Worlds first risc-v linux development board is here!

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.

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.

Might as well call it the Dingleberry Pi.

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

...

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

RISC-V is a waste of an FPGA.

Look, those guys at berkeley decided to optimise theirchip for C and Unix programs. It says so right in theirpaper. They looked at how C programs tended to behave, and(later) how Unix behaved, and made a chip that worked thatway. So what if it's hard to make downward lexical funargswhen you have register windows? It's a special-purposechip, remember? Only then companies like Sun push their snazzy RISCmachines. To make their machines more attractive theyproudly point out "and of course it uses the greatgeneral-purpose RISC. Why it's so general purpose that itruns Unix and C just great!" This, I suppose, is a variation on the usual "the wayit's done in unix is by definition the general case"disease.

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.

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

CAN I INSTALL GENTOO ON IT

haha oy vey

haha yeah right..

see

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

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 solutionalong the lines of "well, we don't know how to writecompilers that use complex instructions efficiently, and wedon't know how to design complex hardware that runs fast, sowe'll make everything simple, and we can advertise we run at80Mhz even though the system supports fewer user than a 1MIP DEC-20." It's exactly analagous to "you can use pipes andredirection shell scripts to do anything, so we don't haveto write any REAL programs" and "portability is moreimportant that usability" philosophies so rampant in theunix world.(Was I properly vitrolic this time?)

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

t. Shekelberg

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.

Don't play dumb.

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.

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.

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 withmisspellings and bizarre case. Presumably they don'tactually 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 netconnection to a unix, it prints a header and then nothinghappens; you don't get a login: prompt. If you type areturn at it, you get a prompt.I can't imagine any model of the world in which this makessense, and conclude that something evil, probably involvingElder 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 toolsare combined in a building block manner, so that greatthings can be done. Perhaps, some time ago, you read anarticle or book which suggested that this was the guidingphilosophy of Unix.I think the problem is that you missed the great Revelation of July14, 1989, in which Dennis Richie, at a mass meeting of over onehundred thousand Unix weenies at RFK Stadium in Washington, D.C.,announced that the toolkit approach was Obsolete, and would henceforthbe replaced by the One Big Hairy Program approach, in which, afterlinking in the required optional window system, mouse interface,screen manager, and distributed filesystem, simple programs such asthe one I am using to type this message would require a guaranteedminimum 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 orcase-sensitive languages don't seem to qualify as goodthings, although I'm sure there are those who think thatnetnews is a good thing.Maybe the idea of a portable operating system is a goodthing, but unfortunately, they only invented the idea, butstill 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.

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?

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.

Talos II started shipping.

I WANTED THIS FOR A ROUTER
WHO IS THIS FOR?

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

I wonder whom it's meant for.

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.

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

and that is a very sad state of affairs.

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

why choose risc?

i wish sifive would go public so i can put my crypto profits to work making more profit off all you larping neets.

When? website still says its in preorder.
I want to see some benchmarks.

Early backers get it on march.
Anyone else gets it on june.

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?
baikalelectronics.ru/products/olkhon_bfk/
baikalelectronics.com/products/T1/

How can hipster califaggots ever compete

You guys don't know how to use a switch?
You don't need two ethernet ports to use this as a router...

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.

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.

The Lisp machine.

bitsavers.org/pdf/symbolics/brochures/3600_Jul83.pdf
bitsavers.org/pdf/symbolics/brochures/Genera_7_1986.pdf

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

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 theattempt to pretend that there is anything vaguely "academic"about this stuff. I mean, can you think of anything closerto hell on earth than a "conference" full of unix geekspresenting 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 hasno clothes. The problem is a generation of swine -- bothprogrammers and marketeers -- whose comparative view of unixcomes from the vale of MS-DOS and who are particularlysusceptible to the superficial dogma of the unix cult.(They actually rather remind me of typical hyper-reactionarySoviet emigres.)These people are seemingly -incapable- of even believingthat not only is better possible, but that better could haveonce existed in the world before driven out by worse. Well,perhaps they acknowledge that there might be room for someincidental clean-ups, but nothing that the boys at Bell Labsor Sun aren't about to deal with using C++ or Plan-9, or,alternately, that the sacred Founding Fathers hadn'texpressed more perfectly in the original V7 writ (if only wepaid more heed to the true, original strains of the unixcreed!) 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 thematerial which is the subject of this list, is that the twoare inseparable. The "fundamental design flaw" of unix isan -attitude-, and attitude that says that 70% is goodenough, that robustness is no virtue, that millions of usersand programmers should be hostage to the convenience orlaziness of a cadre of "systems programmers", that one'stime should be valued at nothing and that one's knowledgeshould be regarded as provisional at best and expendable ata moment's notice.My view is that flaming about some cretin using afixed-sized buffer in some program like "uniq" says just asmuch about unix as pointing out that this operating systemof the future has a process scheduler out of the dark agesor a least-common-denominator filesystem (or IPCs or systemcalls or anything else, it -doesn't matter-!)The incidental -is- fundamental in dissecting unix, much asit is in any close (say, literary or historical) reading.Patterns of improbity and venality and outright failure arerevealed to us through any examination of the minutiae ofany implementation, especially when we remember that onecornerstone of unix pietism is that any task is really nomore than the sum of its individual parts. (Puny tools forpuny users.)And speaking of revealing patterns of abuse throughobservation of detail, has anybody considered that unixgeeks might be Adult Children or Survivors or be permanentlyIn Recovery? Perhaps they were sodomised by an awk at ayoung age, leading to a parodoxical attachment to the agentof their humiliation? If we could persuade them them tospend all their time attending pop-psych workshops in thewoods ("Fire in the John"), beating drums and invoking theshade of Dennis Ritchie, we could keep them away from theirkeyboards...

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.

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 is a "gray hair on a wart on a mole" that still makes you use tar to copy directories.
BeOS and RISC OS do have some good ideas.
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 programto C. Sure I am grateful to have a few reminders (^Z isanother one) of bygone glories around, but let's give creditwhere credit is due! Legend tells of a Chinese Emperor whoordered books burned so all knowledge would be credited tohis reign. I guess the subsequent generation of scholarswere a lot like the Weenix Unies of today.

Yesterday Rob Pike from Bell Labs gave a talk on the latestand greatest successor to unix, called Plan 9. Basically hedescribed ITS's mechanism for using file channels to controlresources as if it were the greatest new idea since thewheel.There may have been more; I took off after he credited Unixwith the invention of the hierarchial file system!

We long ago resigned ourselves to using Unix, and with itwe've resigned ourselves to its odd syntactic idioms.We've all long ago resigned ourselves to using TAR to copyfiles. It no longer seems a travesty, only a wart.In the midst of all this resignation, only unix-haterscauses us to stop and wonder, where we would otherwisemerely give up and move on.I'm pausing to share my wonder with you at this gray hair ona 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 inshite, while everything dies in U***. Both stink.

No, the reason is because YOUR shit OS is so irrelevant and bad that nobody ever uses it anymore.
you never needed to do that in the first place. Try cp -r
What particular ideas are those?
also,
I thought you said you hated RISC? Or are you only referring to the OS?
Really?
Pick one.

I'm guessing you don't actually know much about Plan 9?
man.9front.org/1/cp

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.

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.

-R is in POSIX. It also mentions -r, but:
pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/cp.html

world1st !== 1stwidely_successful

yuck

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.

Are those antennas or something?

Speed holes.

DELETE THIS

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

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.