# Open Source Computing



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 11, 2021)

Now I know FreeBSD is the best open source operating system (no citation needed) but I wanted to spark a discussion around the future of Open Source Computing, particularly on consumer devices.

On phones Android and IOS is king. Android uses the Linux kernel. It is supposed to be an open-source platform, but can any of you find the source code? Yeah, they don't make it easy. IOS is obviously not open source, even though some components (the XNU kernel) are.

On desktops Windows and Mac OS X are still king. Neither of which are open source.

For servers and embedded devices Linux is doing quite well (perhaps not as good as FreeBSD which boasts the PS4 and Netflix ). That's one plus for open source software, and one market which is looking good.

The real issue though (imo) is the lack of Open Source Hardware. Even the system I am running now is on some proprietary Intel chip that has another proprietary Intel chip running a closed source version of Minix on it (Intel ME). Same with phones, devices are often using binary blobs for drivers. We might have Linux or FreeBSD but the general state of the hardware ecosystem is an absolute dive. The BIOS is also often proprietary. Device drivers are proprietary. Chip software is proprietary.

I'd really like to see some investment in RISC-V, perhaps a kind of 'Linux' approach to the hardware world where device manufacturers all produce open source specifications which make money by competing and providing support services.


----------



## D-FENS (Oct 11, 2021)

mrbeastie0x19 said:


> Now I know FreeBSD is the best open source operating system (no citation needed) but I wanted to spark a discussion around the future of Open Source Computing, particularly on consumer devices.
> 
> On phones Android and IOS is king. Android uses the Linux kernel. It is supposed to be an open-source platform, but can any of you find the source code? Yeah, they don't make it easy. IOS is obviously not open source, even though some components (the XNU kernel) are.
> 
> ...


Android is a fork of the Linux kernel, it does not use Linux. It is heavily tweaked and stuffed with phone, tablet and other mobile device drivers some (or maybe most??) of which are not available in Linux.
Furthermore it is infested with Google's spyware programs that leak all your files into their cloud.

Can you find the source - sure, the source to the kernel is here: https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/
There is a lot of proprietary software around the kernel which is not opensource so you don't get to read the code.
They forked the Android source into the open source project Cyanogenmod, which is now called LineageOS and you can install that replacing your stock Android. LineageOS is mostly open source but it still depends on the firmware blobs for each device (because the manufacturers don't reveal the code, there is no other way).
My personal opinion as a LineageOS user - it is a nice try, but in practise it sucks. It's hacky, only geeks would do it. Updating is a major hassle. And all interesting Apps are on Google Play only, so you are kind of stuck with a very limited set of apps.

What we need is not a better copy of Android but an actual Linux (or maybe FreeBSD  ) actually running on mobile devices. For that we need a committed phone manufacturer and also a sensible GUI shell (KDE is making an effort, also Ubuntu) and many more ports of existing Mobile Apps to Linux.
We've come a long way in this regard, but there is still no sensible option on the market AFAIK.
Worth watching though: https://tuxphones.com/list-linux-mobile-devices/

Desktops - the market moves steadily towards mobile. Soon desktop will not matter. Even today you have a lot of jobs that can be done on a smartphone and you don't need a computer. There will be a market, but it will steadily shrink.

Regarding hardware - it has a high barrier to entry. And the manufacturers prefer keeping things proprietary, unless there is some kind of direct benefit in opening up. As the mass consumer does not care about openness, logically we don't see any change in this direction. I would not hold my breath.


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 11, 2021)

roccobaroccoSC said:


> Android is a fork of the Linux kernel, it does not use Linux. It is heavily tweaked and stuffed with phone, tablet and other mobile device drivers some (or maybe most??) of which are not available in Linux.
> Furthermore it is infested with Google's spyware programs that leak all your files into their cloud.
> 
> Can you find the source - sure, the source to the kernel is here: https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/
> ...


Interesting I did not know about LineageOS, I did know about Google's 'googlesource' but it seems so unintuitive compared to git, if I want to get the FreeBSD or Linux kernel sources I can simply download a tarbell, it looks to me like Google make it deliberately hard to download all components (Is there a way to git clone the whole repository of Android code?) And yes as you say a big issue is the ecosystem.

I think Ubuntu on phone is interesting and yes I agree we need a serious alternative to Android. I do also agree with what you say about the shrinking desktop, but desktops are still much more powerful and will continue to be used because of games, graphics software, office suites and development tools.

