This. SiFive, for example, is a proprietory core design based on the open source RISC V spec. Hazard3 [0] on the other hand, is an open source core design.
Qualcomm acquired Nuvia in order to bypass the licence fees charged by ARM, with I can guess ARM tried to block in good terms first, and latter in bad terms without success as we saw. It may make sense now that ARM is refusing to license them the newer ones.
Qualcomm may be solely to blame themselves, as they now has to invest in researching and developing an underdeveloped architecture, quickly, while their competitors -including Chinese ones- take advantage with newer ARM designs (and perhaps they could even develop their own alternatives peacefully in the meantime).
> Qualcomm acquired Nuvia in order to bypass the licence fees charged by ARM
Both Nuvia and Qualcomm had Arm Architecture licenses that allowed them to develop and sell their own Arm-compatible CPUs.
There was no bypassing of license fees.
If Qualcomm had hired the Nuvia engineers before they developed their core at Nuvia, and they developed exactly the same core while employed at Qualcomm, then there would be no question that everyone was obeying the terms of their licenses.
Arm's claim rests on it being ok for Nuvia to sell chips of their own design, but not to sell the design itself, and not to transfer the design as part of selling the company.
Now they're getting counter sued by Qualcomm because it turns out they allegedly violated their own TLA (license to get off the shelf cores) and their ALA (architecture license).
Qualcomm is claiming that Arm is refusing to license the v10 architecture to them and refused to license some other TLA cores requiring them to get the Nuvia Custom CPU team to build cores for those products instead.
This explains their expansion into Risc-V it's a hedge against Arm interfering with QC's business.
Do you have examples of where something isn't accurate? If something hasn't changed it doesn't need to be updated. As far as I'm aware the things that change are updated quickly, hence the list is relevant.
I love Bret Victor and believe he has some very important things to say about design (UI design, language design and general design) but a lot of his concepts don't scale or abstract as well as he seems to be implying (ironic because he has a full essay on "The Ladder of Abstraction" [0]).
He makes some keen observations about how tooling in certain areas (especially front end design) is geared towards programmers rather than visual GUI tools, and tries to relate that back to a more general point about getting intuition for code, but I think this is only really applicable when there is a visual metaphor for the concept that there is an intuition to be gotten about.
To that end, rather than "programming not having progressed", a better realisation of his goals would be better documentation, interactive explainers, more tooling for editing/developing/profiling for whatever use case you need it for and not, as he would be implying, that all languages are naively missing out on the obvious future of all programming (which I don't think is an unfair inference from the featured video where he's presenting all programming like it's still the 1970s).
He does put his money where his mouth is, creating interactive essays and explainers that put his preaching into practice [1] which again are very good for those specific concepts but don't abstract to all education.
Similarly he has Dynamicland [2] which aims to be an educational hacker space type place to explore other means of programming, input etc. It's a _fascinating_ experiment and there are plenty of interesting takeaways, but it still doesn't convince me that the concepts he's espousing are the future of programming. A much better way to teach kids how computers work and how to instruct them? Sure. Am I going to be writing apps using bits of paper in 2050? Probably not.
An interesting point of comparison would be the Ken Iverson "notation as a tool of thought" which also tries to tackle the notion of programming being cumbersome and unintuitive, but comes at it very much from the mathematical, problem solving angle rather than the visual design angle. [3]
The solution to seeing more Bret Victor-ish tooling is for people to rediscover how to build the kind of apps that were commonplace on the desktop but which have become a very rare art in the cloud era.
Direct manipulation of objects in a shared workspace, instant undo/redo, trivial batch editing, easy duplication and backup, ... all things you can't do with your average SaaS and which most developers would revolt for if they'd had to do their own work without them.
Ideas that scale don't scale until they do. The Macintosh didn't come out until people had been using WIMP GUIs for 10 years. People tried to build flying machines for centuries before the Wright Brothers figured out how to control one.
They tried it without a flagship and without a large library of compatible games.
They now have a flagship first party Steam Machine and Proton to run games. They are also working with partners to create 3rd party Steam OS handhelds.
If steam machines sell well, we will likely see supported 3rd party offerings.
Yes. It’s the Pixel / Surface / strategy: show there is a market for premium, flagship reference devices and let those guide the second tier manufacturers.
