/tech/ - Technology★

>>862382 (OP)

>$999

these will sit on a shelf for a while

>>862386

Well they are the first development boards, they are the only ones in the market, plus i dont think developing CPUs and boards is cheap.

>>862388

This is why really big FPGAs need to be more available.

>>862388

You could also consider a Zedboard (Zynq-7000 ARM+FPGA), if you're interested in linux development.

https://reference.digilentinc.com/reference/programmable-logic/zedboard/start

http://www.zedboard.org

Damn I thought that Talos II was a ripoff. They need to lay off that marijuana if they want anyone to buy their shit.

>>862382 (OP)

>Comes with ECC ram

yeah that might help explain the price a bit.

>The revolution has started. We can’t wait to see what the world unleashes.

Cringe.

Note that this is using a proprietary hardware design for the processor.

http://www.lowrisc.org/ is working on an open source one for Linux usage.

>>862395

The reason why i care is because of the risc-v ISA.

>>862397

When a market is niche and there arent that many alternatives the prices of products get really high.

This is why talos II is expensive,it's not a scam. It's just the reality of the situation.(plus IBM STILL has not released power9)

>>862394

This is still the best. Just use an FPGA to write your own CPU architecture, or at least your own implementation of an existing one that compilers can target.

>>862382 (OP)

>$999

Massive mistake that will doom this product.

The most important factor in a fringe product like this is price. The best plan is to make something that can be sold for very cheap. That way every nerd will buy one. The more people that buy and own and use the product the better. Larger number of users equates to better support, which leads to even larger numbers of users.

>>862382 (OP)

>$999

Might as well call it the Dingleberry Pi.

>>862417

>>862418

It's not aimed at normal consumers

Plus 8GB DDR4 ECC

ITT: retards who don't know what a dev board is

Hint: you're not the target audience

>>862382 (OP)

>>862427

Don't bring logic into this these guys are all cringey LARPers who think this is going to take down Intels empire

>>862394

RISC-V is a waste of an FPGA.

    Look, those guys at berkeley decided to optimise their
chip for C and Unix programs.  It says so right in their
paper.  They looked at how C programs tended to behave, and
(later) how Unix behaved, and made a chip that worked that
way.  So what if it's hard to make downward lexical funargs
when you have register windows?  It's a special-purpose
chip, remember?

    Only then companies like Sun push their snazzy RISC
machines.  To make their machines more attractive they
proudly point out "and of course it uses the great
general-purpose RISC.  Why it's so general purpose that it
runs Unix and C just great!"

    This, I suppose, is a variation on the usual "the way
it's done in unix is by definition the general case"
disease.

>>862438

Why are you such a lazy shitposter that you can't even come up with your own shitposting? You do that shit all over the board. Go be an independent fag.

>>862438

what the fuck is the point of the argument this faggot is trying to make?

>>862382 (OP)

>BUY 999 JEWISH DOLLERS

haha oy vey

>SiFive Freedom U540 SoC

>SoC

>999 kikedollers

haha yeah right..

>>862454

>>862458

see

>>862398

>expensive components

>high manufacturing costs per unit

>very little demand

It's completely normal that development hardware is expensive. The internal transport costs alone are astronomical when divided by the number of units produced. Low volume = high prices

>>862449

RISC chips are C chips. The "we don't know how" means RISC and C programmers don't know how. Multics, mainframe, and Lisp machine programmers knew how.

    No, the quote is exactly right.  RISC is a lazy solution
along the lines of "well, we don't know how to write
compilers that use complex instructions efficiently, and we
don't know how to design complex hardware that runs fast, so
we'll make everything simple, and we can advertise we run at
80Mhz even though the system supports fewer user than a 1
MIP DEC-20."

    It's exactly analagous to "you can use pipes and
redirection shell scripts to do anything, so we don't have
to write any REAL programs" and "portability is more
important that usability" philosophies so rampant in the
unix world.

(Was I properly vitrolic this time?)

>>862454

>>862458

I don't think you understand what a dev board is.

>>862476

t. Shekelberg

>>862479

How old is that quote? Are you sure it applies to RISC-V? Is RISC-V still like traditional RISC? Does it apply to modern computing where nobody hand-writes assembly?

Don't just paste some old messages and expect me to take them at face value. Put in some effort. I don't like Unix, and some of the things you paste into other threads are fine, but it almost seems like you donpt know the difference between "RISC" and "RISC-V" and are purely pattern matching.

>>862479

No they didn't. If they had, they would've had better software and faster computers. They couldn't keep up, and they died off wanking over mathematical uselessness and CISC bloat.

