I don’t think this is the case here. Like, this is dead on arrival in most of Europe without WhatsApp. My phone is my most important device. I cannot access my bank account without it. But banks will not allow me to use that phone as a factor for authentication.
5 or 10 years ago you could have forced those companies to either support something third party or develop for a new phone os but now we are stuck with android and ios until something really messed up happens to our economy or until one of them really fucks up and gets into legal trouble to a point where they can’t sell phones or services anymore.
Yes but then you are half a percent of the user base that a new phone manufacturer would want to attract. And in Germany at least it is literally impossible to have a social life outside of the nerd bubble if you don’t use WhatsApp.
Yet another Linux phone with subpar specs. That processor is quite underwhelming even compared to Google’s Tensor G1, a proc that many regard as crap as is and it beats this Dimensity 900 handily.
Im very interested in an officially supported linux phone, however the fitmware seems not to be upstream(yet?). I hope it will be upstreamed, or else were back to square one with linux mobile hardware support if they stop working on it!
Hong Kong only recently became part of China. (This was not correct, it became part of China in 1997). I’m sure the protests are fresh in people’s minds still. If anywhere would want private phones it would be HK.
China didn’t “conquer” anything. They had an agreement that would keep them independent until a certain date and that date passed. So HK now belongs to China, as was agreed.
I was a little misinformed, it turns out HK has belonged to China since 1997, and the recent protests were just because of some policy changes that make China’s influence stronger in regards to their ability to extradite people into mainland China.
Its a small company without VC, seems ok so far. Chinese track record for open sourcing things isnt too good because chinese courts dont care about the GPL I think, however they sound like linux enthusiasts, so Im optimistic.
Some people think it’s a status symbol, but most people don’t care. But yeah it’s above 50 percent now and climbing (in the US).
I have both from time to time. I wish there was a viable 3rd party than picking our favorite multi-billion dollar company, but as a developer, I need both.
As a fellow risc-v supporter, I think the rise of arm is going to help risc-v software support and eventually adoption. They’re not compatible, but right now developers everywhere are working to ensure their applications are portable and not tied to x86. I imagine too that when it comes to emulation, emulating arm is going to be a lot easier than x86, possibly even statically recompilable.
This is what concerns me. ARM could dominate the market because almost everyone would develop apps supporting it and leave RISC-V behind. It could become like Itanium vs AMD64 all over again.
Well right now most people develop apps supporting x86 and leaves everything else behind. If they’re supporting x86 + arm, maybe adding riscv as a third option would be a smaller step than adding a second architecture
Porting Windows exclusive games to Linux is a small step as well, but most developers don’t do it because they cannot justify the additional QA and debugging time required to port them over. Especially since Linux’s market share is small.
The reason Itanium failed was because the architecture was too different from x86 and porting x86 applications over required significant effort and was error prone.
For RISC-V to even get any serious attention from developers, I think they need to have appx 40-50% market share with OEMs alongside ARM. Otherwise, RISC-V will be seen as a niche architecture and developers would avoid porting their applications to it.
My point is that “porting” is not such a big deal if it is just recompile. If you already target Linux with a portable code base ( to support both ARM and amd64 for example ) then the burden of RISC-V is pretty low. Most of the support will be the same between RISC-V and ARM if they target the same Linux distros.
The Linux distros themselves are just a recompile as well and so the entire Open Source ecosystem will be available to RISC-V right away.
It is a very different world from x86 vs Itanium with amd64 added to the mix.
Look at Apple Silicon. Fedora already has a full distribution targeting Apple Silicon Macs. The biggest challenges have been drivers, not the ISA. The more complete the Linux ecosystem is on ARM, the easier it will be to create distros for RISC-V as well.
Porting Windows games to Linux is not a small step. It is massive and introduces a huge support burden. That is much different than just recompiling your already portable and already Linux hosted applications to a new arch.
With games, I actually hope the Win32 API becomes the standard on Linux as well because it is more stable and reduces the support burden on game studios. It may even be ok if they stay x86-64. Games leverage the GPU more than the CPU and so are not as greatly impacted running the CPU under emulation.
That is a risk on the Windows side for sure. Also, once an ISA becomes popular ( like Apple Silicon ) it will be hard to displace.
Repurposing Linux software for RISC-V should be easy though and I would expect even proprietary software that targets Linux to support it ( if the support anything beyond x86-64 ).
Itanium was a weird architecture and you either bet on it or you did not. RISC and ARM are not so different.
The other factor is that there is a lot less assembly language being used and, if you port away from x64, you are probably going to get rid of any that remains as part of that ( making the app more portable ).
Once a chip architecture gets popular on Windows, it will be hard to displace. ARM has already become popular on macOS ( via Apple Silicon ) so we know that is not going anywhere. If ARM becomes popular on Windows ( perhaps via X Elite ), it will be hard to displace as the more popular option. That makes RISC-V on Windows a more difficult proposition.
I do not think that RISC-V on Linux has the same obstacles other than that most hardware will be manufactured for Windows or Mac and will use the chips popular with those operating systems.
