[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re: [f-cpu] Re: Project short description

Sorry to speak about non-space stuff, but here it goes :

We/you use VHDL. right ?
we use ASCII, ELF, DIMM modules
and lot of other standard parts, either EU standards
(wall plugs, food denomination, etc), Internal or
US standards. we can name a lot of IEEE standards, no ?

So what is the problem with a standard for a CPU ?
What money do you want from 'making a standard'
except the satisfaction that your computer (and all SW
thereogf !) is compatible with your neighbour's ?

Btw, even IEEE 'gives away' implementation examples,
as you can find Implementation Notes from mostly all
component builders. If you are electronician you certainly
even receive 'samples'. So what we do is not 'waste'.
We don't search 'monopoly' (which would justify a return
from the 'market').

F-CPU is to become a 'standard', a 'commodity', not
a milk cow. At least this is my opinion.
Comments welcome :-)


De: Juergen Goeritz <goeritz@oekomm.de>
>On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, nicO wrote:
>> Juergen Goeritz a écrit :
>> > 
>> > On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, nicO wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Personnaly i could see it when you want to create a product but a piece
>> > > of it is to big for you or you didn't want to spend to much money for
>> > > it. Your 'added value' aren't this part but the whole system. So you
>> > > decide to use the GPL to be help to design this none-so-important part
>> > > (from money back point of view). But then you use it to develop and sell
>> > > your product. As IBM : devellop Linux to sell even more computers.
>> > 
>> > To my experience it is the other way round. Most new software
>> > was derived from a preexisting work. IBM did take Linux because
>> > it was already what it was - a very stable system. It is no
>> > use, even for a big company, to develop the same thing anew,
>> > maybe except you already have a very big customer base. IBM
>> > lost their (PC) customer base already two times. I assume they
>> > also will manage that a third time...
>> > 
>> So you could see the developpement of the LEON. Europeen Space compagny
>> can't develop a cpu them self, so ESA payed for one. 
>No, ESA had a processor on SPARC V7 architecture licensed before
>which started to be too slow and inflexible for new developments.
>The idea now is to be able to build 'system on chip' designs for
>space. That's why they started to develop a compilable source
>code processor, the LEON. To be compatible to the old ERC32 they
>decided to stay with SPARC V8 architecture.
>There have been other designs, like Thor, that have not been
>used because of less performance as far as I know. 
>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
>unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/

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