to your FAB, they should spin you a new CPU in 8-12 months."
"Did you RTFM?"
"Debain CPU doesn't have that issue."
"Just disable the ALUs in firmware, they're not necessary in modern processors anyways."
"That's been patched, just download processor v2.3.4.432 and send it to your FAB, they should spin you a new CPU in 8-12 months."
All of that sounds better than: "Oh, our new processors don't have that issue. Trust us, pay me. Oh, you just bought one? Too bad."
Some open source projects are different. A lot of them do not cater to end users directly. But if you want to talk about open source security, take a look at how OpenBSD handles issues; they definitely aren't messing around.
That's all true, I'm just wondering how things would be different if everyone were using an Open Source CPU vs what we have today.
If everyone is running the same CPU design but sourced from different manufacturers who had them spun up at different fabs, how would that affect support? Today we have one or two device manufacturers we rely on for support and answers about if security fixes can be done in firmware vs requiring a hardware fix. We can pull the CPU ID of our system and then check with AMD or Intel for an authoritative answer. What does that look like when anyone can manufacture a chip?
Will there still end up being one or two predominant CPU manufactures for desktop/mobile/server CPUs to simplify support? Are we going to have to rely on OEMs to support the CPUs they put in their machines?
I'm fearful we might end up in a situation similar or worse to what we have with Android where smartphones are shipped in their final state and never receive anything beyond failure support from the OEM/ODM.
If everyone is running the same CPU design but sourced from different manufacturers who had them spun up at different fabs, how would that affect support? Today we have one or two device manufacturers we rely on for support and answers about if security fixes can be done in firmware vs requiring a hardware fix. We can pull the CPU ID of our system and then check with AMD or Intel for an authoritative answer. What does that look like when anyone can manufacture a chip?
Will there still end up being one or two predominant CPU manufactures for desktop/mobile/server CPUs to simplify support? Are we going to have to rely on OEMs to support the CPUs they put in their machines?
I'm fearful we might end up in a situation similar or worse to what we have with Android where smartphones are shipped in their final state and never receive anything beyond failure support from the OEM/ODM.
That's the case today: ARM CPUs are sourced from different manufacturers and packaged together with other cores into SoCs, which have wildly varying support from their vendors. Some of these processors also have custom extensions. If you're worried about chip security when anyone can manufacture a chip, then sorry, we're already there, and RISC-V doesn't change that.
So what does it solve that's a problem today?
* Serious question. Apart from the freedom and control aspects of the Open Source model, what is solved with an open source CPU architecture or what are the benefits?
I can see being able to spin your own chips would enable an OEM/ODM to keep producing the same old design indefinitely where as reliance on Intel/AMD/Samsung/Mediatek means you have to refresh your design. That could be both a benefit and a detriment depending on how you look at it.
* Serious question. Apart from the freedom and control aspects of the Open Source model, what is solved with an open source CPU architecture or what are the benefits?
I can see being able to spin your own chips would enable an OEM/ODM to keep producing the same old design indefinitely where as reliance on Intel/AMD/Samsung/Mediatek means you have to refresh your design. That could be both a benefit and a detriment depending on how you look at it.
Again, being able to spin your own chips isn't really at issue here, that's already possible. ARM and MIPS will likely happily let you continue to make chips based on old cores as long as you continue to pay your license fees.
The freedoms from the Open Source model is substantial enough to make it attractive on that basis alone, just as for Linux/BSD. One example is Western Digital transitioning to RISC-V for their hard drive controllers. I would imagine being able to add your own instructions without having to deal with NDAs and non competes with ARM will be attractive to a lot of OEMs.
Just like with Linux, it's difficult to anticipate what intersting things will come out of RISC-V, but one interesting example is a formally verified RISC-V core, picorv32: https://github.com/cliffordwolf/riscv-formal/tree/master/cor... (presentation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU97ffHF_IQ). According to the author, this core will power safety critical applications at a synchrotron: https://theamphour.com/374-an-interview-with-clifford-wolf/
The freedoms from the Open Source model is substantial enough to make it attractive on that basis alone, just as for Linux/BSD. One example is Western Digital transitioning to RISC-V for their hard drive controllers. I would imagine being able to add your own instructions without having to deal with NDAs and non competes with ARM will be attractive to a lot of OEMs.