And sadly you are very correct with hardware. Entry is very high. Not only in cost but in knowledge, I hope they open up more in the future, or pressure is put on them to do so. I think there are projects to flash or reverse engineer the ROM shipped with some of these components (not sure about the microcode? I think not), same with reverse engineering device drivers (but then the issue is legally using open source binaries without manufacturer consent). Whatever the situation, I do hope in the future it changes significantly. RISC-V is the most promising I have seen for ISAs and could set a precedent for other manufacturers if it becomes popular.


----------



## bsduck (Oct 11, 2021)

roccobaroccoSC said:


> And all interesting Apps are on Google Play only, so you are kind of stuck with a very limited set of apps.


You can get what's on the Play Store without a Google account (except for paid apps) using https://auroraoss.com/download/AuroraStore/


----------



## D-FENS (Oct 11, 2021)

bsduck said:


> You can get what's on the Play Store without a Google account (except for paid apps) using https://auroraoss.com/download/AuroraStore/


This does not work in practise. I think once I was able to install something, but all the other times I actually needed it, it simply did not work anonymously.


----------



## bsduck (Oct 11, 2021)

Well, it works for me, but I have to admit I don't use many apps.


----------



## D-FENS (Oct 11, 2021)

mrbeastie0x19 said:


> Interesting I did not know about LineageOS, I did know about Google's 'googlesource' but it seems so unintuitive compared to git, if I want to get the FreeBSD or Linux kernel sources I can simply download a tarbell, it looks to me like Google make it deliberately hard to download all components (Is there a way to git clone the whole repository of Android code?) And yes as you say a big issue is the ecosystem.
> 
> I think Ubuntu on phone is interesting and yes I agree we need a serious alternative to Android. I do also agree with what you say about the shrinking desktop, but desktops are still much more powerful and will continue to be used because of games, graphics software, office suites and development tools.
> 
> And sadly you are very correct with hardware. Entry is very high. Not only in cost but in knowledge, I hope they open up more in the future, or pressure is put on them to do so. I think there are projects to flash or reverse engineer the ROM shipped with some of these components (not sure about the microcode? I think not), same with reverse engineering device drivers (but then the issue is legally using open source binaries without manufacturer consent). Whatever the situation, I do hope in the future it changes significantly. RISC-V is the most promising I have seen for ISAs and could set a precedent for other manufacturers if it becomes popular.


Indeed, it is not easy to compile and tweak Android. I tried compiling LineageOS from scratch (which includes Android) but I gave up after git cloning more than 80 GB of stuff (and counting), I said - this is madness. I have no time for this crap.
And I do compile my Linux kernel at every update, it takes only 2-3 GB and about 3 minutes to compile.

Point 2 - you have games on phones and people started gaming only on phones for a while. Of course PC-s will be around, just not as often as they did 10 years ago. Office stuff is also doable on a phone, emailing (people use whatsapp and weechat nowadays btw.)

Point 3 - reverse engineering a device for the purpose of making an open source driver for it, is it legal? This is completely jurisdiction dependent, so check with your lawyer. I think the US and Europe allow this, as long as you don't copy any original material but create the program from scratch (at least what I read in the Reversing book by Eldad Eilam), but don't quote me on this.

If you purchase a device the manufacturer should not be allowed to block you from putting your own software on it in my opinion. If you listen to Richard Stallman, he would tell you simply not to buy those devices. Period.


----------



## mer (Oct 11, 2021)

hardware is, in a word, hard.
lots of upfront investment, potentially long time to market, then you need people to buy the hardware before you see any return on the investment.
That's why lots of hardware manufacturers make you sign NDAs and other legal stuff to get the documentation you need to write a proper device driver.  Yes, I know "not all of them do", hence my "...lots of..." phrasing.
Can you do a lot without the documentation?  Sure, depends on what the device actually is.
CPUs:  once they say the family, you have a starting point.
Lots of other devices will run in a compatibility mode of some kind (compatible with previous generations of device) but you need the docs to figure out the new stuff.

Phones, Laptops, there have been attempts to create open versions of the hardware in the past.  Not sure what is still viable.

Toss in current global supply chain concerns and one winds up needing lots of money to even think about getting started.

my opinions.


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 11, 2021)

roccobaroccoSC said:


> Indeed, it is not easy to compile and tweak Android. I tried compiling LineageOS from scratch (which includes Android) but I gave up after git cloning more than 80 GB of stuff (and counting), I said - this is madness. I have no time for this crap.
> And I do compile my Linux kernel at every update, it takes only 2-3 GB and about 3 minutes to compile.
> 
> Point 2 - you have games on phones and people started gaming only on phones for a while. Of course PC-s will be around, just not as often as they did 10 years ago. Office stuff is also doable on a phone, emailing (people use whatsapp and weechat nowadays btw.)
> ...


