OpenBLAS Deciding Whether To Drop Support For Russia's Elbrus CPUs

[leipero]

Not if the EU stops buying Russian fuel. I don't believe that'll happen, but it'd be terrible for Russia, if it did.

Ok dude, chill out. And no, they can do without it as well, just shows your ignorance.

[coder]

Answer a couple of questions. Why is it possible to speak any language in Russia? And if a person speaks Russian in Ukraine, then they immediately belittle him and can kill him? Why in Russia no one calls to attack foreigners? But in Europe, attacks on Russians and Belarus are often heard from politicians? Why hasn't there been a single attack on foreigners in Russia and Belarus for more than a week? But there are thousands of attacks on Russians and Belarusians? Why do people in Ukraine in the media openly call for attacking Russians and justify the killing of Russians?

That's the price that must be paid by its citizens, if a country wishes to be an imperial power. Go back a couple hundred years and you would find the same truths about all of the major colonial powers.

[sanjaadzic]

Wow, a full-course meal!

That was derogatory straight from the beginning, right?

You don't seem to understand that NATO action in former Yugoslavia was to try and stop genocide. As it wasn't intended as a punishment, therefore it would make no sense to launch attacks for prior offenses. If anyone is still around to answer for those, such cases would need to be litigated through something like the International Court of Justice.

No, it was not to stop genocide. The genocide happened in Srebrenica 1995, and nobody stopped it. UN forces guaranteed security to Muslim people in Srebrenica, but when Serbs came, they just withdrew. What happened 1998/1999 was that better part of Albanian population left Kosovo, since Serb forces overcame their forces and started with atrocities, and they feared for their life. NATO intervened to make it possible for them to return. Pretty much alike thing happened to Serbs in Croatia 1995: they wanted independence from Croatia, fought for it for some time, lost, and then the population left in fear. Nobody intervened to have Serb civilians back in Croatia, though, so they never returned.

I think we understand your tit-for-tat multi-generational skirmishes just fine. However, ethnic cleansing isn't permitted by the United Nations Genocide Convention, unanimously adopted by the General Assembly in 1951.

See prevoius: why then Croatia is allowed to do ethnic cleansing of local Serbs in 1995?

My question is rethorical, of course. The point is that UN and all its declarations have no weight, it still happens what powers want. And what to expect from an organization where from the beginning there are five countries that are above others? So all your arguments where you say there is UN decision for that and there is NATO countries agreement to do this are moot. Bush lied the whole world, and US completely destroyed Iraq, end of story, does it matters that he had some formal approval of UN based on his lies?

Apparently not, given how some people are clinging to Civil War identities from more than 1.5 centuries ago.

That are more broader identities, maybe comparable with religions clashes that we have in Europe. For example, I've already mentioned that I'm a Montenegrin. There is about 650k of us, but we have our own country, our own history that we consider very rich, our own complex relationships with other etnicities on Balkans. To an American, I can imagine it's mind boggling.

First, what happened to Communist era Yugoslavia? Conveniently left out Tito, eh?

Tito was a great statesman, and Yugoslavia was a beautiful idea, IMO the only possible way to provide for a progress in this region. Unfortunately, apparently we weren't worth it, we weren't able to overcame the hatred. Serbia was the main culprit, but each other nation, except for Macedonians, had its share of guilt. Our punishment is that we all, except maybe for Slovenia, live today in banana countries, with deeply corrupt governments tied with mafia, with which EU seems perfectly happy with, as long as they provide no external trouble to them. So - not exactly a triumph of an interventionism approach either, if you ask me.

But you're also skipping over the whole UN involvement, which is an integral part. On October 9, 1992, the Security Council passed Resolution 781, establishing a no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, it seems like it was really the Srebrenica massacre of 8000 civilians in 1995 that really ramped up NATO involvement, since that's what prompted the UN peace keepers to have the power to order NATO air strikes, directly. That later gave way to Operation Deliberate Force, which was the first mass bombing campaign.

Yes, I skipped the whole UN involvment that was complete debacle, showing the whole impotence of UN. Just as you said, the genocide happened 1995, NATO bombing of Serbia 1999. What have you've been doing in the meantime? What does that should say to Ukrainians today?

Huh? "Far East"?

I'll grant you that Iraq was a bad move, though we've already discussed that.

(I hope it was understood I intended to say "Near East".)