>so we don't have to write any REAL programs

KEK

That's why it won the software war, because they had no real programs. Who's butthurt ramblings are you posting? They sound like a pajeet, sorry to say

RISC, UNIX and C are too complex anyway. Chuck Moore was right.

>>862479

I just discovered you've been quoting unix-haters this whole time. These are the kinds of people who think ITS was actually any good, as opposed to the best that could be hacked together. You are absolutely pathetic, just look at some of the autism on this list:

Aha. Clearly this is why Unix is so heavily ridden with
misspellings and bizarre case.  Presumably they don't
actually lose information when they do this contraction.
Rather, the phrase "read me a book" might map to "book me"
but "throw the book at me" could translate to "Book me" and
"give the book to me" to "bk me" and so on. 

I'm sure you've noticed that often when you open a net
connection to a unix, it prints a header and then nothing
happens; you don't get a login: prompt.  If you type a
return at it, you get a prompt.

I can't imagine any model of the world in which this makes
sense, and conclude that something evil, probably involving
Elder Gods and/or Charles Keating, is involved.

Ah, well, of course. You appear to be using the 'toolkit'
approach, in which a variety of small useful software tools
are combined in a building block manner, so that great
things can be done. Perhaps, some time ago, you read an
article or book which suggested that this was the guiding
philosophy of Unix.

I think the problem is that you missed the great Revelation of July
14, 1989, in which Dennis Richie, at a mass meeting of over one
hundred thousand Unix weenies at RFK Stadium in Washington, D.C.,
announced that the toolkit approach was Obsolete, and would henceforth
be replaced by the One Big Hairy Program approach, in which, after
linking in the required optional window system, mouse interface,
screen manager, and distributed filesystem, simple programs such as
the one I am using to type this message would require a guaranteed
minimum of 3.5 megabytes of code space alone.

Can anyone think of anything good that Unix weenies *did*
invent?  Most of their inventions such as netnews or
case-sensitive languages don't seem to qualify as good
things, although I'm sure there are those who think that
netnews is a good thing.

Maybe the idea of a portable operating system is a good
thing, but unfortunately, they only invented the idea, but
still haven't come up with an implementation.

You're such a loser, you let these people shape your opinion? People who can't figure out how to press the return key?

Should have had more standard connectors for driver development. Onboard RAM was propably a mistake in terms of price, but what do I know, Im just a shitposter.

>>862438

>>862479

>>862512

So they dislike Unix, the Unix philosophy, and the C language altogether.

What the fuck IS their idea? What would their model look like? How would their magic OS work? What language would it be programmed in?

>>862532

They don't even have a fucking operating system. Linux is used by fucking billions of people. Not to mention the billion or so RISC ARM chips out there too.

Lispniggers want a babbage machine. Not a workstation or a games console. They have to realize that technology always goes back to industry.

Thats avrage price for a dev board.

dev boards =! SBC

ITT: Invalids who don't know what a dev board is.

>>862402

Talos II started shipping.

>>862382 (OP)

>Doesn't have 2 ethernet ports

I WANTED THIS FOR A ROUTER

WHO IS THIS FOR?

>>862386

Doubt it, where else can you get RISC-V capable of such contemporary and luxurious computing so as to run a full GNU stack?

>>862564

>Worlds first risc-v linux development board is here!

I wonder whom it's meant for.

>>862592

The best development is dogfooding.

Covering a basic use case that would've only required an extra $5 port would make this board instantly more practical.

>>862593

A RISC-V GNU/Linux router is not a basic use case.

>>862595

>A RISC-V GNU/Linux router is not a basic use case.

and that is a very sad state of affairs.

>>862595

It already has networking, If I wanted to be sneaky I could create a wan and lan with vlans.

why choose risc?

>>862558

When? website still says its in preorder.

I want to see some benchmarks.

>>862760

Early backers get it on march.

Anyone else gets it on june.

>>862382 (OP)

Baikal dev board is $800 and has 2 Sata, 2 Gbit + 10 Gbit base-kx. Why the fuck would I need some CIA nigger board designed in US when based Russians (P*tin Bless) made their own and with much better specs?

https://www.baikalelectronics.ru/products/olkhon_bfk/

https://www.baikalelectronics.com/products/T1/

>>862778

>Russkie MIPS dev board has PCIe, SATA, USB

>on top of that the SoC has SIMD implemented

How can hipster califaggots ever compete

>>862595

>>862592

>>862598

You guys don't know how to use a switch?

You don't need two ethernet ports to use this as a router...

>>862709

Because RISC is the future and has been since the 80s.