You know I may have been a little short sighted here on Point 2. One of my key points was that desktop systems will continue because of faster typing, you could in theory just attach a keyboard or mouse to a phone, and if you wanted a bigger screen cast it to a TV. Nonetheless better processing will mean they continue to be used for a long time for things like software development and games, although as you say the games market is quite big on phone.


----------



## bsduck (Oct 11, 2021)

People using a computer for whatever kind of productive work, be it office work, multimedia processing, programming, etc. can't do that efficiently on a phone or a tablet. That's quite a lot of people, not just a few geeks. Sure, most people may use a mobile device rather than a PC to read the news and send messages, but that won't make desktops and laptops disappear or become a niche anytime soon.


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 11, 2021)

bsduck said:


> People using a computer for whatever kind of productive work, be it office work, multimedia processing, programming, etc. can't do that efficiently on a phone or a tablet. That's quite a lot of people, not just a few geeks. Sure, most people may use a mobile device rather than a PC to read the news and send messages, but that won't make desktops and laptops disappear or become a niche anytime soon.


That was my original point too, but I definitely think advancements in mobile tech could offset this, and as I just said you can attach a mouse, keyboard, or even external monitor, I could see it becoming a viable option at some point for even sophisticated applications. But rn the desktop has a very clear advantage for these things.


----------



## bsduck (Oct 12, 2021)

That's not only a matter of hardware, but also of software... interfaces designed for touch screens are nothing like efficient in a typical desktop scenario.


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 12, 2021)

bsduck said:


> That's not only a matter of hardware, but also of software... interfaces designed for touch screens are nothing like efficient in a typical desktop scenario.


They work fine for tablet devices, which people do use for graphics (I know designers that use the Ipad anyway).


----------



## mer (Oct 12, 2021)

bsduck said:


> That's not only a matter of hardware, but also of software... interfaces designed for touch screens are nothing like efficient in a typical desktop scenario.


This is one of the trends that I absolutely detest:  "everything must have a touch screen interface".
Sorry, there are times when old fashioned knobs and buttons are best.
Example:  automobiles.  putting in touch screens to control everything.  You want to adjust the climate control:  a simple knob to adjust the heat, a button to press to turn on A/C, buttons for fan speed.  But no, all that is now in a fancy touch screen that forces you to take your eyes off the road because you can't simply feel yourself push a button.
Toasters:  really?  I need an app to control it?  

It's great when used appropriately, horrible when forced.


----------



## Geezer (Oct 12, 2021)

mrbeastie0x19 said:


> Open Source Hardware



Not sure that hardware has a 'source' as does compiled code.



mrbeastie0x19 said:


> Now I know FreeBSD is the best open source operating system (no citation needed) but I wanted to spark a discussion around the future of Open Source Computing, particularly on consumer devices.
> 
> On phones Android and IOS is king. Android uses the Linux kernel. It is supposed to be an open-source platform, but can any of you find the source code? Yeah, they don't make it easy. IOS is obviously not open source, even though some components (the XNU kernel) are.
> 
> ...



'Open Source' is a band waggon. 

'BSD License' might mean something.


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 12, 2021)

Geezer said:


> Not sure that hardware has a 'source' as does compiled code.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's multiple factors to it. First is the process. Second is the design such as non proprietary cpu designs (arm vs risc-v). Third is the software you can find in ROM that's flashed onto the device itself, here you find things like the bios, device firmware, microcode updates etc, these have software components as well as hardware but are usually treated as part of hardware.


----------



## kpedersen (Oct 12, 2021)

mer said:


> This is one of the trends that I absolutely detest:  "everything must have a touch screen interface".


I agree. I am still more productive, even on a touch screen device when the interface is mouse oriented.

Touch screen interfaces are too big and basic with not enough information or functionality on each screen. They are also fullscreen rather than smaller windows making multi-tasking slow and awkward.

It is basically like being back on MS-DOS but with no real keyboard.


----------



## Sevendogsbsd (Oct 12, 2021)

I have always been a big proponent of open source computing and for me, I have never had a hardware issue. I only use open source on PCs though - never on a laptop so perhaps that is why I have never had issues. Also, I custom build my PCs so I have control over the parts.

My chief complaint about open source, specifically the graphical "desktops" is the number of choices. There are too many. I am not saying choice is a bad thing but from the eyes of a consumer, too many choices in this realm is a bad thing. Think about Linux and the number of "distros". Random consumer says " I want to try Linux". Which one? Over 100 to choose from. Then, choose a desktop. Which one? I am not saying this deters people from using open source operating systems but it would certainly be overwhelming for the uninitiated. Most consumers think of computers and phones as commodities. They don't really "care" about them as long as they work. Using an open source operating system means you view using a computer as more of a passion than the average consumer. In my opinion, this is why open source desktops have never really gotten a foothold.