Just like with Linux, it's difficult to anticipate what intersting things will come out of RISC-V, but one interesting example is a formally verified RISC-V core, picorv32: https://github.com/cliffordwolf/riscv-formal/tree/master/cor... (presentation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU97ffHF_IQ). According to the author, this core will power safety critical applications at a synchrotron: https://theamphour.com/374-an-interview-with-clifford-wolf/
Note that RISC-V is _not_ an open-source processor, but an open-source instruction set architecture.
Which means that anyone can implement the instruction set and thus many different implementations can be made. Most likely there will not be one common and shared processor.
Which means that anyone can implement the instruction set and thus many different implementations can be made. Most likely there will not be one common and shared processor.
I have been wondering, how far are we from a simple but powerful enough open source RISC-V CPU running OpenBSD in our Router or some Network Appliance.
You might want to have a look at lowRISC. https://www.lowrisc.org
While the comparison to MythTV for a fun coment, this is exactly what ARM would like the high level decision makers to feel. Just as Microsoft tried with their "get the facts" campaign years ago.
Notwithstanding your terrible MythTV experience, there's seveal companies offering commercial support for Linux today, and a lot of effort has been put into making it as secure as the Windows equivalent. I suspect the same could happen with RISC-V.
Notwithstanding your terrible MythTV experience, there's seveal companies offering commercial support for Linux today, and a lot of effort has been put into making it as secure as the Windows equivalent. I suspect the same could happen with RISC-V.
Another comment mentioned Western Digital switching to RISC-V which makes a lot of sense and that's about it. I'm struggling to see how RISC-V would improve the situation with edge devices or personal computing devices where the implementations will probably end up being propriety in nature and beholden to the vendor for any updates.
Even when we do get something like a custom ROM for a router or smartphone it will still be reliant on custom kernel modules or other lock-ins hindering open source support.
It just feels like more of the same with a chance for ODMs to save some on the BOM while not passing the savings on to us.
I guess it's just hard to get excited about it without seeing some sort of benefit to the end user. That doesn't mean I feel like we should stick with ARM or x86, I frankly don't care.
Even when we do get something like a custom ROM for a router or smartphone it will still be reliant on custom kernel modules or other lock-ins hindering open source support.
It just feels like more of the same with a chance for ODMs to save some on the BOM while not passing the savings on to us.
I guess it's just hard to get excited about it without seeing some sort of benefit to the end user. That doesn't mean I feel like we should stick with ARM or x86, I frankly don't care.
This page should be archived alongside the Halloween documents as a reminder of the endless FUD campaigns against FLOSS software/hardware.
I call shenanigans, this is a fake page. First off the page isn't coming from arm's own domain yet it appears to mimic the look and feel of the arm site. No cookie acceptance policy and the missing links from the bottom of the page are further proof.
This part however is hosted on ARM's own website: https://www.arm.com/-/media/global/company/arm-risc-v-infogr...
Yeah, WHOIS lists DomainsByProxy.com - why would they hide their name in the domain registration if they write "arm" on the header in big letters, linking to arm.com?
This actually looks like a smear campaign against ARM.
This actually looks like a smear campaign against ARM.
But the diagram is actually hosted by ARM. Maybe it's ARM wants to think us that RISC-V supporters launched a campaign against them
\s
[deleted]
Not to mention the domain's registration is anonymized.
whois says arm.com is registered through Com Laude and hosted on Akamai while riscv-basics.com is registered through Wild West Domains and hosted on Azure.
https://whois.domaintools.com/arm.com
https://whois.domaintools.com/riscv-basics.com
https://whois.domaintools.com/arm.com
https://whois.domaintools.com/riscv-basics.com
A friend works in ARM and was extremely surprised (negatively) when I shared this link with him
RISC-V may, perhaps, compete in two fields with ARM: education, where ARM doesn't give a fuck, and hacker boards, which is a tiny market compared to smartphones, smarttvs and so on. There have been around 15 million Raspberry Pi (the most popular SBC) sold in 6 years. Samsung sold 321 million smartphones last year alone.
Whoever is thinking today about replacing some production anything with a RISC-V is insane to begin with, but this campaign ups the insanity further.
RISC-V may, perhaps, compete in two fields with ARM: education, where ARM doesn't give a fuck, and hacker boards, which is a tiny market compared to smartphones, smarttvs and so on. There have been around 15 million Raspberry Pi (the most popular SBC) sold in 6 years. Samsung sold 321 million smartphones last year alone.