It was the standard in the 90s but WINTEL popularized legacy CP/M and PC technology instead.

>>862532

>So they dislike Unix, the Unix philosophy, and the C language altogether.

Yes, because they suck. C programs have to be locked up so they can't hurt each other. That's the reason for Unix's existence. C programs already hurt themselves a lot but they've given up on preventing that.

>What the fuck IS their idea?

The Lisp machine.

>What would their model look like?

http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/symbolics/brochures/3600_Jul83.pdf

http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/symbolics/brochures/Genera_7_1986.pdf

>How would their magic OS work?

"Operating system" means the code included on the machine when you buy it. There's no distinction between the OS and the applications.

>What language would it be programmed in?

Lisp is the main language, but you can use any other language. RISCs drag everything down to the C level. Lisp machines raise the level of every other language. They inherit the garbage collection and runtime checks of Lisp.

If there's one thing which truly pisses me off, it is the
attempt to pretend that there is anything vaguely "academic"
about this stuff.  I mean, can you think of anything closer
to hell on earth than a "conference" full of unix geeks
presenting their oh-so-rigourous "papers" on, say, "SMURFY:
An automatic cron-driven fsck-daemon"?

I don't see how being "professional" can help anything;
anybody with a vaguely professional (ie non-twinkie-addled)
attitude to producing robust software knows the emperor has
no clothes.  The problem is a generation of swine -- both
programmers and marketeers -- whose comparative view of unix
comes from the vale of MS-DOS and who are particularly
susceptible to the superficial dogma of the unix cult.
(They actually rather remind me of typical hyper-reactionary
Soviet emigres.)

These people are seemingly -incapable- of even believing
that not only is better possible, but that better could have
once existed in the world before driven out by worse.  Well,
perhaps they acknowledge that there might be room for some
incidental clean-ups, but nothing that the boys at Bell Labs
or Sun aren't about to deal with using C++ or Plan-9, or,
alternately, that the sacred Founding Fathers hadn't
expressed more perfectly in the original V7 writ (if only we
paid more heed to the true, original strains of the unix
creed!)
                                                   
       In particular, I would like to see such an article
   separate, as much as possible, the fundamental design
   flaws of Unix from the more incidental implementation
   bugs.

My perspective on this matter, and my "reading" of the
material which is the subject of this list, is that the two
are inseparable.  The "fundamental design flaw" of unix is
an -attitude-, and attitude that says that 70% is good
enough, that robustness is no virtue, that millions of users
and programmers should be hostage to the convenience or
laziness of a cadre of "systems programmers", that one's
time should be valued at nothing and that one's knowledge
should be regarded as provisional at best and expendable at
a moment's notice.

My view is that flaming about some cretin using a
fixed-sized buffer in some program like "uniq" says just as
much about unix as pointing out that this operating system
of the future has a process scheduler out of the dark ages
or a least-common-denominator filesystem (or IPCs or system
calls or anything else, it -doesn't matter-!)


The incidental -is- fundamental in dissecting unix, much as
it is in any close (say, literary or historical) reading.
Patterns of improbity and venality and outright failure are
revealed to us through any examination of the minutiae of
any implementation, especially when we remember that one
cornerstone of unix pietism is that any task is really no
more than the sum of its individual parts.  (Puny tools for
puny users.)




And speaking of revealing patterns of abuse through
observation of detail, has anybody considered that unix
geeks might be Adult Children or Survivors or be permanently
In Recovery?  Perhaps they were sodomised by an awk at a
young age, leading to a parodoxical attachment to the agent
of their humiliation?  If we could persuade them them to
spend all their time attending pop-psych workshops in the
woods ("Fire in the John"), beating drums and invoking the
shade of Dennis Ritchie, we could keep them away from their
keyboards...

>>862532

>What the fuck IS their idea? What would their model look like?

A graveyard. Because that's what's left of their bullshit today. Nobody uses MULTICS, Lisp machines, VAX, mainframes or bullshit like that any more.

Plan 9 had some good ideas and that's why it still has a pulse today. Same with BeOS and RISC OS. But these frauds? Fuck 'em.

>>863314

>A graveyard. Because that's what's left of their bullshit today. Nobody uses MULTICS, Lisp machines, VAX, mainframes or bullshit like that any more.

UNIX weenies like UNIX because they don't know anything about these operating systems. The real bullshit is shills telling you not to learn things because it makes their shit OS look bad.

>Plan 9 had some good ideas and that's why it still has a pulse today.

Plan 9 is a "gray hair on a wart on a mole" that still makes you use tar to copy directories.