Well, that's convenient isn't it: You completely destroy a whole country, and then you say - oops, that was bad move, I grant you that. So when Putin retreat, and it will, Russian will say "oops, bad move", and all the world should be fine with what they did to Ukraine, and Putin can go back to his datcha and raise horses or chickens or whatever, and we should be all fine with it? Or only US presidents are amnested on any sort of responsibility?

Same for Afganistan, Syria, Libya etc. You point to Syria as success. I invite you to come and explain this success to all of these poor Syrian people that live in refugess camps or even in parks everywhere on Balkans, because they fled and Western Europe doesn't want to accept them now, and they have nowhere to return. This is also something that Ukraine people should have on their mind.

So, we can't try to stop genocide somewhere else, until we completely fix racism? Or oppose Russian military conquests while blacks are still lower on the economic ladder?

Not only is that illogical, it's also unreasonable. The world is a big, complex place. Nowhere is perfect, but we have to hold our aspirations high and catch each other when we stumble.

Think about it like this: a person with high ambitions will encounter some failures and short-comings, but ultimately achieve more than the person with low ambitions. If you're too concerned about ever falling short of your goals, then you won't try as hard. So, the idea is to have high standards, even if we haven't always met them.

What makes you think that you're entitled to try to stop what you think is genocide? Putin is also claiming all he's doing is trying to stop genocide. You were not able to solve slavery, that is something that most of the rest of world left behin in Roman times, up to XIX century, and even then you haven't solved it properly but have traces of this problem up to this day. And you think the rest of the world should believe you're capable of understanding intricate ethnic clashes that drag for centuries?

That's a poor analogy, for the following reason. Milosevic was committing his crime while he had this popular support. On the other hand, the theory of Systemic or Structural Racism tells us there are institutions that were built by previous generations that keep blacks and certain other racial minorities at a disadvantage. It takes time to dismantle those structures, and then more time to repair the damage they've done. Whereas if a leader goes out and slaughters 8000 civilians tomorrow, the people supporting him had contributed to that specific event, even if indirectly.

Milosevic had popular support because there is ages old problem with majority of Serbian people that they believe they always got the short side of the stick. Majority of WASPs in US have ages old problem that they think that they are above black people (and above the rest of the people in the world, for that matters). How about trying to solve racism problem by bombing white suburbs in few selected US towns?

You dare to speak about racism while defending ethnic conflict? That is disgusting.

Not to mention how absurd it is that you have to go back 50 years to find those laws and yet you criticize as if they're still in effect today.

No, you're just butt-hurt about getting bombed for allying yourselves with the murderous Serbs, like 30 years ago. You even said you like to hold multi-generational grudges. So, I guess that explains it then.

What makes you think I'm defending ethnic conflict? I'm just trying to point to all the double standards of a side that is IMO the guiltiest that this conflict will go on and on. When USSR intended to install nuclear missiles on Cuba 1963, US threatened it will start nuclear war, and USSR backed off. JFK is your hero for standing his ground at that moment. Now, Russia has alike concerns about Ukraine. You won't back off, but push Ukraine into the confrontation. You talk about right of Ukrainian people to protect themselves, that the sovereign country shall be able to decide for itself what it's going to do. Why Cuba was not allowed to decide for itself that, if it feels warm and fuzzy under the umbrella of Eastern Block nuclear missiles, that it's fine for them?

It's interesting how the answer to everything that is inconvenient for you is that all this happened in the past. 50 or so years ago in some parts of US it was forbidden by law to merry a person of different color, that was absolutely disgusting - oh, well that was some time ago. 20 years ago your government planted lies and tricked the whole world to allow them to destroy a country that the only sin was that it had an idiot of a president that your idiot of president had personal itch with because he thought he ridiculed his daddy - oh well, it happened. You stole whole your country from indigenious people, and genocided all of them - oh well, that was long in the past, and besides whoever left from them we allow them to run casinos today. Your wealth is built on work of black slaves, and you're treating their descendants as shit up to this day - oh well, we're working on it, you need to understand it's process. And so on...

Also, the US always tries to minimize civilian casualties. And it doesn't seek territorial expansion. So, those are two fundamental ways in which his conflict differs from any of the modern conflicts in which the US has been involved.

Back in 1999, Montenegro already distanced themselves, to the extent possible considering there is strong presence of Serbian military, from Serbian politics. This didn't stopped NATO from bombing Montenegro along with Serbia, even significant number of refugees from Kosovo looked for safe place in Montenegro. In a small city Murnio near border with Kosovo, NATO bombed a ridiculously small bridge and killed 6 people, 3 of which were children.