Whoever is thinking today about replacing some production anything with a RISC-V is insane to begin with, but this campaign ups the insanity further.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/01/wdc_risc_v_edge_str...
https://www.wdc.com/about-wd/newsroom/press-room/2017-11-28-...
> Western Digital’s leadership role in the RISC-V initiative is significant in that it aims to accelerate the advancement of the technology and the surrounding ecosystem by transitioning its own consumption of processors – over one billion cores per year – to RISC-V.
Western Digital is moving to RISC-V. I'd say ARM has begun to notice the shift and needs to begin damage control.
https://www.wdc.com/about-wd/newsroom/press-room/2017-11-28-...
> Western Digital’s leadership role in the RISC-V initiative is significant in that it aims to accelerate the advancement of the technology and the surrounding ecosystem by transitioning its own consumption of processors – over one billion cores per year – to RISC-V.
Western Digital is moving to RISC-V. I'd say ARM has begun to notice the shift and needs to begin damage control.
There's an important third group, companies that want access to custom instructions they need and have the resources to modify a RISC-V design but don't want to spin a full custom design. I think both WD's and NVidia's use of RISC-V is in this category. It looks like NVidia was willing to spend for custom and WD's had been making due with larger ARM cores than they could get away with when they customized their processor - that's me reading between the lines as best I can - but WD's certainly been lost as an ARM customer and probably there'll be more in the future. Only a few companies, probably, but ones that are relatively big.
> RISC-V may, perhaps, compete in two fields with ARM: education, where ARM doesn't give a fuck, and hacker boards, which is a tiny market
Those seem like very similar markets to those that Linux started out with.
AFAIK, Sun never ran FUD/attack ads against Linux, but this feels similar to a hypothetical world where they did so very early in 1993.
I doubt FUD will ultimately be able to prevent the adoption of RISC-V, but it may be able to delay the inevitable for a few years.
Those seem like very similar markets to those that Linux started out with.
AFAIK, Sun never ran FUD/attack ads against Linux, but this feels similar to a hypothetical world where they did so very early in 1993.
I doubt FUD will ultimately be able to prevent the adoption of RISC-V, but it may be able to delay the inevitable for a few years.
If I recall correctly SCO did. At least they pointed out how much more stable they were than Linux.
And SCO was much more vulnerable to Linux than Sun was. Linux could even run SCO binaries unmodified.
And we know what happened to them later.
And I say this as someone who used to work for a SCO distributor, and later Sun.
And SCO was much more vulnerable to Linux than Sun was. Linux could even run SCO binaries unmodified.
And we know what happened to them later.
And I say this as someone who used to work for a SCO distributor, and later Sun.
>Whoever is thinking today about replacing some production anything with a RISC-V
You're saying they're all wrong?
https://riscv.org/membership/
You're saying they're all wrong?
https://riscv.org/membership/
well, there's a difference in supporting a technology and actually making chips with it. They are just investing in tech and research that might help them down the road.
I doubt any of those companies (aside from SiFive) will be actually using RiscV within the next few years.
I doubt any of those companies (aside from SiFive) will be actually using RiscV within the next few years.
Off the top of my head, Western Digital and NVIDIA have both announced using RISC-V in their upcoming products.
Besides the ones already noted, Qualcomm and others who make SoCs with custom CPU design (rather than using ARM Cortex) are paying ARM tax just to use the ISA.
I imagine RISC-V is attractive to them.
A lot of these SoCs become the core of smartphones. Did I mention Google (of Android fame) is also a member?
I imagine RISC-V is attractive to them.
A lot of these SoCs become the core of smartphones. Did I mention Google (of Android fame) is also a member?
That's extremely reductive and wrong.
Just because something is sold often does not magically make it better or useful for specific peruses. How does it help Nvidia that ARM sells millions of cheap when they design an internal chip?
The are lots of places RISC-V can be used productively, and companies like NVidia, Google and WD are already doing so.
Just because something is sold often does not magically make it better or useful for specific peruses. How does it help Nvidia that ARM sells millions of cheap when they design an internal chip?
The are lots of places RISC-V can be used productively, and companies like NVidia, Google and WD are already doing so.
