this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
743 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

58970 readers
3745 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (3 children)

First the .io death now this, I can't wait to see the ramifications.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

everyone near a clinic should get a burner and leave it at the clinic without hanging around

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 241 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (18 children)

Hopefully Qualcomm takes the hint and takes this opportunity to develop a high performance RISC V core. Don't just give the extortionists more money, break free and use an open standard. Instruction sets shouldn't even require licensing to begin with if APIs aren't copyrightable. Why is it OK to make your own implentation of any software API (see Oracle vs. Google on the Java API, Wine implementing the Windows API, etc) but not OK to do the same thing with an instruction set (which is just a hardware API). Why is writing an ARM or x86 emulator fine but not making your own chip? Why are FPGA emulator systems legal if instruction sets are protected? It makes no sense.

The other acceptable outcome here is a Qualcomm vs. ARM lawsuit that sets a precedence that instruction sets are not protected. If they want to copyright their own cores and sell the core design fine, but Qualcomm is making their own in house designs here.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] [email protected] 168 points 1 week ago (4 children)
[–] [email protected] 156 points 1 week ago (17 children)

This will get RISC-V probably a big boost. Maybe this was not the smartest move for ARMs long term future. But slapping Qualcomm is always a good idea, its just such a shitty company.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 week ago (2 children)

True, I just wished RISCV laptops were slightly more developed and available. As of now, the specs aren't there yet in those devices that are available. (8core@2Ghz, but only 16GB Ram, too little for me)

Kind of a bummer, was coming up to a work laptop upgrade soon and was carefully watching the Linux support for Snapdragon X because I can't bring myself to deal with Apple shenanigans, but like the idea of performance and efficiency. The caution with which I approached it stems from my "I don't really believe a fucking thing Qualcomm Marketing says" mentality, and it seems holding off and watching was the right call. Oh well, x86 for another cycle, I guess.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 76 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

With the understanding that both of these are publicly traded multi-billion-dollar corporations and therefore neither should be trusted (albeit Arm Holdings has about 1/10 of the net assets), I feel like I distrust Arm less on this one than whatever Qualcomm is doing on their coke-fueled race to capitalize on the AI bubble.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 week ago (5 children)

And so the corporate wars have begun

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Part of the reason why when people were saying they wanted competition to unseat x86, I didn't want it to be ARM based, because I knew 100% that ARM would jump in and do some shit to rake in more profit and negate all the potential cost savings to the consumer. As long as theres a single(or in the case of x86, essentially (but technically not) duopoly) that controls all the options for one of the options, then it's not a good form of competition.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 week ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›