Arm is not any better than x86 when it comes to instructions. There’s a reason we stuck to x86 for a very long time. Arm is great because of its power efficiency.
That power efficiency is a direct result of the instructions. Namely smaller chips due to the reduced instructions set, in contrast to x86’s (legacy bearing) complex instruction set.
Yes I understand that and agree, but the reason x86 dominated is because of those QoL instructions that x86 has. On arm you need to write more code to do the same thing x86 does, OTOH, if you don’t need to write a complex application, that isn’t a bad thing.
You don’t need to write more code. It’s just that code compiles to more explicit/numerous machine instructions. A difference in architecture is only really relevant if you’re writing assembly or something like it.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I am talking about assembly code. I will again state that I am pro-arm, and wish I was posting this from an arm laptop running a distro.
It’s really not, x86 (CISC) CPUs could be just as efficient as arm (RISC) CPUs since instruction sets (despite popular consensus) don’t really influence performance or efficiency. It’s just that the x86 CPU oligopoly had little interest in producing power efficient CPUs while arm chip manufacturers were mostly making chips for phones and embedded devices making them focus on power efficiency instead of relentlessly maximizing performance. I expect the next few generations of intel and AMD x86 based laptop CPUs to approach the power efficiency Apple and Qualcomm have to offer.
All else being equal, a complex decoding pipeline does reduce the efficiency of a processor. It’s likely not the most important aspect, but eventually there will be a point where it does become an issue once larger efficiency problems are addressed.
yeah, but you could improve the not ideal encoding with a relatively simple update, no need to throw out all the tools, great compatibility, and working binaries that intel and amd already have.
Well, not exactly. You have to remove instructions at some point. That’s what Intel’s x86-S is supposed to be. You lose some backwards compatibility but they’re chosen to have the least impact on most users.
Arm is better because there are more than three companies who can design and manufacture one.
Edit: And only one of the three x86 manufacturers are worth a damn, and it ain’t Intel.
Edit2: On further checking, VIA sold its CPU design division (Centaur) to Intel in 2021. VIA now makes things like SBCs, some with Intel, some ARM. So there’s only two x86 manufacturers around anymore.
We stuck to x86 forever because backwards compatibility and because nobody had anything better. Now manufacturers do have something better, and it’s fast enough that emulation is good enough for backwards compatibility.
Is that a developer licence thing? I know GitHub recently announced Windows Arm runners that would be available to non-teams/enterprise tiers later this year.
It isn’t as simple as just compiling. Large programs like games then need to be tested to make sure the code doesn’t have bugs on ARM. Developers often use assembly to optimize performance, so those portions would need to be rewritten as well. And Apple has been the only large install of performant ARM consumer hardware on anything laptop or desktop windows. So, there hasn’t been a strong install base to even encourage many developers to port their stuff to windows on ARM.
Yeah this has been our (well, my) statement on requests to put out ARM binaries for Pulsar. Typically we only put binaries out for systems we actually have within the team so we can test on real hardware and replicate issues. I would be hesitant to put out Windows ARM builds when, as far as I know, we don’t have such a device. If there was a sudden clamouring for it then we could maybe purchase a device out of the funds pot.
The reason I was asking more about if it was to do with developer licences is that we have already dealt with differences between x86 and ARM macOS builds because the former seems to happily run unsigned apps after a few clicks, where the latter makes you run commands in the terminal - not a great user experience.
That is why I was wondering if the ARM builds for Windows required signing else they would just refuse to install on consumer ARM systems at all. The reason we don’t sign at the moment is just because of the exorbitant cost of the certificates - something we would have to re-evaluate if signing became a requirement.
It doesn’t usually work that well in practice. I have been running an M1 MBA for the last couple years (asahi Arch and now Asahi Fedora spin). More complex pieces of software typically have build system and dependencies that are not compatible or just make hunting everything down a hassle.
That said there is a ton of software that is available for arm64 on Linux so it’s really not that bad of an experience. And there are usually alternatives available for software that cannot be found.
I can’t say I’m one who shares that sentiment seeing as the only two projects I’m involved with happen to be Electron based (by chance rather than intention). Hell, one of them is Pulsar which is a continuation of Atom which literally invented Electron.
Until risc-v is at least as performant as top of the line 2 year old hardware it isn’t going to be of interest to most end users. Right now it is mostly hobbyist hardware.
I also think a lot of trust if being put into it that is going to be misplaced. Just because the ISA is open doesn’t mean anything about the developed hardware.
RISC-V is currently already being used in MCUs such as the popular ESP32 line. So I’d say it’s looking pretty good for RISC-V. Instruction sets don’t really matter in the end though, it’s just licensing. It’s not like you’ll be able to make a CPU or even something on the level of old 8-bit MCUs at home any time soon and RISC-V IC designs are typically proprietary too.
RISC-V is currently already being used in MCUs such as the popular ESP32 line. So I’d say it’s looking pretty good for RISC-V. Instruction sets don’t really matter in the end though, it’s just licensing for the producer to deal with. It’s not like you’ll be able to make a CPU or even something on the level of old 8-bit MCUs at home any time soon and RISC-V IC designs are typically proprietary too.
theregister.com
Hot