As for phones, people want something they can absolutely count on and I am not sure the open source offerings are there yet, at least in terms of mass consumption.

Don't get me started on touch screens, I hate them, with the exception of phones. I do not own a tablet and have not owned a tablet since the Nexus 7, which I gave to my wife and she used briefly until it became unbearable because it was so slow. For me, a keyboard and mouse are the way to go for productivity. That and I can do anything on my phone or laptop that I can do on a tablet so what is the point of a tablet? One more thing to charge....


----------



## Jose (Oct 12, 2021)

mrbeastie0x19 said:


> I'd really like to see some investment in RISC-V, perhaps a kind of 'Linux' approach to the hardware world where device manufacturers all produce open source specifications which make money by competing and providing support services.


There's also Openpower. Raptor Systems markets a completely open workstation:




__





						OpenPOWER - RCS Wiki
					






					wiki.raptorcs.com
				




Note that these two examples are the extremes of the hardware spectrum. RISC-V plays at the small low-power end, and Openpower plays at the workstation end. This is exactly where you would expect changes to happen. The middle is a brutal space dominated by high volumes and low margins.



mer said:


> This is one of the trends that I absolutely detest:  "everything must have a touch screen interface".


Don't get me started. I'm fanatical about a clean computer screen. This one place I worked, people would come over and wanted to point things out on my screen with their fingers. I got tired of handing them pens, so I actually bought and old-school pointer that I would hand to them. I'm sure they're still making jokes about that to this day, but I don't care. My screen was fingerprint-free.  The idea of touching your screen _on purpose_ sends cold shivers down my spine.


----------



## mer (Oct 12, 2021)

Jose your last paragraph?  Me too.  I would act like a Catholic school nun with a ruler when people tried to do that to me.


----------



## ralphbsz (Oct 13, 2021)

mrbeastie0x19 said:


> Now I know FreeBSD is the best open source operating system ...


Depends on how you measure "best". If you measure it by democratic means, namely market acceptance, then it is very very bad, with a market share that is somewhere around a percent, or much less.



> Android uses the Linux kernel. It is supposed to be an open-source platform, but can any of you find the source code?


Yes, easily. Try googling for "android linux kernel source".



> For servers and embedded devices Linux is doing quite well (perhaps not as good as FreeBSD which boasts the PS4 and Netflix ).


For servers, Linux is unbeatable. On supercomputers (the Top500 list for example), it has 100% market share. That's not a joke: There is no single supercomputer in the 500 fastest machines in the world that uses any operating system other than Linux. Nearly all of the hyperscalers (the FAANG and friends) run on Linux, with the exception of Microsoft, which has a lot of servers running Windows. In commercial usage (banks, insurance, health-care), Linux is the lion's share, Windows is the rest, and all the others (the *BSDs, plus the proprietary Unixes like AIX, HP-UX, Sun's OSes, and zOS) are all at a percent or two, sometimes less.

Even looking at Netflix: The bulk of Netflix runs on AWS, and the a lot of uses Linux. There are some parts that use FreeBSD (the CDN), others that don't.

From a market share viewpoint, Linux has completely won the war on servers. On handhelds and desktops (which includes laptops), the story is different. And the embedded market is complicated.

But there is one thing that one needs to understand: The open source arena is dominated by professionals. Most open source contributions are made by people whose full-time job it is to write the software. Today, hobbyists are a very small fraction of open source. Fundamentally, the Linux ecosystem has become a way for a few dozen large companies (led by RedHat, now a division of IBM) to cooperatively develop software and share the cost.



> The real issue though (imo) is the lack of Open Source Hardware. ... I'd really like to see some investment in RISC-V, perhaps a kind of 'Linux' approach to the hardware world ...


No problem. If you have a few billion, you can invest it in open source hardware, and seriously compete with Intel. That's for example what AMD did, in their rebirth a few years ago: People invested a few billion in AMD, and AMD managed to get a market share of about 10-30% (depending on how you measure). I bet with a few hundred billion, you could actually create a serious competitor. Are you offering your savings account?

Sorry, but the amount of engineering required to create high-end chips (both the chip itself, and the fab and the integration between fabbing and chip design) is so huge, it is out of the realm of hobbyists, and small companies. And the chip industry has not seen fit to use their (very large) investments to create a cooperative environment. 