In 1994, less than 0.1% of computers were running Linux (kernel). Now, it is everywhere.
Assuming that this is not a fake - who is the target audience for a such page? They are not talking about baby diapers there, but CPU architectures. I just can't imagine that someone responsible for choosing a CPU architecture will base his/her decision on a page like this. Then why it exists? To show us that ARM is afraid of RISC-V? Ok then, message received.
You think that all CPU architects and semiconductor company employees are elites who can't be fooled by marketing.
You'd be surprised...
You'd be surprised...
> Then why it exists?
Propaganda ("FUD"). SEO.
Propaganda ("FUD"). SEO.
ARM is playing a very, very dumb game here. Do they seriously think any prospective RISC-V user has not taken this information into account? Whomever goes on to design an ASIC probably knows what they are getting into well enough.
ARM would be much wiser to embrace RISC-V early, spearheading this effort and bringing RISC-V users into their tools and ecosystem.
ARM would be much wiser to embrace RISC-V early, spearheading this effort and bringing RISC-V users into their tools and ecosystem.
ARM is apparently and unsurprisingly scared shitless about the RISC-V threat.
They may be scared and this is completely normal. What is not normal - it's the fact that there is a person placed high enough in the ARM's chain of command, who sanctioned this dumb page - like "oh, that's really nice - it will help us a lot, publish it".
maybe the world would be better off if we treated marketing as a sunk cost and stopped encouraging them to actually try to control the narrative.
IDK...
Everyone freaking out about how "disruptive" an open source core would be... You still need someone to place it on silicon (unless you want to waste most of your FPGA on a soft core) and you need someone to make peripherals which lets be honest is 80%-95% of what Cortex M-type embedded processors are doing at any given time. These seem like the major barriers that aren't solved by removing a licensing fee for the core.
Maybe I just don't get it, but it seems a LONG way out for RISC-V powered top tier phones.
Everyone freaking out about how "disruptive" an open source core would be... You still need someone to place it on silicon (unless you want to waste most of your FPGA on a soft core) and you need someone to make peripherals which lets be honest is 80%-95% of what Cortex M-type embedded processors are doing at any given time. These seem like the major barriers that aren't solved by removing a licensing fee for the core.
Maybe I just don't get it, but it seems a LONG way out for RISC-V powered top tier phones.
Let's say I'm making an SoC and I need an always-on service processor. It's a waste of effort for me to make it myself, so I'll either license one or grab one off the internet, if I could trust it.
In the past, people just threw a little bit of money to ARM and called it a day.
But now, I could grab picorv32 or rocket for free off the internet. Both have been taped out in this capacity before, both speak standard bus interfaces, and the former has been fully(?) formally verified.
Sure, it's not a resounding success story, but it helps me get my SoC to market sooner and at a lower cost (no need to even spend time negotiating with anybody).
In the past, people just threw a little bit of money to ARM and called it a day.
But now, I could grab picorv32 or rocket for free off the internet. Both have been taped out in this capacity before, both speak standard bus interfaces, and the former has been fully(?) formally verified.
Sure, it's not a resounding success story, but it helps me get my SoC to market sooner and at a lower cost (no need to even spend time negotiating with anybody).
>Sure, it's not a resounding success story, but it helps me get my SoC to market sooner and at a lower cost (no need to even spend time negotiating with anybody).
Ok, but you're then dumping what at least a million dollars into someone else's firmware that is unsupported if there is an issue? IDK. I can think of lots of cases where it might make sense for the hobbiest, or for softcores or for weird applications - but...
There are engineers from STM with desks at ARM, and engineers from ARM with desks at STM. I just don't see STM saying "fuck it, let's just spool up some core we contributed to as a fully in house project". They already need to support their peripherals and production, maybe they are paying enough to ARM to make it worth it to add core code to that list, maybe not.
ARM makes a ton of money, but they also assume all of the contractual obligations for issues and support. I'm not sure the entire industry would be using ARM if it made sense to spool up your own, even as open source. But again, IDK.
Ok, but you're then dumping what at least a million dollars into someone else's firmware that is unsupported if there is an issue? IDK. I can think of lots of cases where it might make sense for the hobbiest, or for softcores or for weird applications - but...