The most well known victim of NATO bombing in 1999 was 3-year old baby-girl, killed by casette bomb at her home. Her sin: her family was so poor that they could afford to live only in the poorest suburb that happened to be 1km away from a military airport that was the target.

Another case of civilian casualties was when a passenger train was bombed, without any particular reason - 20 casualties.

Also, Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Etc. That's how NATO tries to minimize civilian casualties. None of these cases was investigated, not even for the purpose of detecting the circumstances, to prevent something alike to happens before. I guess most of the pilots got medals for their involvment, and now live proudly.

So yes, you could bet I have my grudge from that bombing. This is also why I can undestand what people in Kiyv are going through at the moment, and that mainstream black-and-white Western approach is only going to extend their suffering (Serbia refused to withdraw and got bombed for almost 3 months because Russia was telling them they should stand, and West is doing the same as Ukraine at the moment, until they get tired of it and tell them to make the deal, just like Russia then told Serbia to give Kosovo away). And I bet that the vast majority of people in Kiyv and Ukraine just want this to end, even at the cost of Donbas and Crimea and whatever. It was just alike in Serbia at that time, it's far from the picture that the people unite against the agressor. But that majority of people is silent, moreover in Ukraine we have that government gave weapons to random people, not registered at military personel at all, and is considering arming convicts from prisons. And all this people is wandering through the streets of Kiyv right now. Milosevic at least didn't do anything like that, we that wanted the peace were fearing or army (that, btw, destroyed large part of land of my grandpa's property on the country side, because they choose to hide howitzers's there, and nobody gave a damn about it afterwards), but at least they were uniformed and weren't messing much with civilians, while any punk in Kiyv has arms at the moment and can shoot you and loot you claiming that you're Russian agent. But you conveniently choose to ignore this, and believe instead that every single Ukrainian is a freedom fighter that will engage with Russians as soon as he posts his latest pic in uniform on Instagram.

Yes, because a shooting-war with NATO, especially on Russia's doorstep, would likely escalate very fast. You don't really want WWIII, do you? You probably wouldn't like it, if it happened.

Of course I don't want WW3, that's why I'm writing all of this. But that way you written above, it summarizes your attitude to all of this: it's threatening and patronizing: either it will be as US said, or there will be WW3. So the only way to reply is: you wouldn't like it either, and that's not probably, that's for sure.

Well, about the only takeaway I got from this long rant is that you're still nursing a grudge from 30 years ago. Good luck with that.

I readily admitted about that grudge. The problem that US people may face in the future is that they don't understand how much grudge the large part of the world has against them. You have all of the above written by a person not in its young age any more, that for all of his career worked with US high-tech companies (I'm here because fast sparse linear solvers are my thing, and I care about OpenBLAS a lot), and actually spent considerable time in cumulative in various parts of US. So I deeply appreciate many aspects of US society, in particular education and tech. However, I'm equally deeply disgusted by US politics, that I find equally corrupt as everywhere else, and in this particular case I find it on the long term equally harmful as Russian aggression.

[microcode]

Russia is literally invading a neighboring state, which is worse than anything China has done recently.

Oh, so nothing like a massive genocide or anything? Explicit threats and movements toward annexing Taiwan? Also, nothing like arbitrarily imprisoning tourists and visitors to use as hostages to try forcing countries to release CCP-affiliated international criminals? Oh nothing like that eh.

Saudi Arabia is more of a fair comparison, but equally I can't remember seeing a Saudi open source contribution whereas Russians are fairly common, so maybe it just hasn't come up. Also, this specifically relates to support for a processor that probably isn't used outside of Russian defense contracts that specify local components, because there's literally no other reason to use it. I don't think anyone will look to remove contributions from Russian citizens to linux or KDE or whatever.

As for how widely used the chips are, that is not an object in most open source projects. How many people actually run Linux on System/z? The answer is: it doesn't matter, as long as there are maintainers. Discussions other than "do we ordinarily allow this sort of target in upstream?" are pure politics, and are a cancer on communities. I'm gonna say flat out that if Saudi Arabia had a state subsidized domestic SoC project, and it had upstream support in projects, I would not support this; not even if 90% of orders for the SoCs were for weapons used in disagreeable wars.

[hotaru]

I was 99% sure that Elbrus didn't have any real non-military use, but now an email that I received from Michael Shigorin has bumped that up to 100%.

a few highlights:

it's originated for solely military reasons back then.