Why not? Here's my speculation: About 30 years ago, computer companies discovered that you can't make much money selling operating systems (with the exception of MicroSoft, which was actually making good money with Windows licenses). The people selling MVS, VMS, Primos, GCOS, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, SysVr4... were not making significant money off the operating system itself. Sometimes they made money by bundling (you get VMS for cheap when you spend millions on a VAX, or you get MVS for cheap if you by a 308x or 309x). Then Linux came, and within 5 years the bottom dropped out of the OS market, with the exception of Windows. That's why they were willing to give up control of the OS source code, since writing OSes is a (commercially) hopeless thing anyway.

But processor chips are different. Both Intel and AMD make an enormous amount of money by selling you CPUs. And don't get me wrong: they're not a ripoff. Those CPUs are really good, and they are also a good value: the people who need computers get enough economic benefit out of the computers that giving Intel or AMD about $1000 for a chip is a reasonable investment. The Intel/AMD duopoly was also such a good value that it has nearly eliminated all competition (I think PowerPC is the last server CPU left standing). In the last few years, the rise of Arm has changed the equation somewhat, in particular in the handheld/laptop market, but those high-end server Arm CPUs that the likes of Amazon and Google are using these days are not orders of magnitude cheaper than the equivalent Intel/AMD CPUs. So, big companies make big money selling CPUs. And making good CPUs is very investment intensive. A few decades ago, a handful of chip designers could build a whole microprocessor in a few months (the first 8-bit and 16-bit micros were created by small engineering teams); today doing a mainstream CPU takes a cast of thousands of highly trained and specialized people. Given that investment in IP and the expected profits, it seems implausible that companies will simply share it.


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 13, 2021)

ralphbsz said:


> Depends on how you measure "best". If you measure it by democratic means, namely market acceptance, then it is very very bad, with a market share that is somewhere around a percent, or much less.
> 
> 
> Yes, easily. Try googling for "android linux kernel source".
> ...


Trust me I understand that the semiconductor business is outside the possibility of all but the richest and most clever, but so were compilers and kernels at one point, and things change a great deal, we can flash rom so in a way we don't even need to have truly open hardware, as long as we can change the software but I think kernel developers would greatly appreciate more open hardware cooperation. And yes in many ways Linux is by far the most used in the modern world counting all those devices out there. Still a man can dream! I do believe that hardware should be open, huge barriers aside. Despite the huge barriers cpu architecture and microarchitecture have changed considerably and continue to do so, I wouldn't say that the current players will never be replaced, and maybe one day they'll be replaced by a company that has more interest in openness.

*Also android is far more than the kernel and you know this, go download the whole thing and compile it and tell me that was an easy process compared to compiling freebsd.


----------



## Vull (Oct 13, 2021)

ralphbsz said:


> Depends on how you measure "best". If you measure it by democratic means, namely market acceptance, then it is very very bad, with a market share that is somewhere around a percent, or much less.
> ...


I measure "best" as "fastest and most reliable" at deploying Apache, PHP, and PostgreSQL." Here FreeBSD wins by substantial margins. I don't care about popularity contests.


----------



## mark_j (Oct 13, 2021)

ralphbsz 
The thing is, all the companies you mentioned associated with these OS, like Prime, IBM, HP, Dec, Sun etc all produced their own chip(s) and hardware. They all sell/sold "enterprise" hardware and the software was tied to it. You couldn't run Solaris (SunOS) on a non-Sparc, or Primos on a non-Prime cpu. It was never about the OS software, hell some gave it away, like Prime or for a small fee (compared to the hardware), OpenVMS.  It was always about the hardware. You'd buy a Pyramid for north of $1million and they'd throw in Unix free. HP sold off OpenVMS and now vmssoftware is trying to port it to Intel because it was so tied to the dead Itanium and Alpha.

But, back on topic, mrbeastie0x19, yes, your best chance is with RISC V. The problem is the very small amount of hardware available is catastrophically high compared to cheap ARMs and yet just as able.


----------



## mark_j (Oct 13, 2021)

Jose said:


> Don't get me started. I'm fanatical about a clean computer screen. This one place I worked, people would come over and wanted to point things out on my screen with their fingers. I got tired of handing them pens, so I actually bought and old-school pointer that I would hand to them. I'm sure they're still making jokes about that to this day, but I don't care. My screen was fingerprint-free.  The idea of touching your screen _on purpose_ sends cold shivers down my spine.



In these days of covid, it would be triply so.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 13, 2021)

ralphbsz said:


> Depends on how you measure "best". If you measure it by democratic means, namely market acceptance





> For servers, Linux is unbeatable. On supercomputers (the Top500 list for example), it has 100% market share.



That should never be a mark of "best".



ralphbsz said:


> Even looking at Netflix: The bulk of Netflix runs on AWS, and the a lot of uses Linux.



On the business end, not serving their bread and butter video content delivery where FreeBSD rules.


----------



## Keltir (Oct 13, 2021)

roccobaroccoSC said:


> My personal opinion as a LineageOS user - it is a nice try, but in practise it sucks. It's hacky, only geeks would do it. Updating is a major hassle. And all interesting Apps are on Google Play only, so you are kind of stuck with a very limited set of apps.


I used to have Lineage OS on my phone some time ago. It's very hard to use it without google services: no glovo, uber and bunch of other apps work.
Recently I found another project -https://lineage.microg.org/ It's the same(almost) LineageOS + it has microG - opensource(?) implementation of google services. You can enable location plugin of choice and there you go - all apps(that I tested) will work again: uber, glovo etc. The big plus from this is you may not login to use this services which grants some privacy. On the other hand you are getting fully(almost) functional Android phone.
Ans you can use F-Droid for opensource apps and Aurora for non-open-source. Aurora itself is opensource and can be installed through F-Droid.
From my experience it's the most balanced way to keep some privacy and do not struggle a lot in day to day use.


----------



## D-FENS (Oct 13, 2021)

Keltir said:


> I used to have Lineage OS on my phone some time ago. It's very hard to use it without google services: no glovo, uber and bunch of other apps work.
> Recently I found another project -https://lineage.microg.org/ It's the same(almost) LineageOS + it has microG - opensource(?) implementation of google services. You can enable location plugin of choice and there you go - all apps(that I tested) will work again: uber, glovo etc. The big plus from this is you may not login to use this services which grants some privacy. On the other hand you are getting fully(almost) functional Android phone.
> Ans you can use F-Droid for opensource apps and Aurora for non-open-source. Aurora itself is opensource and can be installed through F-Droid.
> From my experience it's the most balanced way to keep some privacy and do not struggle a lot in day to day use.


Good stuff! I did not know about microG and Replicant. However, I believe these are just hacks and only for IT specialists. The truly free experience will come soon when we have the complete Linux phone for the masses. I believe this will be coming soon. And then it cannot be turned back. Once you have the Linux phone porting FreeBSD on it should be straight forward.


----------



## bsduck (Oct 13, 2021)

There's also https://e.foundation/e-os/ which is based on LineageOS and microG.

Never used it, so I can't tell how well it works.


----------



## tingo (Oct 13, 2021)

and postmarketOS, and ... there are so many of these projects, yet they all share the same challenge: supported devices are very limited - you can't install it on *your* device (unless you happen to have a (old) device which is supported laying around).

Think about the business model for "consumer devices" - what are these companies making money on? Well, they sell you a new phone every two or three years! So if everybody keeps their phone for five or ten years, these companies will not survive.

So, the suggestion of the OP is "make money by competing and providing support services.". Let's look at it: who makes money by competing? Professional athletes and teams, nobody else. (Of course there is a broadcasting industry that makes money from broadcasting rights and selling advertising, but that is something else).

That leaves us with companies who makes money from "providing support services". Let's see, the big one is Red Hat and there are several smaller ones in different countries around the world doing the same thing as Red Hat on a local scale, this seems to be a working business model so far. But these companies provide *software* support, not hardware support.

Anyone who knows about a company that makes money from (open source) *hardware* support services, raise your hand.

And remember the key point of a *consumer* device: it has to have a low enough price that lots of people will buy it...


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 13, 2021)

tingo said:


> and postmarketOS, and ... there are so many of these projects, yet they all share the same challenge: supported devices are very limited - you can't install it on *your* device (unless you happen to have a (old) device which is supported laying around).
> 
> Think about the business model for "consumer devices" - what are these companies making money on? Well, they sell you a new phone every two or three years! So if everybody keeps their phone for five or ten years, these companies will not survive.
> 
> ...


Well companies like Dell, HP, and IBM, Oracle (in the past with sparc) do make a lot from hardware support, and will continue to do so, I can definitely see it being a viable business model.


----------



## tingo (Oct 14, 2021)

mrbeastie0x19 said:


> Well companies like Dell, HP, and IBM, Oracle (in the past with sparc) do make a lot from hardware support, and will continue to do so, I can definitely see it being a viable business model.


Not enough to sustain the company (or that part of the company). Look at IBM for example: they have only kept the mainframe and the server hardware, the rest have been sold. And it's not because of hardware support that they keep the mainframe and server hardware business, it is because of the software (and to a certain degree the software consulting services) that they sell on that hardware.


