“Please allow our machine to upload your development work directly to our servers in Schenzhen.”
I wonder if it’s possible to get a post about technology coming out of China without a “hurr durr they r spy!!1” comment. I don’t see the same every time there’s an article on a new Intel processor, for example.
Because China is not a normal country and all of its industry is controlled by the state. It desperately wants the world to forget that its the kind of country that runs over its citizens with tanks, uses forced labor and has hundreds of concentration camps, but it would be kind of silly to go along with that when it has not changed from that course.
Their long-term plan is to slow boil global opinion through a mass social engineering projects and propaganda into accepting that it’s ok and normal for a government to operate in the way that the CCP does.
As long as the CCP is in power anything it does should should be observed about with a healthy dose of suspicion.
Meanwhile the US has successfully made people forget about the revelations that Edward Snowden made.
You got them mixed with Israel. From malicious spyware and surveillance to running over civilians with tanks.
The difference is that the CCP has a lot of control over Chinese companies operations.
In the US, the companies have a lot of control over the US government.
Ok that’s an oversimplification, but it sounded good
https://news.yahoo.com/google-facebook-cooperated-nsa-prism-145643099.html
It’s not a better situation.
Is it unwarranted? Have Chinese tech companies turned a new leaf in their collective InfoSec practices?
Conversely, has Intel had a history of consumer privacy violations?
Example from Networking Hardware:
Cisco has had multiple cases where they likely built exploits for Government spyware into their devices. And they have far to many vulnerabilities which are found. This leaves two options: Either their security is so bad that intelligence always has backdoors ready and governments shouldn’t use them, or at least some are backdoors built in accordance to NSA demands and goverments shouldn’t use them. https://thehackernews.com/2016/08/nsa-hack-exploit.html?m=1
On the other hand Huawei, far less security issues, even offered to open their code for checking of backdoors and to let goverments check all updates. They are shunned by western governments and partially even banned.
Willing to bet money this was posted on hardware that actually does have backdoors to some 3 letter agency in the US, to much more personal consequence than any metaphorical Chinese government spyware
Yeah that’s exactly the thing, people freak out so much about China having access to their data, but act much less concerned when it comes to their own government potentially having access to said data. One of these options has the ability to affect your life if they don’t like your data, and it isn’t China.
(Not to get me wrong, I think no government should have access to one’s data, moreso pointing out the double standard)
Yup agreed.
China, like the US, hasn’t got the means nor the motive to track billions of people abroad; they both have a hard enough time keeping tabs on people domestically despite years of expanding their respective police states.
Of course there’s always the propaganda and soft power stuff but again, every single state is doing this, but the insinuation is that Europe or the anglosphere in general are the only propaganda-free places on Earth!
You mean you’re assuming that it will come with a backdoor in the hardware? Will that matter if the bootloader is FOSS?
Like… the Intel ME?? And no BIOS seems to allow the switch to disable it, even though that was literally required after the NSA sued Intel?
Coreboot disables most of Intel ME on x86 except the parts required for essential functions. It certainty cripples external access to Intel ME.
I believe it is a fair assumption that for embedded architectures like ARM and RISC-V, a FOSS bootloader will likely deal with state-sponsored backdoors if they haven’t been infiltrated themselves. This does not take into account baseband attack vectors because I simply don’t know much about wireless, but I’d imagine someone working on these projects likely has their eye on the funny stuff the NSA is likely to try here. RISC-V is FOSS, the NSA cannot legally require anybody to include a backdoor into the architecture itself.
finding RISC-V packages in standard repositories might prove problematic.
Gentoo would be ideal.
Idk, sounds too risky.
Can anyone explain the significance of this? I’m pretty technology-literate, but I am not seeing a big advantage of this over any other Linux machine? Genuinely curious.
RISC-V is a set of instructions implementable to processors that do not need licensing fees and controlling restrictions imposed. Due to its reduced instruction set; it uses less power in general but is harder to write compilers that work on it.
Having it more popularised opens up the doors for more enthausists to enter developing with it.
Harder to write compilers for RISC? I would argue that CISC is much harder to design a compiler for.
That being said there’s a lack of standardized vector/streaming instructions in out-of-the-box RISC-V that may hurt performance, but compiler design wise it’s much easier to write a functional compiler than for the nightmare that is x86.
The Vector extension has been ratified since 2021 it’s a standard part of the spec just don’t expect a random microcontroller to support it.
The SpacemiT K1 is 64GCVB and RVA22, doesn’t say which specific RVA22 there’s some without Vector support but it says in “GCVB” so w/e, also, “VLEN 256/128-bit x2 execution width”, if I’m parsing that correctly means you either get 256-bit vector registers or set the whole thing to 128 and then get (roughly) twice the ops/s.
And yes it’s much easier to emit vector code than to deal with the nightmare that’s SIMD. It’s as if Intel would’ve been sensible ages ago and not introduced SIMD but expanded on repnz stosb to make it useful for things other than memcpy. And no Intel has no excuse: Crays existed when they decided on SIMD.
