Re: [f-cpu] Status quo

[Nikolay Dimitrov <picmaster@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Yann,

On 03/28/2015 03:45 PM, whygee@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> It always starts like this ;-)

Do you remember OpenOEM? Most people probably haven't even heard of it.
And no, don't open Google to find it, because it's dead for probably
7-8+ years. It was a group that wanted to build a fully open and free
hardware platform. Well, in the course of 1-year discussions I finally
asked the group the right question: what would you choose, freedom or
performance? For me this is a fundamental question that has to clarify
the motivation of each participant.

I personally think that the F-CPU reboot should put some clear
high-level project guidelines that everyone should agree on, just to
keep project on track and moving forward.

> F-CPU started because some Linux kernel programmers were fed up of
> many stupid x86 idiosynchrasies...
> However RISC is not a feature, it's a philosophy and you can't make
> a computer simply by piling up "ideas" :-/

This reminds me of our long email discussions (and I really thank you
for your outstanding patience to all my "smart" ideas :D). I do realize
that it's hard to look at all modern CPU architectures and not to want
one or more design or implementation ideas included into your hobby CPU
architecture. But we need to be realistic.

Which leads me to one proposal: to improve the SNR of the discussions
and reduce the disappointment of people suggesting ideas, let's invent
a simple rule: suggest only things that *you can implement now*. Which
usually means - think twice before giving ideas, because you could be
the one leading their implementation.

What do you guys think?

Kind regards,
Nikolay
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/