There are engineers from STM with desks at ARM, and engineers from ARM with desks at STM. I just don't see STM saying "fuck it, let's just spool up some core we contributed to as a fully in house project". They already need to support their peripherals and production, maybe they are paying enough to ARM to make it worth it to add core code to that list, maybe not.
ARM makes a ton of money, but they also assume all of the contractual obligations for issues and support. I'm not sure the entire industry would be using ARM if it made sense to spool up your own, even as open source. But again, IDK.
I think you underestimate just how many hardware startups there are and how many of them are NOT going to license an ARM core for their service core.
Part of what you get with ARM is certainly support, but a lot of it is also tooling, OS support and so on. There's a _lot_ of vendors outside the traditional big ones. And even the big ones like Samsung has used OpenRisc for service processors before.
> But now, I could grab picorv32 or rocket for free off the internet. Both have been taped out in this capacity before, both speak standard bus interfaces, and the former has been fully formally verified.
What do you mean by "fully formally verified"? My understanding is that picorv32 has been verified by riscv-formal, and riscv-formal performs bounded model checking, which is not full formal verification unless you otherwise establish an upper bound on trace lengths that must be considered to find a bug.
What do you mean by "fully formally verified"? My understanding is that picorv32 has been verified by riscv-formal, and riscv-formal performs bounded model checking, which is not full formal verification unless you otherwise establish an upper bound on trace lengths that must be considered to find a bug.
Apologies, I may be speaking out of my $(# on that. I'm aware Clifford has used it to demonstrate formal method techniques, but I don't know the full extend to it. Caveat Emptor to anyone who decided to rush out and add it to their SoC. ;)
> unless you want to waste most of your FPGA on a soft core
Huh?
As an exercise in FPGA stuff, I decided to use PicoRV32 on a small MAX10 8k FPGA. The core itself consumes easily under a quarter of the logic blocks.
Huh?
As an exercise in FPGA stuff, I decided to use PicoRV32 on a small MAX10 8k FPGA. The core itself consumes easily under a quarter of the logic blocks.
Are we sure this is published by Arm?
The whois and certificates seem a bit anonymous.
The header tags reference a copy of the "infographic" hosted on arm.com: https://www.arm.com:443/-/media/global/company/arm-risc-v-in...
Ok, looks genuine now, thanks for proofs.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The hn title could replace «Facts» with «FUD» since this is literally what this campaign is.
It is rather desperate. ARM could easily head off RISC-V by releasing a few low end cores under an open source license, but instead they're being disrupted. Rather classic case of the Innovator's Dilemma.
I'm a rather uninformed reader, and I would be interested to read about sources that say the facts presented here are wrong, rather than just read "it's a FUD campaign". At the end of the day, no camp rigoursly shared information
As with all FUD campaigns, there's an element of truth. ARM does undoubtedly have a very large ecosystem and more features (RISC-V lacks hardware virtualization for example).
But there are also loads of companies using and producing real RISC-V cores and all the major Linux distros are already shipping on RISC-V. The barrier to entry to RISC-V is far lower since you can quite literally download the cores off github and program them into just about any FPGA (there's even a version which works with an 8k-LUT FPGA that costs $10 in quantity). Or just fire up a qemu RISC-V VM at no cost at all.
As with Linux & Windows servers c.1999, who would you bet on winning in the end?
But there are also loads of companies using and producing real RISC-V cores and all the major Linux distros are already shipping on RISC-V. The barrier to entry to RISC-V is far lower since you can quite literally download the cores off github and program them into just about any FPGA (there's even a version which works with an 8k-LUT FPGA that costs $10 in quantity). Or just fire up a qemu RISC-V VM at no cost at all.
As with Linux & Windows servers c.1999, who would you bet on winning in the end?
Not just Linux distros; FreeBSD supports RISC-V as well.
> As with Linux & Windows servers c.1999, who would you bet on winning in the end?
It was more about UNIX & Windows.
Linux won on the servers thanks to majority of UNIX guys cutting down costs by outsourcing their development costs into Linux.
Had Linux not gotten the money of IBM, HP, Compaq, SGI, Intel, Oracle, Sun, Google, ...., the outcome would have looked much different.
It was more about UNIX & Windows.
Linux won on the servers thanks to majority of UNIX guys cutting down costs by outsourcing their development costs into Linux.
Had Linux not gotten the money of IBM, HP, Compaq, SGI, Intel, Oracle, Sun, Google, ...., the outcome would have looked much different.
