Re: Debian ARM success story: Debian desktop on a TS-7300
Bill Gatliff wrote:
> > Intel has many failures, some due to their close political alignments.
> ... perhaps, but mostly because they're in a very high-tech field and
> that stuff is HARD to get right.
True, but the wider linux community is flocking to AMD chips now,
particularly in the 64 bit
>> Very similar to why Bill cannot peddle his winbloz products in the
>> EU, Asia and many other places.
> Uhm, last I checked the main reason Microsoft is at odds with the EU
> is precisely _because_ they're peddling Windows (ok, in certain
> apparently unbecoming ways) in the EU and other markets. That's
> hardly "cannot peddle" to me!
Many governments, companies, and individuals in the EU avoid all things
Microsoft. It does not mean
that MS is not a player, they just do not OWN the EU like they do the
domestic (us) market.
>> DRM, of which Intel has played a key role in, is a huge black eye for
>> Intel. The rest of the world is looking at the arrogance of the MPEG
>> (et. al.) consortiums and saying, why don't we just do our on thing
>> in multimedia, hence, DRM is dead. Although manufacturers' will not
>> publish details, many products and chipsets have the ability to work
>> around DRM.
Internationally, many companies are starting their own video based
industries. In China, for example,
they just do not recognize patents, MPEG and the like. China has their
own H.264-lite that they
consider to unencumbered by MPEG and the US/EU courts. Good for China,
now you know where
to get H.s64 compliant technology....(Mpeg4-AVC).
> From the MPEG website:
> "MPEG is a committee of ISO/IEC that is open to experts duly
> accredited by an appropriate National Standards Body. On average a
> meeting is attended by more than 300 experts representing more than
> 200 companies spanning all industry domains with a stake in digital
> audio, video and multimedia. On average more than 20 countries are
> represented at a meeting."
> Wikipedia seems to concur. So who exactly is "the rest of the
> world"? Note also that ISO/IEC != USA.
See the previous snippet.....
> And I don't think DRM is a black eye for Intel, at all. They're
> producing what their customers are asking for, and some of those
> customers are large, multimedia conglomerates with money to spend and
> specific objectives in mind. I'm neither for nor against DRM, and I
> don't think Intel is either.
Agreed, DRM is dead except for those persons that want to be 'enslaved'
my the 'lackies' that
constitute the MPEG/ISO groups.
> The mainstream, consumer-oriented press has been largely silent on DRM
> especially as it relates to Intel AFAICT. So I don't see where the
> black eye that you're referring to is coming from, except the activist
> community... which has its own collection of baggage to haul around.
Ignorances is bliss? AMD is cleaning Intel's clocks in the markets they
share. Sure Intel, like Microsoft
will survive, but, they are in real danger of loosing the sympathies of
the larger computing
public, particularly in non-US markets.
> For the record, I'm a freelancer making a living doing Linux kernel
> development for embedded applications, some on Intel chips, some on
> others. So I'm hardly a shill for anyone except pragmatism, common
> sense and Free Software/GPL. And no, my views on DRM don't conflict
> with GPL. Sony/MGM/etc. have their sandbox, we have ours.
>> Low power is always important for density, cooling and mobile needs.
>> If Intel is dumping xscale (arm) That does not effect ARM's overall
>> appeal. TI now uses ARM cores with their DSPs in some hybrid
>> processors. as do thousands of semiconductor companies. When you
>> look at the mips versus power(consumption) arm processors are hard to
>> complete with.
>> And the arms scale down to 8 bit uPs, very cost effectively, with
>> hard to match performance.
> ARM is exclusively a 32-bit architecture now, and was a 26/32-bit one
> before that. It doesn't "scale down to 8-bit uP" chips at all. Just
> doesn't. But in some instances it does indeed hold its own price-wise
> with competing 8-bit chips. See Philip's line of ARM7 stuff.
You could not be more wrong. Lots of microprocessors (8 and 16 bit) use
arm cores. Very few
linux ports exist to any of the 16 bit arm cores, and those are usually
is huge in the 8 and 16 bit processor/SOC/ASIC markets..... Other
companies pass the
processors off as their own.
*Thumb offers the designer*
Excellent code-density for minimal system memory size and cost
32-bit performance from 8 or16-bit memory on an 8 or 16-bit bus
for low system cost.
*CAMBRIDGE, UK - Aug. 28, 2000 -- *ARM [(LSE:ARM); (Nasdaq:ARMHY)], the
industry's leading provider of 16/32-bit embedded RISC processor
solutions, today announced that Triscend has licensed the ARM7TDMI-S[tm]
synthesizable RISC microprocessor core."
Arm has it's roots in 8 bit cores, but pushes the 32 bit cores today.
You can licenses
8 bit processor technology form ARM LTD, or you could in the past......
They may have sold off or cross licensed their 8 bit cores which date
back to the 6502.
No point splitting hairs how one designates 16 vs 32 bit cores. I'll
even grant you that
ARM would probable avoid selling/licensing 8/16 technology today, but
business decision, not because they do not possess 8/16 technology. On
small 8/16 core technologies, may actually require an NDA from their
because they want to been seen (marketed) as a 32 bit technology company.
If I were the troll you allude to, I would have mentioned that Genesi
PPC best of show award form FreeScale, using embedded Gentoo.
peace to you and yours.