Linux

48051 readers

838 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

Why hasn't anyone built an entirely free computer yet? (lemmy.world)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by Zeon@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hello everyone,

I've been wondering, why has no one built an entirely free (as in freedom) computer yet? For humans to be unable to share each other's knowledge to build one of the most important technologies ever created for society, how is it that we have yet to have full knowledge about how our systems operate?

I get that companies are basically the ones to blame, and I know there are alternatives like the Talos II by Raptor Computing, but still, how do we not have publicly available full schematics for just one modern computer? I'm talking down to firmware-level stuff like proprietary ECs, microcode, hard drive/SSD firmware, network controllers, etc. How do we not have a fully open system yet?

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

[–] astraeus@programming.dev 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This is the same argument you could use against any open-source projects. Software is much easier to open-source because the tools needed and barrier to entry are relatively minuscule. Hardware requires a lot of resources that take time and money to acquire. TSMC is fifty years ahead because they have had billions in research funds and have acquired the brightest minds of the past few generations, this still doesn’t mean that the technology of today is limited to highly advanced fabs the same way fifty years from now. Arguably all it takes is a dedicated team of highly-skilled hobbyists to make leaps toward open-source hardware more suitable for today’s requirements.

OP said hobbyists will never be able to make open-source hardware close to today’s scale, but it’s entirely possible for future generations to do just that.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

but it’s entirely possible for future generations to do just that.

I'm not sure you realize the level of precision required here. It's literally measures in nanometers.

Now I'm not in the habit of saying anything is impossible but that sure seems highly unlikely to happen in our lifetime.

[–] astraeus@programming.dev 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The fabs broke sub-micron well over 30 years ago, the biggest reason it won’t happen sooner in the public space is because most assume making it open-source is impossible. Technology hasn’t progressed because people said X (variable, not the social formerly known as Twitter) was impossible, it progressed because of the people who questioned that assumption.