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 14, 2021)

tingo said:


> Not enough to sustain the company (or that part of the company). Look at IBM for example: they have only kept the mainframe and the server hardware, the rest have been sold. And it's not because of hardware support that they keep the mainframe and server hardware business, it is because of the software (and to a certain degree the software consulting services) that they sell on that hardware.


IBM and Sun (well Oracle now) have always been a little more complicated in that sense. Speaking of IBM I think they now own Red Hat. Dell and HP are probably a better example (although HP does do software too, I don't know about Dell), but there are definitely companies that make money from hardware repairs and support.


----------



## ralphbsz (Oct 14, 2021)

tingo said:


> Look at IBM for example: they have only kept the mainframe and the server hardware, ...


Mainframe and Unix servers are indeed a portion of IBM's business, but a small one. Admittedly quite profitable, but not big.

IBM is a lot of things, but it is not primarily a systems company. It is much more a solutions company. Customers go to IBM saying "make my IT work". Parts of it, or all of it. At times, that used to include payroll and human resources processing (that part of IBM was eventually sold, I think it forms the core of Fidelity's human resources business), printing (I think that is now Ricoh), phone systems (IBM bought Rolm for that reason), programming, systems operation, and today cloud-based services. Spanning from desktop machines (including Thinkpads and support, today part of Lenovo) through data centers to supercomputers. Even today, there are large companies and government agencies where all of the data centers (including real estate for the data center and all staffing) are done by IBM. Some of those companies agencies have a CIO, but they are the only IT employee of the company: all they do is negotiate the contract with IBM. For the parts that IBM has sold off (like laptops), they have trusted supplier relationships. For example, there are companies where IBM provides all IT services, and IBM buys MacBooks from Apple and distributes them to the employees it's supposed to serve.

It's hard to understand that business when one comes from the hobbyist mindset of "I'll buy one piece of computing hardware at a time, and then do all the rest myself". In particular, IBM's hardware doesn't have to be the best or the cheapest one. Mainframes are heinously expensive, and are not all that fast for their prices. PowerPC servers were good and reliable, but they were always a bit pricey, and not that fast compared to the competition. But that doesn't matter: A big bank, insurance company, manufacturing company or government agency doesn't buy Whetstones or SPECmarks or Linpack. They buy solving their IT problems.

IBM is not primarily a supplier of hardware (like servers or printers). It's not primarily a consulting company that tells customers how to do IT. It's not primarily a software company that sells OSes, databases, middleware, application software, and zillions of other software products. Supporting the systems and software that it sells is a part of its business, but not the core. From an employee headcount viewpoint, the biggest part of IBM is actually business services, where IBM acts to some extent as a temp agency for IT staff - but renting out sys admins is not what makes IBM unique. None of those pieces are IBM; the totality is.

Or perhaps it used to be; I have not worked for IBM for ~4 years now, and I can see from a distance that it is shrinking further.


----------



## hardworkingnewbie (Oct 14, 2021)

mrbeastie0x19 said:


> I'd really like to see some investment in RISC-V, perhaps a kind of 'Linux' approach to the hardware world where device manufacturers all produce open source specifications which make money by competing and providing support services.


Trust me, there are heavy investments in RISC-V going on right now, they just are not put so much into the broad day light. 

Communist China is investing heavily in that technology to cut off technological ties to the west. This is the reason why nowadays the fastest RISC-V CPUs with the most cores originate China. 

There are also working ports of Android using that ISA. So I do expect the Chinese to push that chip quite much.


----------



## ralphbsz (Oct 14, 2021)

hardworkingnewbie said:


> Communist China is investing heavily in that technology to cut off technological ties to the west. This is the reason why nowadays the fastest RISC-V CPUs with the most cores originate China.


The same is true with ARM. Matter-of-fact, there is a big scandal brewing right now about China having seized the ARM IP. The question is: Will they be able to turn those efforts into a functioning chip/CPU/computer/IT industry?


----------



## astyle (Oct 14, 2021)

How come nobody mentions Raspberry Pi or PineBook in this thread?

Also, the Chinese efforts are called LoongSon. Linux maintainers did complain that their ISA is a blind copy of MIPS code. Phoronix also noted that benchmarking available LoongSon processors showed poor performance...

Some of that kerfuffle can be thought of as a result of Apple, Intel, AMD, NVidia, and other big players hogging the TSMC lines for smaller and smaller fab process sizes, so the older and bigger sizes are 'lefotvers' that the Chinese maker pounced on to make LoongSon.


----------



## ralphbsz (Oct 14, 2021)

astyle said:


> How come nobody mentions Raspberry Pi or PineBook in this thread?


Don't know about PineBook.