I was specifically referring to the MSFT FUD against Linux.
> Had Linux not gotten the money of IBM, HP, Compaq, SGI, Intel, Oracle, Sun, Google, ...., the outcome would have looked much different.
But these companies didn't spend that money because of a fluffy corporate love of the underdog. They wanted to "commoditize their complements". And the exact same desire will apply to the CPU, which is why software companies will want to do the same thing in future once there's a viable open source CPU (whether that is RISC-V or something entirely different).
> Had Linux not gotten the money of IBM, HP, Compaq, SGI, Intel, Oracle, Sun, Google, ...., the outcome would have looked much different.
But these companies didn't spend that money because of a fluffy corporate love of the underdog. They wanted to "commoditize their complements". And the exact same desire will apply to the CPU, which is why software companies will want to do the same thing in future once there's a viable open source CPU (whether that is RISC-V or something entirely different).
"Had Linux not gotten the money of IBM, HP, Compaq, SGI, Intel, Oracle, Sun, Google, ...., the outcome would have looked much different."
Linux would win anyway. I've worked in the late 90s-early2k in places which were then already planning the move from proprietary Unix to Linux, some of them also in pretty critical contexts. Most of the companies you mention already had their own Unix: AIX, Digital Unix / Tru64, Irix, Solaris; they shoveled all that money into Linux (apparently against their own business) because they realized that selling products and services would pay in the long run a lot more than selling also the operating system, especially when the OSS competitor was gaining support every day. Soon or later that abundance in developers and testers would turn into less bugs, more features and faster response to vulnerabilities that no corporation in the world could equal.
Linux would win anyway. I've worked in the late 90s-early2k in places which were then already planning the move from proprietary Unix to Linux, some of them also in pretty critical contexts. Most of the companies you mention already had their own Unix: AIX, Digital Unix / Tru64, Irix, Solaris; they shoveled all that money into Linux (apparently against their own business) because they realized that selling products and services would pay in the long run a lot more than selling also the operating system, especially when the OSS competitor was gaining support every day. Soon or later that abundance in developers and testers would turn into less bugs, more features and faster response to vulnerabilities that no corporation in the world could equal.
> UNIX guys cutting down costs by outsourcing their development costs into Linux.
Apparently people can't read.
Apparently people can't read.
They don't present any facts here. Just some idle speculation about hidden costs of Riscv.
The nature of FUD is not that it's outright wrong, but that it's largely irrelevant and intentionally missing the point, and you can usually recognize that without knowing much about the subject matter.
For example, when they write that licensing the ISA is only a small fraction of the total cost of designing a processor, that is correct. But they are simply ignoring the broader implications of a non-free ISA and its financial effects, and the fact that this fact in itself may actually depend heavily on their current business model. Think about how the free availability of Linux has changed how people can build software, and how that has brought down the cost of software considerably, and much more so than the licensing costs of a Windows install per server. Also, their argument is sort-of "you don't need competition because the price isn't that high", even though it obviously would be a lot higher if there were no competition.
Similarly, it's not wrong that verification and validation of CPU designs is expensive. But (a) noone suggests that those people who are buying ARM chips now will do their own CPU designs in the future, and (b) ARM chips obviously also require expensive verification and validation, so you end up paying for that regardless where you buy a chip. So, again, simply intentionally missing the point.
Also, a lot of it is obviously just speculation, such as "well, what if the new processor is less secure than our product?" Well, yeah, big if, tons of unjustified assumptions: Are their processors really that secure? Couldn't a new processor designed from scratch be much more secure than their accumulated cruft? Again, not factually incorrect, but highly misleading by implying unjustified assertions. That's what the "(U)ncertainty" in FUD refers to.
For example, when they write that licensing the ISA is only a small fraction of the total cost of designing a processor, that is correct. But they are simply ignoring the broader implications of a non-free ISA and its financial effects, and the fact that this fact in itself may actually depend heavily on their current business model. Think about how the free availability of Linux has changed how people can build software, and how that has brought down the cost of software considerably, and much more so than the licensing costs of a Windows install per server. Also, their argument is sort-of "you don't need competition because the price isn't that high", even though it obviously would be a lot higher if there were no competition.
