Open Hardware Architecture
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
Trisquel and other FSF-approved operating systems are probably only made for x86 and x64 because of those architectures' popularity. However, those architectures, according to Wikipedia, are closed and demand royalties. I do not know what those royalties are, but they cannot be good. Open and royalty-free alternatives (according to Wikipedia) would be Itanium (IA-64), Mico32, and SPARC. (MMIX has not been implemented in hardware, so does not count.) Why do none of the FSF-approved operating systems support these seemingly more freedom-friendly architectures? Why not encourage such a change? Is it because Itanium and SPARC are aimed at the workstation market and thus too expensive? Perhaps we can encourage Oracle to make a SPARC PC, Intel to make an Itanium PC, or Lattice to make a Mico32 PC. Of course, we might need to remind them often to keep it open-source and royalty-free!
Or, should I stop being nervous and live with my Intel x86-64 Pentium machines?
I am a translator!
Maybe this Stallman essay will be food for thought:
http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/1999062200505NWLF
In a nutshell, Open Hardware is not nearly as important as Free Software. The crux of the matter is that copying software is trivial; copying physical hardware is anything but. But it's vital that the hardware's specifications are free, so Free Software can be written for it, without costly and difficult reverse-engineering efforts.
We already have FOSS, while we do not have FOSH. We have projects similar to PC FOSH (such as Milkymist), but not actual PC FOSH.
Three reasons why I want FOSH, 1: I want to know how my computer works. 2: I want to be sure that I am not being restricted. 3: The source might come in handy.
Are you suggesting that the only way for me to get PC FOSH is to start my own project?
Is FOSH even the correct acronym for open hardware?
I am a translator!
Honestly, I just haven't considered the issue of open hardware too much. I can't talk about this capably.
I recommend emailing RMS and having him clear things up for you.
I agree, he might have some handy info.
Emailed him in the past regarding the software we use where I work, he replied and answered my questions pretty well.
I am a member!
Perhaps name at domain is a good place to discuss such a thing. Stallman and other FSF people could answer you there.
One remark RMS has made is something to the effect of "open source hardware doesn't make sense". His rationale was that you can't easily modify an object and make copies of that object to share with others. On the other hand you can design hardware and make all of the specs available so that anyone can build it. That's a different concept though. Imagine selling a computer you built and including the GPL with that computer; you can't make a copy of the computer so the ability to free distribute copies of the computer is irrelevant. You can't take a processor apart, improve it and then redistribute it. There are some things that are similar but overall the idea doesn't cleanly translate to hardware or to physical objects for that matter.
It would be great to have openly documented hardware that anyone could build and build addons for though, and I think that's what everyone means.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios