Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ampere Altra vs. Amazon Graviton2 Linux Performance Benchmarks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    I agree that receiving code under a FOSS/FLOSS license does not obligate you to publish it.

    I am saying something different, however. If you receive code that you're not allowed to publish, that makes it non-FOSS/FLOSS. Again, because you are not Free to publish it.
    yes thank you for admitting that FOSS/FLOSS does not mean to publish the code in public.

    your second case... yes you are not allow to publish it in public if the code is not public domain or bsd or GPL ... but this is trivial fact and be sure if a customer with unlimited money will get public domain or BSD or GPL whatever they want.

    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Why? Is it just because they started with some GPL code and had no choice but to keep it under GPL?
    there are all kind of reasons. one reason is what you correctly said they startet with GPL code and because of this they where forced to do this.

    but this is very little and the reality is that there are much more reasons.
    for example if the GPL code is not because they startet with GPL but instead the contractor means the customer is sooooo soooo sooo big that they can dictate anything they want and if they want the code under GPL be sure they get it. and remember they do not do this to make it public in any way.

    so it is not like you said that your point (they started with GPL and because of this they are forced to) but instead some customers just get what they want even public domain code or BSD code or whatever they want (some customers have billion of dollars to spend they do not care about the price)

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    just get the point only because you pay a developer to code and he gives you the code in FOSS or FLOSS or Public Domain DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE FORCED TO MAKE THE CODE PUBLIC...
    I agree that receiving code under a FOSS/FLOSS license does not obligate you to publish it.

    I am saying something different, however. If you receive code that you're not allowed to publish, that makes it non-FOSS/FLOSS. Again, because you are not Free to publish it.

    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    many military code is like this ... yes you get GNU-GPL FLOSS code but in fact you will never make it Public.
    Why? Is it just because they started with some GPL code and had no choice but to keep it under GPL?

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    The "F" in FOSS/FLOSS stands for the word Free, as in Freedom, as in the freedom to modify and redistribute it. However, if the source code was provided under terms that prevent it from being redistributed, then it is not free. It is provided under a non-free license.

    Here's how the FSF defines free software:
    • The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    • The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
    • The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

    I'll give you another example: chip companies (such as DSP, image sensors, cell phone SoC, etc.) often sell chips along with source code showing how to use their capabilities, which the customer can modify and integrate into their own product. However, that code will come under a fairly strict license. In some cases, not only is the customer prevented from releasing the source, but they're even required to pay royalties for using it.

    TL;DR: simply receiving the source code from its author doesn't qualify it as FOSS/FLOSS. That depends entirely on how the code is licensed.
    you are just wrong lets assume it it real FLOSS in your definition but the manufaturer does not make it public... and the customer also does not make it public

    then what? FOSS/FLOSS does not mean "public"

    not even if the source code is public domain instead of FOSS/FLOSS this "public domain" yes it is the most free code you can get but in fact this also does not mean it is public.

    just get the point only because you pay a developer to code and he gives you the code in FOSS or FLOSS or Public Domain DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE FORCED TO MAKE THE CODE PUBLIC...

    many military code is like this ... yes you get GNU-GPL FLOSS code but in fact you will never make it Public.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    you do not get the point opensource does not mean public even if it is real opensource as long as the customer never make it public you will never see the code even it is real FLOSS
    The "F" in FOSS/FLOSS stands for the word Free, as in Freedom, as in the freedom to modify and redistribute it. However, if the source code was provided under terms that prevent it from being redistributed, then it is not free. It is provided under a non-free license.

    Here's how the FSF defines free software:
    • The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    • The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
    • The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

    I'll give you another example: chip companies (such as DSP, image sensors, cell phone SoC, etc.) often sell chips along with source code showing how to use their capabilities, which the customer can modify and integrate into their own product. However, that code will come under a fairly strict license. In some cases, not only is the customer prevented from releasing the source, but they're even required to pay royalties for using it.

    TL;DR: simply receiving the source code from its author doesn't qualify it as FOSS/FLOSS. That depends entirely on how the code is licensed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by f0rmat View Post

    Whether or not the source code is provided is "that depends." It depends on many things to include the nature of the sale, who the sale is to, why the sale is needed, and so on. In many democracies, it is not the military who approves the sale of equipment (though they do have to make recommendations), but it is the State Department or Foreign Ministry that makes the final decision (with approval of course from the President/Prime Minister and the legislative branch).

