From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 7563 invoked from network); 7 May 2022 18:51:22 -0000 Received: from 9front.inri.net (168.235.81.73) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 7 May 2022 18:51:22 -0000 Received: from wopr.sciops.net ([216.126.196.60]) by 9front; Sat May 7 14:49:22 -0400 2022 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sciops.net; s=20210706; t=1651949358; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=8eeiL7B51B6lJNX9GuPUwCCzsiSb5S/Gnwbni5z6C1c=; b=hW6RDjTO9DH875+QIIvvKt9yUEr1X5QcC2RKab4mNwQIONu9cECt6g7MUggn43/PSKBHPT Kgvd1nZBRXFctYWhuo/3VZsIfBA+6svw+5zV7DBk/gldsVlrXd6P9sDgLzlq3x3UjpOn6a ihl+InEVvTnW83NfvCYzfZmISmftgVY= Received: from localhost (wopr.sciops.net [local]) by wopr.sciops.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id 6e6bfcde for <9front@9front.org>; Sat, 7 May 2022 11:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 11:49:18 -0700 From: Kurt H Maier To: 9front@9front.org Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: 9front@9front.org References: <5DE4970553D3B1D9DF93417DB0A9AD4C@thinktankworkspaces.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: compliant open-source TOR over SVG table plugin Subject: Re: [9front] build iso from arm64 Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, May 07, 2022 at 11:14:37AM -0400, Thaddeus Woskowiak wrote: > Who is going to IBM the Arm platform? Microsoft? Amazon? Google? > Facebook? Google could easily drive the entire ARM SoC market themselves, without question, just by making requirements in Android. In fact the ARM/Google relationship would nicely parallel the Intel/Microsoft reign of terror. > The PC platform is an agreement between manufacturers to use a > standard boot firmware (bios/uefi), standard hardware interfaces (e.g. > pci, ata, vesa, etc, ac97/hda), and booting procedures (mbr/gpt). No, it's not an agreement between manufacturers. Every one of the standards you mentioned came from Intel except for ATA. If you want an Intel chip in your computer, you play ball. Fortunately it's easy to play ball, because once you sign the NDAs Intel will happily do half the work for you. > The closest we have had is the Microsoft Windows RT Surface The closest we've had with a chance at being a competitor is the Google Chromebook specifications, but it's severely limiting in what hardware it allows, which leads back to a free-for-all once you step outside the spec. Another could-have-been was the OLPC XO-4 ARM machines, which shipped with a beautiful OpenFirmware build that supported all the hardware natively, no ACPI required. > Though, for anything to succeed, it would need the weight of an IBM > behind it. No, I think ARM could step up and offer meaningful reference designs, and that's about all it would take. But the world is committed to a bespoke u-boot and device-tree per SKU, and most of the development industry have Stockholmed themselves into believing this is for the best. khm