Linux

47821 readers

939 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

137

How is RISC-V better than arm for Linux? (programming.dev)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Timely_Jellyfish_2077@programming.dev to c/linux@lemmy.ml

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Help me understand this better.

From what I have read online, since arm just licenses their ISA and each vendor's CPU design can differ vastly from one another unlike x86 which is standard and only between amd and Intel. So the Linux support is hit or miss for arm CPUs and is dependent on vendor.

How is RISC-V better at this?. Now since it is open source, there may not be even some standard ISA like arm-v8. Isn't it even fragmented and harder to support all different type CPUs?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago (3 children)

TL;DR: While Intel had their heads shoved up their ass making the Itanium architecture, AMD made a 64-bit variant of x86 that was backward compatible with the older x86 ISA. Technology moved on, and amd64 was adopted while Intel kept trying and failing to push their binary-incompatible architecture.

Eventually, Intel had to give up and adopt AMD's amd64 ISA. In exchange for letting them use it, Intel lets AMD use the older x86 ISA.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 42 points 2 months ago (1 children)

AMD were already using the x86 ISA long before amd64.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD

Intel had introduced the first x86 microprocessors in 1978.[51] In 1981, IBM created its PC, and wanted Intel's x86 processors, but only under the condition that Intel also provide a second-source manufacturer for its patented x86 microprocessors.[12] Intel and AMD entered into a 10-year technology exchange agreement

AMD were also second source for some other Intel logic chips before that deal.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I was only going for explaining why AMD still continues to have the license to the x86 instruction set in modern times, but I appreciate the added historical context to explain to others how they originally had the rights to use it.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 4 points 2 months ago

Itanium also failed miserably in performance and everything else it set out to deliver. While being ridiculously expensive.

[–] boredsquirrel 2 points 2 months ago

Crazy!