CalcProgrammer1

APIs can be complex too. Look at how much stuff the Win32 API provides from all the kernel calls, defined data structures/types, libraries, etc. I would venture a guess that if you documented the Win32 API including all the needed system libraries to make something like Wine, it would also be 850 pages long. The fact remains that a documented prototype for a software implementation is free to reimplement but a documented prototype for a hardware implementation requires a license. This makes no sense from a fairness perspective. I'm fine with ARM not giving away their fully developed IP cores which are actual implementations of the ARM instruction set, but locking third parties from making their own compatible designs without a license is horribly anticompetitive. I wish standards organizations still had power. Letting corporations own de-facto "standards" is awful for everyone.

In the mobile Linux scene, Qualcomm chips are some of the best supported ones. I don't love everything Qualcomm does, but the Snapdragon 845 makes for a great Linux phone and has open source drivers for most of the stack (little thanks to Qualcomm themselves).

RISC V is just an open standard set of instructions and their encodings. It is not expected nor required for implementations of RISC V to be open sourced, but if they do make a RISC V chip they don't have to pay anyone to have that privilege and the chip will be compatible with other RISC V chips because it is an open and standardized instruction set. That's the point. Qualcomm pays ARM to make their own chip designs that implement the ARM instruction set, they aren't paying for off the shelf ARM designs like most ARM chip companies do.

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.

Mozilla sold out a long time ago, they are nothing like they used to be. Everyone should be ditching Firefox for forks if possible. Yes, Firefox is still miles ahead of anything Chromium-based but we can't trust Mozilla to not screw over their users anymore (and it's been apparent for YEARS...Pocket, "Sponsored" shortcuts and links, Mozilla VPN popup ads, this behavior is hardly new). What can we trust? Firefox forks with the bullshit stripped out, mostly. I've been using LibreWolf for several years on my Linux, Windows, and MacOS systems now. I originally switched because of the Mozilla VPN popups but at the time, complaining about those popups was met with a bunch of Mozilla apologists going "it's not that bad" "they're a big company and they need their precious monies"...no. That was ADVERTISING front and center, and it was in Firefox years ago. So was Pocket. So was having Amazon links auto-filled on the new tab shortcuts. Go to something that isn't run by money. Go to a community-maintained and sanitized fork.

Change for the sake of change is so dumb. I'm tired of pointless UI changes every so many years because some middle manager and their designers need to wow some dumb exec to get a promotion and they do so just by rearranging all the existing functionality because the product itself is already a complete solution that doesn't actually need a new version. Sadly, this mentality even creeps into FOSS spaces. Canonical and Ubuntu wanting to reinvent the wheel with Unity, Mir, Snap, etc. GNOME radically changing their UI all the time.

You can view WiFi passwords for saved networks on pretty much every OS. There's no reason to be secretive about entering WiFi passwords, at least to the people whose devices you're entering the password on.

LibreWolf on everything that supports it (Windows/Mac/Linux) and Fennec F Droid on Android.

I wish these implementations of secure boot were designed more to protect the SOFTWARE against "theft" than the HARDWARE against "tampering". Let us wipe the secure boot keys, but in the process erase the firmware (or have the firmware encrypted so that erasing the keys renders it unbootable) and then allow new code to run. Blocking third party firmware on consumer devices is a shit move. It just creates more e-waste when the OEM stops updating it and the community can't make their own replacement firmware.

True, but if you buy a finished product that uses the new chip that has secure boot enabled, you can't flash your own firmware. From what I gather, the boot keys are burned into OTP memory so they can't be erased or changed. The chip is permanently locked to that firmware.

Not really a fan of putting secure boot on. The only purpose that serves is locking the customers out of their purchased hardware. Raspberry Pi is clearly not targeting the maker market with those changes, they want that corporate money and are willing to stick the finger to hackers and makers in the process. Can't make custom firmware if you can't boot it.

RISC-V support is nice. I like the idea of being able to work as both an ARM and a RISC-V microcontroller while sharing the same array of peripherals.