←back to thread

283 points walterbell | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.201s | source | bottom
Show context
darkamaul ◴[] No.45769289[source]
Better (or simply more) ARM processors, no matter who makes them, are a win. They tend to be far more power-efficient, and with performance-per-watt improving each generation, pushing for wider ARM adoption is a practical step toward lowering overall energy consumption.
replies(5): >>45769421 #>>45769508 #>>45769815 #>>45769973 #>>45772372 #
1. pjmlp ◴[] No.45769815[source]
With the caveat that ARM isn't a industry standard like PC has become, thus while propritary OSes can thrive, FOSS has a much higher challenge other than OEM specific distros or downstream forks.

Stuff like this, https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Microsoft-Corporation/dp/15723171...

replies(2): >>45770548 #>>45780610 #
2. antonkochubey ◴[] No.45770548[source]
There are the Arm SystemReady and ServerReady requirements/specifications that enable generic board support by the OSes.
replies(1): >>45770616 #
3. pjmlp ◴[] No.45770616[source]
Thanks, I thought we were still on device trees and little else.
replies(1): >>45771792 #
4. jakogut ◴[] No.45771792{3}[source]
Practically speaking, very few systems actually support SystemReady. There's an experimental port of edk2 for the Raspberry Pi, but some hardware is unavailable when using it.
replies(1): >>45772750 #
5. jabl ◴[] No.45772750{4}[source]
The ARM server platforms seem quite decent here? But yeah, pick any small dev board and I suspect it looks quite different.
6. pezezin ◴[] No.45780610[source]
It's weird that the book is titled "PC98", because PC-98 usually refers to NEC's line of x86 but not IBM PC compatible computers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-98

Which I think reinforces your argument: there were non-standard x86 platforms, but thankfully they died out. Given the situation of the home computer industry during the 8 and 16-bit eras, it is a small miracle that we ended up having an open industry standard.