>Same with BeOS and RISC OS.

BeOS and RISC OS do have some good ideas.

>But these frauds? Fuck 'em.

You want to talk about fraud? The UNIX "geniuses" have not invented a single new idea. They invented some shitty programming languages like C, awk, and bc, but none of those languages did anything new.

Section 30.02 of _Unix Power Tools_ by O'Reilly & Associates says
    ... /ispell/, originally written by Pace Willison ...

but hey, I was there when Pace ported the ITS SPELL program
to C.  Sure I am grateful to have a few reminders (^Z is
another one) of bygone glories around, but let's give credit
where credit is due!  Legend tells of a Chinese Emperor who
ordered books burned so all knowledge would be credited to
his reign.  I guess the subsequent generation of scholars
were a lot like the Weenix Unies of today.

Yesterday Rob Pike from Bell Labs gave a talk on the latest
and greatest successor to unix, called Plan 9.  Basically he
described ITS's mechanism for using file channels to control
resources as if it were the greatest new idea since the
wheel.

There may have been more; I took off after he credited Unix
with the invention of the hierarchial file system!

We long ago resigned ourselves to using Unix, and with it
we've resigned ourselves to its odd syntactic idioms.

We've all long ago resigned ourselves to using TAR to copy
files. It no longer seems a travesty, only a wart.

In the midst of all this resignation, only unix-haters
causes us to stop and wonder, where we would otherwise
merely give up and move on.

I'm pausing to share my wonder with you at this gray hair on
a wart on a mole.  (Please, no informative replies.)

% cd /adoc/ruble/src/xloadimage-3.01
% (cd /project/pagemill/utils/xloadimage-3.01/; tar cf - . ) | tar xBpf -
tar: directory checksum error (0 != 4451)
% cd /project/pagemill/utils/xloadimage-3.01/ 
% tar cf - . | (cd /adoc/ruble/src/xloadimage-3.01 ; tar xBpf - )
% 

    This has indeed puzzled me about FSF.  Here is an
    organization with incredibly lofty (IMHO misguided, but
    lofty) political ideals, and apparently no
    technological or engineering ideals whatsoever.  It's
    as if there were a shite cartel charging high prices for
    shite, and a counter-culture grassroots movement
    agitating that shite should be free.

    For those who want shite, I guess it matters.

This is an insult to shite.  At least things can grow in
shite, while everything dies in U***.  Both stink.

>>863426

>The real bullshit is shills telling you not to learn things because it makes their shit OS look bad.

No, the reason is because YOUR shit OS is so irrelevant and bad that nobody ever uses it anymore.

>Plan 9 is a "gray hair on a wart on a mole" that still makes you use tar to copy directories.

>still

you never needed to do that in the first place. Try cp -r

>BeOS and RISC OS do have some good ideas.

What particular ideas are those?

also,

>RISC OS

I thought you said you hated RISC? Or are you only referring to the OS?

>The UNIX "geniuses" have not invented a single new idea. They invented some shitty programming languages like C, awk, and bc

Really?

>have not invented

>They invented

Pick one.

>>863428

>Try cp -r

I'm guessing you don't actually know much about Plan 9?

http://man.9front.org/1/cp

>>863426

I can respect anyone who has a passion for technology and does what he likes doing.

You are a zealot. No one likes you, not even Lisp engineers, because you're giving them a bad name.

If you were to become and engineer and implement a Lisp machine, you could talk about that. That would be fun. You bitchin' though, is not very interesting.

>>863429

ah, so Plan 9 does not have this?

Interesting..

I can assure you that any other modern implementation of a Unix or Unix-like OS has this feature.

In fact, I just checked, and it's not just a GNUism. GNU has it, FreeBSD has it (and macOS by extension), OpenBSD has it, NetBSD has it, and even IllumOS (OpenSolaris-based) has it.

>>863437

-R is in POSIX. It also mentions -r, but:

> If the -r option was specified, the behavior is implementation-defined.

http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/cp.html

>>862417

world1st !== 1stwidely_successful

>>863454

>!==

yuck

>>862417

Also something to recall, this is the first RISC V silicon other than their earlier product which was meant to replace something like Arduino. In fact this board includes one of those low-powered cores as a management engine.

Yes, this RISC V board has a management engine.

>>864207

Speed holes.

>>864207

DELETE THIS

>>864207

They're wiggly to slow the computons down, the board would be too fast otherwise.

>>864207

Signals propagate at a finite speed along the PCB tracks, when you have an interface which has multiple signals you need to make all the tracks the same length so that they arrive at the same time.