I think Elbrus systems are still non-exportable,

PS: next time you choose to speak of Russian military,
watch this first: [link removed to not give neonazis YouTube views]
-- it is exactly lies, aggressiveness and ignorance that
have moved the world on the edge of extermination again.

I did find it hilarious that he linked to actual neonazi shit and then threatened to exterminate the entire world if people don't stop hurting the sensitive Russian military's feelings. that's some real cartoon villain shit.

[tuxd3v]

I was 99% sure that Elbrus didn't have any real non-military use, but now an email that I received from Michael Shigorin has bumped that up to 100%.

I don't know on what you are one..
The idea I have is that Elbrus is used by a small part of population in Russia, its used in the Datacenter, to provide Services/Storage, its used in the Telecommunications sector, and its also used by Universities in Russia.

Does Elbrus is used on Government installations?I don't know, does Intel/AMD/Nvidia is used in Government installations?possibly??

Does Elbrus is used in missile technology?
NO, Elbrus is not an embedded CPU, like ARM or Arc or MIPS, or other..

Have you saw the power consumption of Elbrus CPUs?
have you saw its size?
its huge, and consumes a lot of power.So is a definite NO to being used in weapons embedded systems.
They have better arch's for embedded systems...

however in the past till the 90s Elbrus was used in defensive missile systems, lets call them Radars, but Soviet Union ended and with it also the continuation of those developments,
Elbrus was never made for weapons, but instead for the Server, or workstation( currently can be used in Workstations too)..
And its not a cheap solution, the only way they can compete in the market is with Intel Xeon, on price only of-course.

[coder]

1. No one attempted to blow up reactors...
2. Nuclear facility is secured by Russian troops and taken over peacefuly on 28th of february with no incidents.
3. Ukranian Nazis infiltrated and attacked people who were securing the area and used training building for that.
4. Russians neutralized them causing minor fire in teh training building.

As others said, it's untrue that Russia took it on Feb. 28th and it's pointless for Ukrainians "attack people who were securing" it, given all the other targets available to them that post a more imminent threat.

Read the IAEA link I posted. Their only interest is to avoid a nuclear incident. They have no incentive to be biased.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pres...ion-in-ukraine

If you don't want to stop reading propaganda, stop spreading it,

Why you think Russia's media is anything other than propaganda is beyond me. Yeah, the whole world is lying about Russia's invasion except Russia. That really is up there with Flat Earth-level idiocy.

as I told you before, I have no interest to argue with people who don't know what they are talking about, I however had to correct misinformation such people are spreading here, it's my moral or ethical duty to do so.

I think you're still angry at NATO, and that's your real reason for trolling us.

[coder]

Second, I am not living in Russia nor am I Russian by citizenship and ethnicity.

Right. You already said you're Serbian.

BTW, one of my best mates is Serbian, but it doesn't sound like he shares your politics, at all. During university, he was protesting the war that you're still mad at NATO for ending.

Thrid, Russia have free media,

Free as in beer, not as in freedom. Russia has no independent media. It's all effectively state-run.

I'm kinda curious where are you from, you seem quite invested in this topic,

He already said Germany, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm obviously in/from USA, and not shy about criticizing my country and politicians when I think they're wrong. For example, in the mid-2000's, I thought Bush/Cheney were needlessly antagonizing Russia. I thought the Obama & Clinton's (secretary of state) attempt to reset relations with Russia was a good move. I thought it needed to be tried. However, maybe Putin saw that as a sign of weakness.

[coder]

Keep your propaganda for yourself.

Same, bro. Same.

[leipero]

Right. You already said you're Serbian.

BTW, one of my best mates is Serbian, but it doesn't sound like he shares your politics, at all. During university, he was protesting the war that you're still mad at NATO for ending.

Free as in beer, not as in freedom. Russia has no independent media. It's all effectively state-run.

He already said Germany, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm obviously in/from USA, and not shy about criticizing my country and politicians when I think they're wrong. For example, in the mid-2000's, I thought Bush/Cheney were needlessly antagonizing Russia. I thought the Obama & Clinton's (secretary of state) attempt to reset relations with Russia was a good move. I thought it needed to be tried. However, maybe Putin saw that as a sign of weakness.

Being a Serbian doesn't give you an imunity to being an idiot. Not even going to comment nonsense you are spewing here, I think I told you to chill.