The Raspberry Pi is not particular "open". The core IP in the CPU is stock ARM, manufactured by Broadcom. Not open at all. The SoC is only partially documented, which is one of the causes why support for operating systems other than the Pi foundation's own Debian version (used to be called Raspbian) is often behind or incomplete.

What I hear about the Chinese MIPS clones is that they are technologically about a decade behind the west.


----------



## astyle (Oct 14, 2021)

ralphbsz said:


> Don't know about PineBook.
> 
> The Raspberry Pi is not particular "open". The core IP in the CPU is stock ARM, manufactured by Broadcom. Not open at all. The SoC is only partially documented, which is one of the causes why support for operating systems other than the Pi foundation's own Debian version (used to be called Raspbian) is often behind or incomplete.
> 
> What I hear about the Chinese MIPS clones is that they are technologically about a decade behind the west.


Dunno how eternal_noob would react to that...


----------



## eternal_noob (Oct 14, 2021)

I stopped worrying about things you can't control decades ago and i live a peaceful life now.
No more thoughts about CPU backdors, NSA wanting to bribe Torvalds to plant a backdoor in Linux, Black Hat hackers, etc.

If a CPU is either closed or open is far, far away. In the end it's all the same. All is evil.

I just don't care anymore.


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 14, 2021)

eternal_noob said:


> I stopped worrying about things you can't control decades ago and i live a peaceful life now.
> No more thoughts about CPU backdors, NSA wanting to bribe Torvalds to plant a backdoor in Linux, Black Hat hackers, etc.
> 
> If a CPU is either closed or open is far, far away. In the end it's all the same. All is evil.
> ...


For me I am actually less interested in the privacy or security concerns (although I think they have a point, if only in theory) I just like things to be open source because it's an interest of mine.


----------



## hardworkingnewbie (Oct 14, 2021)

ralphbsz said:


> The same is true with ARM. Matter-of-fact, there is a big scandal brewing right now about China having seized the ARM IP. The question is: Will they be able to turn those efforts into a functioning chip/CPU/computer/IT industry?


Nope, it's not true for ARM. ARM's IP belongs to a Japanese company called Softbank, while RISC-V IP belongs on the ISA's to nobody. So I somewhat doubt it for ARM.

Regarding your second question: maybe you haven't been following the news lately, but Communist China is pretty far advanced technlogically. For example they were the first to land a probe and communicate with a probe on the dark side of the moon. 

Right now they are building their own space station, because nobody wanted them to contribute to ISS. They got the engineers and the drive to achieve something, and if they want to achieve something, they usually do this very quickly.


----------



## astyle (Oct 14, 2021)

For me, the important part of open/closed is not even so much privacy/security, but more along the lines of technical capacity and your own shot-calling. For example, if the boot sector is properly documented,  it could be much easier to swap Android from your smart toaster, install NetBSD, and then tell it to open your garage door Alexa-style


----------



## ralphbsz (Oct 14, 2021)

hardworkingnewbie said:


> Nope, it's not true for ARM. ARM's IP belongs to a Japanese company called Softbank, while RISC-V IP belongs on the ISA's to nobody. So I somewhat doubt it for ARM.



It's more complicated. ARM's IP is owned by a British company called ... ARM (and I forget whether it's ARM Ltd. or ARM Inc. or exactly what the legal title is). That company in turn is owned by SoftBank, which is a Japanese venture capital company, investor, conglomerate, holding company, hedge fund (all of those descriptions fit more or less).

The problem here is that ARM had a Chinese subsidiary, which had a complete copy of the IP. And that subsidiary has recently announced that they are unilaterally "seceding" or disconnecting from their British/Japanese parent. And obviously taking the ARM IP with them. Read the various press reports about it: the net result right now seems to be that ARM China is controlled by Beijing, and has forked the IP.

Regarding the second question: There is a huge gap between high-profile prestige government projects (such as particle accelerator or space exploration), and mass-produced and economically viable technology. One of these days, over a beer, I shall tell the stories when I helped work on BEPC and BES, pretty accurately 30 years ago. The technology gap between the particle physics research lab in Beijing (where we were operating a western-class particular accelerator and detector) and the suburbs (where nearly all transportation was via bicycle, heating was coal, and bigger companies had their own coal-fired power plants to make electricity) was just astonishing.


----------



## mrbeastie0x19 (Oct 16, 2021)

Speaking of the expense of designing and manufacturing processors, and the specialist knowledge involved. This is precisely why some companies have a model of selling licenses for designs and leaving the manufacturing to others (e.g ARM). The design itself can be fully open source and saves a lot of work.


----------