Similarly, it's not wrong that verification and validation of CPU designs is expensive. But (a) noone suggests that those people who are buying ARM chips now will do their own CPU designs in the future, and (b) ARM chips obviously also require expensive verification and validation, so you end up paying for that regardless where you buy a chip. So, again, simply intentionally missing the point.
Also, a lot of it is obviously just speculation, such as "well, what if the new processor is less secure than our product?" Well, yeah, big if, tons of unjustified assumptions: Are their processors really that secure? Couldn't a new processor designed from scratch be much more secure than their accumulated cruft? Again, not factually incorrect, but highly misleading by implying unjustified assertions. That's what the "(U)ncertainty" in FUD refers to.
I have to say that I’m surprised that it seems to be pretty factual.
The main points seem to be that RISC-V is not there yet and that customization is expensive. I guess for most projects you currently use ARM processors ARM will make most sense for a while. RISC-V will probably slowly eat a growing piece of that market though over the next years to decades.
The main points seem to be that RISC-V is not there yet and that customization is expensive. I guess for most projects you currently use ARM processors ARM will make most sense for a while. RISC-V will probably slowly eat a growing piece of that market though over the next years to decades.
When it starts off saying there are "currently" no royalties, as if royalties could be added in the future, I'm not inclined to call it "pretty factual". Maybe "contains some facts, among other things".
Also point 4 is pretty useless, and point 5 is basically nonsense. It's implying that you should avoid the higher costs of customizing by using Arm instead of just... not customizing.
Also point 4 is pretty useless, and point 5 is basically nonsense. It's implying that you should avoid the higher costs of customizing by using Arm instead of just... not customizing.
https://www.arm.com/-/media/global/company/arm-risc-v-infogr...
The article is not fake
The article is not fake
Yes, it's from arm, who has a vested interest, yes it's in poor taste, and yes, it's stretching in some places, but it's not necessarily inaccurate...
I do not understand the commotion either. As far as attack ads go, this keeps very close to the truth and points out legitimate concerns.
This so far away from the early 00's Microsoft anti-Linux campagin that you can't even really call it FUD
This so far away from the early 00's Microsoft anti-Linux campagin that you can't even really call it FUD
Because it's fud. Each of the five points are either lies or stretching the truth, and is missing a key element: RISC-V allows people to innovate (on the implementation, not necessarily adding instructions to the ISA). To do this for Arm requires an architectural license which is insanely expensive (you can start many start ups for just this alone).
Haha, that reads so much like Microsoft's FUD in the early 2000s targeting Linux ... so I guess we can conclude from that that ARM's assessment is that RISC-V is a viable alternative that's worth using and investing in?
Looking forward to "The Year of the RISC-V Desktop" articles.
That's a joke, but I think Windows vs. Linux is the right reference frame here, assuming that RISC-V proves out. Those who want to roll their own and control their own destiny may go with RISC-V, while those who want a packaged solution will go ARM. And ARM will have to get better to compete.
Western Digital has gone with RISC-V for a controller, because Western Digital is the kind of company that wants to commoditize its inputs so it can sell a packaged solution to its customers as cheaply as possible. I can also see Amazon or Google finding uses for RISC-V in their data centers.
Phones ... I'm not so sure. Maybe Apple could go that way, as they're vertically integrated and already make their Ax chips in house. But the Android OEMs wouldn't unless Google leads the way.
That's a joke, but I think Windows vs. Linux is the right reference frame here, assuming that RISC-V proves out. Those who want to roll their own and control their own destiny may go with RISC-V, while those who want a packaged solution will go ARM. And ARM will have to get better to compete.
Western Digital has gone with RISC-V for a controller, because Western Digital is the kind of company that wants to commoditize its inputs so it can sell a packaged solution to its customers as cheaply as possible. I can also see Amazon or Google finding uses for RISC-V in their data centers.
Phones ... I'm not so sure. Maybe Apple could go that way, as they're vertically integrated and already make their Ax chips in house. But the Android OEMs wouldn't unless Google leads the way.
Jokes aside. Since February you can already buy RISC-V SoCs that run Linux... at pretty high prices, e.g., https://www.crowdsupply.com/sifive/hifive-unleashed costs 1000$ bucks and the expansion board costs 2000$...
Still not practical for the masses, but not more expensive than similar extravagant architectures like PowerPCs (IIRC a PowerPC9 desktop system costs about 9000$ today).
