598
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 96 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

thanks, proprietary licenses.

can we finally move to open standards now or will these fucks keep on losing money just to spite foss? are they that afraid we read some of their source code?

[-] Nobilmantis@feddit.it 83 points 13 hours ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] poVoq@slrpnk.net 27 points 13 hours ago

I wonder if their recent bid to take over Intel, is related.

The irony would be very thik as Qualcomm played a big role in killing Intel's 2010er efforts to enter the mobile sector.

[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 28 points 12 hours ago

Qualcomm is not trying to take over Intel.

Not only has it been denied by both parties, it would 100% not go ahead. Additionally, it would invalidate the x86 cross-licence that AMD and Intel have, meaning Intel would no longer be able to make modern x86 CPUs. Frankly it's also somewhat doubtful Qualcomm wants to take Intel on.

The rumour was likely someone trying to pump up the stock and sell.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml 215 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

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.

[-] scarilog@lemmy.world 45 points 13 hours ago

takes this opportunity to develop a high performance RISC V core

They might. This would never be open sourced though. Best case scenario is the boost they would provide to the ISA as a whole by having a company as big as Qualcomm backing it.

[-] CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml 39 points 11 hours ago

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.

[-] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 17 points 11 hours ago

The RISCV instruction set IS open source. What they'd do to ratfuck it is lock the bootloader or something.

[-] rhombus@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 hours ago

Saying an ISA is just a hardware API vastly oversimplifies what an architecture is. There is way more to it than just the instruction set, because you can’t have an instruction set without also defining the numbers and types of registers, the mapping of memory and how the CPU interacts with it, the input/output model for the system, and a bunch of other features like virtual memory, addressing modes etc. Just to give an idea, the ARM reference is 850 pages long.

[-] CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 hours ago

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.

[-] ArdMacha@lemmy.world 19 points 13 hours ago

Simping for Qualcomm is definitely not a take i expected

[-] CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml 14 points 11 hours ago

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).

[-] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 9 points 9 hours ago

Qualcomm is one of the worst monopolists in any industry though. They are widely known to have a stranglehold on all mobile device development

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 161 points 19 hours ago
[-] szczuroarturo@programming.dev 52 points 16 hours ago

And so the corporate wars have begun

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 26 points 12 hours ago

I saw this documentary where taco bell won them.

[-] bss03@infosec.pub 5 points 9 hours ago

KFC / Pizza Hut / Taco Bell -- the only restaurant you need!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] mako@discuss.tchncs.de 147 points 18 hours ago

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.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
598 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

58833 readers
6367 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