Due to its reduced instruction set; it uses less power in general
If that is true I don’t think it can be attributed to it being RISC
RISC-V is an open source chip design. As of today, it’s still worse than x86 (a CISC—“complex instruction set” design) and ARM (a proprietary RISC—“reduced instruction set” design) but if history is any indication, open source will end up overtaking them in the same way that, for instance, 98% of supercomputers today run highly customized versions of Linux.
There’s also some political connotations surrounding it because some countries don’t want high-end chip designs to be available to their perceived competitors (whether for protectionism reasons or military reasons) but it doesn’t matter.
More info for anyone who wants it:
Linux, being open, can already run on RISC-V while Windows ARM laptops are only really coming out now. Not sure if they have plans for RISC-V. Apple has long used ARM in phones and now their M chip laptops. Reduced instruction sets tend to have better battery life and (originally) worse performance so were ideal for mobile but over time, Intel/AMD (desktops/laptops) and ARM (basically all mobile chips) have borrowed ideas from each other. So, Apple’s ARM chips can be powerful and Intel/AMD chips can be power efficient if that’s the goal.
So, the main advantage of RISC-V is that there’s no royalties or, in some cases, the baggage of aging designs that need backwards compatibility. RISC-I was originally designed as a teaching tool for universities that didn’t want to pay royalties for student toy models and wasn’t really a corporate thing. RISC-V is (the fifth version as the Roman numeral V implies), got good enough to be useful in the real world. And now there’s a consortium of companies funding it and hoping to one day not have pay royalties to make chips.
So, there’s a lot of momentum behind RISC-V. It could easily be the primary architecture someday or, if nothing else, reduce the royalty rates of the other architectures.
It is a Linux machine. Runs a Debian derivative, and it’s not like Windows or anything else that isn’t Linux/BSD can run on a RISC-V laptop.
This isn’t the first RISC-V laptop, but the significance of a RISC-V laptop existing is primarily for developers who work on software targeting RISC-V systems. The ability to run RV64 programs without emulation and to natively compile RV64 software without cross-compilers is valuable to some people. Also, China in particular sees value in having computing products that aren’t affected by sanctions; the processor in this is designed and manufactured by a Chinese company without licensing any intellectual property from US or UK.
Explaining what RISC-V is
RISC-V is a relatively newer CPU instruction set architecture that competes with x86 (Intel, AMD) and ARM (Qualcomm, Ampere, MediaTek, etc.). Its current designs don’t really match those two in general-purpose performance yet but has the distinction of being a free, open, and extendable standard. Whereas x86 has only two CPU vendors and ARM has many vendors who all need to pay per-core license fees to ARM Holdings and have limits imposed on what they can do to it, RISC-V processors can be made by any hardware vendor with the means to make a processor and can be custom-designed to better fit specialized use-cases. Its use in general-purpose CPUs is catching on fastest in China but it sees use across the world in academia and in special-purpose processors by companies like Western Digital.
RISC and CISC are two language which your CPU speaks, and which have different strengths and weaknesses. Reduced Instruction Set Computer vs. Complex Instruction Set Computer. It’s something like Chinese vs. English. Either have a word for everything but that means there is a lot of words to learn, or have a smaller amount of words but that means you need more words to describe what you mean.
Highly technical; both been around for a while, and iirc usually CPUs use CISC, but RISC always retained it’s strengths, so scientists are always looking into the difference in application for both.
Ngl I have no clue why this technology is so newsworthy rn but I know Western countries made a fuss about China activitely pushing the lesser used RISC architecture.
Ngl I have no clue why this technology is so newsworthy rn
It’s because of openness/royalties.
RISC-V is an open standard instruction set architecture based on RISC principles. RISC itself is just a design type. ARM is based on RISC too, but it’s proprietary.
I assume you are familiar with what CPU architecture is. The famous one is x86 and ARM. This is just another one of those called RISC-V.
The significance is mostly political. US and allies have been trying to sanction China technologically. They even tried to block export of RISC-V, but since it is open source, they can just get fucked. Now, China can only get sub par GPU and limited CPU. Pushing for RISC-V means China is aiming to further develop it to be as capable as the CPU being sanctioned effectively making the sanction useless and even furthering Chinese manufacturing capabilities in the process.
The big advantage is that this is technically more standardized and free. Unlike ARM which require license, RISC-V doesn’t so anyone can make their own CPU and get the software support already in place. Hopefully more CPU manufacturers will be created from the advancement of RISC-V making more fierce competition.
This will give you a basic understanding. Sorry for the YouTube link. It’s from the channel called Explaining Computers.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/Ps0JFsyX2fU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Im quite surprised that this wasnt pine64 bringing this out.
They just casually throw it into things like the pinecil, which people actually do hack on.
And yes, they do have RISC-V SBCs: Star64 and Ox64. And if you want something a bit more complete, there’s the PineTab-V.