    And then there is the whole "dual use" technology - i.e. systems that can be used for military and commercial use. Two good examples are GPS and airplane control systems (i.e they are used on both passenger jets and military jets). Most of that is also proprietary and are considered trade (and possibly national) secrets.

    Many militaries use linux based code in their weapon platform control systems.

    I did not mean to get the thread off topic with my crack about comparing Apple M1s to the M1 tank.
    believe it or not there is a lot of real FLOSS/FOSS code what will never be in public.

    if a manufacture company does not make it public but make it real FLOSS gives it to the customer and the customer will also do not make it public you will never see the code in public.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Open source is not only defined by providing source to people receiving the code in binary form. It also dictates that what the customer does with the source be unencumbered by the provider.

    It seems to me that an arms maker would probably provide source code to its customers under a license (and NDA) which does not permit redistribution. Many companies do this. Even Microsoft has long provided its Windows kernel source to critical customers (like governments, and probably some infrastructure companies, etc.).
    you do not get the point opensource does not mean public even if it is real opensource as long as the customer never make it public you will never see the code even it is real FLOSS

    Leave a comment:


  • f0rmat
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Open source is not only defined by providing source to people receiving the code in binary form. It also dictates that what the customer does with the source be unencumbered by the provider.

    It seems to me that an arms maker would probably provide source code to its customers under a license (and NDA) which does not permit redistribution. Many companies do this. Even Microsoft has long provided its Windows kernel source to critical customers (like governments, and probably some infrastructure companies, etc.).
    Whether or not the source code is provided is "that depends." It depends on many things to include the nature of the sale, who the sale is to, why the sale is needed, and so on. In many democracies, it is not the military who approves the sale of equipment (though they do have to make recommendations), but it is the State Department or Foreign Ministry that makes the final decision (with approval of course from the President/Prime Minister and the legislative branch).

    And then there is the whole "dual use" technology - i.e. systems that can be used for military and commercial use. Two good examples are GPS and airplane control systems (i.e they are used on both passenger jets and military jets). Most of that is also proprietary and are considered trade (and possibly national) secrets.

    Many militaries use linux based code in their weapon platform control systems.

    I did not mean to get the thread off topic with my crack about comparing Apple M1s to the M1 tank.
    Last edited by f0rmat; 12 January 2021, 05:02 AM. Reason: Added dual use technology notes.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    they are FOSS/FLOSS but not public the manufacturer gives the source code to the customers who buy the tanks but they never purplish it to public.

    most people think opensource means public... no it it also opensource if an developer hands the source code to the customer and no one not the developer and not the customer ever make it public,
    Open source is not only defined by providing source to people receiving the code in binary form. It also dictates that what the customer does with the source be unencumbered by the provider.

    It seems to me that an arms maker would probably provide source code to its customers under a license (and NDA) which does not permit redistribution. Many companies do this. Even Microsoft has long provided its Windows kernel source to critical customers (like governments, and probably some infrastructure companies, etc.).

    Leave a comment:


  • microcode
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    also i have to tell you that RISC-V-GPU is already death all the projects about RISC-V-GPU switched to IBM POWER ISA...
    "all" the projects as in just one of them, which is complete vapourware? Esperanto prototyped a RISC-V based GPU and wrote a Mesa for it, seemed to do okay considering it was mostly a toy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by f0rmat View Post
    Interesting idea...phoronix.com could do a comparison of the software stack of the M1, Merkava, Leopold, T-72M, and T-90. They might also include - in a different test utilizing 150mm and up architecture - the fire control systems for the M109A6, 2S19, AS90, KRAB, Caesar, and G6. I think the only issue would be getting those software stacks. I might be wrong, but I do not think those software stacks are open source. At least, I have not found them in GitHub or anywhere else.
    they are FOSS/FLOSS but not public the manufacturer gives the source code to the customers who buy the tanks but they never purplish it to public.

    most people think opensource means public... no it it also opensource if an developer hands the source code to the customer and no one not the developer and not the customer ever make it public,

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X