You don’t even have to be the #1 vendor, the reference implementation does a lot of good for the ecosystem.
The most recent episode of the BBC Satire Radio show "The Naked Week" reached out to hundreds of name-alikes to get them to comment on a recent UK news story.
They ended up interviewing Taylor Swift, an MMA instructor from Cheltenham, UK.
The native version does quite a few extra things, including bringing all the solving tools inside the app (as opposed to using external tools like CyberChef, Boxentriq, Dcode, etc), but also has more compute-intensive operations like creating spectrograms of audio and image manipulation, a much bigger implementation of the Linux terminal, and (safely!) destructive things too – you get local copies of files or databases to work with, so you can delete them, modify them, etc, freely, rather than being restricted to working with shared resources.
* Reveal.js style declaration for "keyframe 1", declaration for "keyframe 2" and then automatic animation/transition between the two. Animation "themes" of fade in/out, pop in/out of nodes. I like the arrow "growing" theme from the article but would also see cases where I want the nodes to appear first and the arrows grow to them, and also a case where the arrow grows and the nodes appear at the end.
* Impress js zoom, movement, focus
I would like to use animations to help me communicate something or to make my point. I'm not necessarily looking to spark joy - I'd very much see that as a "nice to have" (i.e. for each or the above make the defaults pretty).
The number of times I've seen people waiting for SteamOS makes me kind of excited that there's so much demand for an alternative to Windows, nervous that a SteamOS general release isn't going to live up to expectations and frustration that that "demand" isn't moving to other distros of its own accord or otherwise being captured by someone savvy.
I think overall it means that "people", even if they have a more positive view of Linux than they did 10 years ago are still lacking the confidence and know-how to be able to make an actual switch.
There are reasons, sure, but there's absolutely a pool of people right now who would be suitable for Linux and appreciate the switch but there just isn't enough activation energy there to get them over the line.
Seriously, the moment there's a linux distro that really "just works", even with games on NVidia cards, I think Windows will lose a very large chunk of market share. So many people are sick of it, but most people still fear that stuff won't work right on Linux.
Anyway, Valve is probably the most likely party to pull that off.
Why, though? If the Windows subsystem for Linux can provide many people an adequate environment for dev work, why can't the equivalent Linux subsystem for Windows provide an adequate gaming platform?
Even Microsoft learnt that with WSL, hence why WSL 2.0 is a plain VM, hardly any different from Virtual Box or VMware Workstation, other than is already on the box and doesn't cost extra.
Technically, you can say that an OS is a term for managing complexity. We're managing the complexity that comes with the modern age of the internet & the web platform. At this stage, I agree it might sound like an overstatement, but it's aligned with our vision and where we eventually want to take it.
What isn't clear is how you believe this manages complexity. What does it actually do that my browser and desktop aren't already doing for me?
As with all of these "desktop in a browser" demos, it looks and feels fun for a couple minutes, but there's no story-telling here as to why I'd actually want to commit to using it instead of the tried-and-tested tools that are native, accessible and already right there.
I understand your point. It's still early stages and I expected these kind of comments honestly, because I myself saw a lot of these "desktop in a browser" demos that ultimately had no use to me whatsoever.
I believe our approach is very different though, and as time goes by hopefully it'll become even more useful to even more people.
Technically, you can’t redefine what an OS is just because you want to call your app an OS.
Sorry but you have made a lot of bold statements about encryption etc. but this one I found extremely irksome.
There is a whole CS course called Operating Systems. I believe what you are showing HN is a software product, built with programming languages that are products of the discipline Computer Science, which defines what an OS is. Not you.
I studied Operating Systems in my CS studies for two years, so I’m quite familiar with the methodologies and the strict definitions that define a traditional OS. I’m not trying to redefine what an OS is in the academic sense. My intent is more about using the term as a metaphor to communicate what our product does—similar to how many technical terms are borrowed from the physical world.
You’re right that there’s a whole CS course on OS, and I respect that. But I believe it’s also okay to extend the concept in a practical way to help users understand what this product aims to offer, especially in today’s interconnected landscape.
It’s also good to note again that we're still at the early stages of this project. Hopefully by time the name makes more sense, or we might even change it entirely!
[0] https://github.com/Wren6991/Hazard3