Someone joked that you could get a 30$ xeon system on ebay from a couple of years ago that would crush these on pretty much any benchmark, but who knows, maybe some day riscv chips will become cheaper and more powerful. What we are seeing in the market today are the very first such systems, from the very first vendors.
Still not practical for the masses, but not more expensive than similar extravagant architectures like PowerPCs (IIRC a PowerPC9 desktop system costs about 9000$ today).
Someone joked that you could get a 30$ xeon system on ebay from a couple of years ago that would crush these on pretty much any benchmark, but who knows, maybe some day riscv chips will become cheaper and more powerful. What we are seeing in the market today are the very first such systems, from the very first vendors.
Oh, I'm sure that there will be hobbyists who do this. Just like there are people who run Arch on their home PC, or automate their house with Arduinos. The joke about "The Year of the Linux Desktop" is predicting mass consumer adoption. That doesn't seem too likely, unless someone like Apple or Google decides to move their stack over to silicon they can design and control in-house without need for ARM's long term support.
Can somebody please verify the authenticity? Why didn't arm use a subdomain of arm.com?
Good question. Domain is registered with wildwestdomains (GoDaddy), anonymized:
At first sight, I'd assume it's fake.
Link to arm.com though has GA tags for tracking:
But maybe it's real.
EDIT: It's real:
https://www.arm.com/-/media/global/company/arm-risc-v-infogr...
Domain Name: RISCV-BASICS.COM
Registry Domain ID: 2277459939_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.wildwestdomains.com
Registrar URL: http://www.wildwestdomains.com
Updated Date: 2018-06-20T21:54:44Z
Creation Date: 2018-06-20T21:54:44Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2019-06-20T21:54:44Z
Registrar: Wild West Domains, LLC
...
Registrant Name: Registration Private
Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Name Server: NS1-07.AZURE-DNS.COM
Name Server: NS2-07.AZURE-DNS.NET
Name Server: NS3-07.AZURE-DNS.ORG
Name Server: NS4-07.AZURE-DNS.INFO
At first sight, I'd assume it's fake.
Link to arm.com though has GA tags for tracking:
?utm_source=riscv-basics.com&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=18.06_riscv-ds-eval-confidence_riscv_na_na_web_pg2956a1_02
<meta name="server" content="ARMGSCD2" />
<meta name="server" content="ARMBPCM1">
But maybe it's real.
EDIT: It's real:
https://www.arm.com/-/media/global/company/arm-risc-v-infogr...
"Get the facts"... sounds way to familiar...
This is a marketing page with little if any information, how did it get voted up?
The information isn't in the text itself, it's in the fact that ARM feels like publishing this is a good idea. They don't publish such nonsensical marketing for competition they consider irrelevant.
Let's not forget ARM sold out to Softbank right about when RISC-V was picking up steam (2016). As engineers they probably saw it coming. The bankers not so much.
And then they started raising the licensing fees. Man what bad timing.
It was a legit website - here's Arm's admission and explanation of intent.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/10/arm_riscv_website/
They sure did the RISC-V community a great service over the last 48 hours ....
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/10/arm_riscv_website/
They sure did the RISC-V community a great service over the last 48 hours ....
It was a legit website - here's Arm's admission and explanation after they took down the site today:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/10/arm_riscv_website/
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/10/arm_riscv_website/
Am I the only one getting a blank page when I run it with an adblocker?
An important missing feature: something resembling "Intel Management Engine"
Does ARM have this? Does RISC-V have this?
If Management is good, then someone's Remote Management of your computer must be even gooder!
Does ARM have this? Does RISC-V have this?
If Management is good, then someone's Remote Management of your computer must be even gooder!
Scary! Scary! Don't go in there - it's SCARY!
But scary for whom? For ARM maybe? Is it just me, or is this pure FUD?
But scary for whom? For ARM maybe? Is it just me, or is this pure FUD?
Can't tell if parody, legit, or an amateur false flag.
These facts seem fairly true, it's a new thing and doesn't have much momentum yet.
I don't think there are that many people yet considering risc V seriously for current commercial implementations, rather than keeping an eye on it for future projects, but I'm sure there will be once momentum builds.
I don't think there are that many people yet considering risc V seriously for current commercial implementations, rather than keeping an eye on it for future projects, but I'm sure there will be once momentum builds.