[HN Gopher] GNU/Linux Open Hardware PowerPC Notebook Project
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       GNU/Linux Open Hardware PowerPC Notebook Project
        
       Author : type0
       Score  : 50 points
       Date   : 2021-09-18 17:58 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.powerpc-notebook.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.powerpc-notebook.org)
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | quanticle wrote:
       | Using PPC in a laptop form factor is a really confusing choice,
       | given that Apple abandoned PPC [1] in their laptops for Intel
       | because they judged that there was no way that IBM was ever going
       | to come out with a PPC chip that was ever going to be as power
       | efficient as the comparable Intel parts. Their "Why PPC" page [2]
       | makes no mention of power or thermal efficiency, and just states
       | that PowerPC is better because the original version of the ISA
       | was invented after x86 and ARM. By that logic Itanium is the best
       | ISA of all!
       | 
       | [1] https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/opinion-
       | technol...
       | 
       | [2] https://www.powerpc-notebook.org/why-powerpc/
        
         | lrvick wrote:
         | Many, myself included, would gladly take a major hit in battery
         | life if it means having a machine we can actually trust.
         | 
         | Trust means no ME backdoors, no random blobs which can be
         | supply chain attack vectors.
         | 
         | Freedom means I can do anything I want to the software and
         | firmware and repair anything as needed long term without the
         | consent of a corporation that has a financial interest in
         | seeing their hardware go to a landfill in 2 years so people buy
         | the latest.
        
           | neilv wrote:
           | How does the open/libre/trustworthy _potential_ of PPC and
           | Power products compare with RISC-V? Current, and near future?
           | 
           | This is something I've been wondering. It's started looking
           | like there will be a lot more hardware options based on
           | RISC-V. Thus far, PPC/Power has had better libre options due
           | to: https://www.raptorcs.com/ I hope there will be healthy
           | competition from open/libre/trustworthy and performant RISC-V
           | boards.
        
             | [deleted]
        
             | guerrilla wrote:
             | > open/libre/trustworthy potential
             | 
             | It's not just potential but actual: Those Raptor
             | workstations and servers already have coreboot firmware and
             | run Linux (and whatever BSDs run on PPC today.)
        
               | neilv wrote:
               | Agreed for _current_ , over recent years. But what about
               | _near-future_ , with multiple sources of performant
               | RISC-V CPUs? And will a larger variety of boards follow,
               | possibly including very libre ones like Raptor does for
               | Power?
        
         | heeeman wrote:
         | They are not aiming for the "ultrabook" form factor, but rather
         | the mobile workstation form factor.
         | 
         | According to the leaflet from NXP, the CPU has a "typical"
         | power consumption of ~15W - if that means under load, it would
         | be in the ballpark of Intel and AMD mobile CPUs, as far as I
         | understand.
        
         | pigeons wrote:
         | Because Open hardware.
        
           | autoliteInline wrote:
           | I figure someone might as well go whole-hog on that and build
           | a PC with just a big ol' FPGA.
        
             | flatiron wrote:
             | Fpgas are very unsuitable general purpose computers. De10
             | nano is a very beefy fpga and can barely play doom acting
             | like a general purpose 486 and lacks a fpga
        
               | autoliteInline wrote:
               | Oh well, I figured that a PowerPC Notebook was for
               | hobbyists.
               | 
               | What I would find fascinating is to think about languages
               | and OSs for FPGA and try to break loose from the utterly
               | boring C/Unix/68k,x86,MIPS,blah paradigm. Having
               | something turnkey with attachment to various ports and a
               | display would be kind of cool. Maybe that exists already.
               | 
               | I worked on a project with a processor-on-an-FPGA and
               | while it wasn't fast, the video codec in FPGA made it
               | useful. Kind of a neat thing I think.
        
               | flatiron wrote:
               | Ppc notebook is a thing because ppc has been "open
               | sourced" so you can just make ppc chips using great
               | documentation with nobody knocking on your door. As a
               | technology it's dead as a door nail but it's free as
               | speech.
        
             | lrvick wrote:
             | That is being done too for when trust REALLY matters.
             | 
             | See the Precursor.
        
         | _ph_ wrote:
         | I wouldn't think that PowerPC is ill suited for reasonably low
         | power designs. It is a RISC chip after all. And up to and
         | including the G4, they ran very well in the Apple laptops. Only
         | the IBM-made G5 was a very hot beast, perhaps because it pushed
         | the cpu frequency beyond the comfort zone for its process in
         | the attempt to keep up with Intel. But a fresh design with a
         | modern process could yield very low power and still well
         | performing chips. Even the Itanium, which had a reputation for
         | being power-hungry probably would be efficient enough to be
         | used in a smart phone, if ported to the TSMC 7nm technology.
        
         | duskwuff wrote:
         | What's even more confusing is their choice of parts. The NXP
         | QorIQ line is designed for use in networking hardware, not in
         | mobile devices -- it has limited power management
         | functionality, and, as best I was able to tell when I looked
         | into this last year [2], has _idle_ power consumption somewhere
         | around 7W, ramping up to 20W under load. It 's not especially
         | fast, either -- it's only got four cores at 1.8 GHz. Most new
         | cell phones will run rings around it.
         | 
         | My best guess is that they somehow decided on the PowerPC
         | architecture before evaluating what parts were available, and
         | realized too late that nobody makes mobile PowerPC SoCs...
         | 
         | [1]: https://www.nxp.com/products/processors-and-
         | microcontrollers...
         | 
         | [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24188796
        
         | zeckalpha wrote:
         | Apple has since moved off of x86 for similar reasons. The issue
         | is the fab process more than the architecture.
        
       | ronsor wrote:
       | I hope it's not big endian. A lot of modern software now just
       | expects everything to be little endian, and won't work properly.
        
         | johnklos wrote:
         | Yeah! Let's not fix the software and the bad assumptions some
         | programmers make - let's all just do what's simplest for the
         | bad programmers. What could go wrong? ;)
         | 
         | Seriously, there's zero reason why endianness should matter in
         | code. All good code compiles and runs on whatever endian system
         | you want. If it doesn't, then it's buggy and broken and should
         | be fixed, and whoever wrote it should be ashamed.
        
           | jayd16 wrote:
           | >Seriously, there's zero reason why endianness should matter
           | in code
           | 
           | How about wanting to share binary blobs between architectures
           | without spending the effort to marshal things.
        
           | userbinator wrote:
           | Big endian is backwards. Little endian is logical and
           | should've been the only choice from the beginning.
           | 
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9451284
           | 
           | The only real BE holdouts are networking hardware and
           | mainframes.
        
           | spijdar wrote:
           | I agree with this in principle, that good code should be
           | endian neutral, but if the goal of the project is to produce
           | something that's broadly useful as a "real laptop" then this
           | is a serious concern, as a _lot_ of software is either bugged
           | or straight up broken on big endian.
           | 
           | Fixing all the broken software and making all of GNU/Linux
           | bug-free is a noble cause, and one FOSS contributors all want
           | I'm sure, but people who are interested should know just how
           | much software is broken on BE. It's not a tiny handful of
           | packages. It's not a ton either, FWIW, but the broken
           | packages tend to be the larger, more complex application
           | software that IMO your average end user will want, especially
           | if you're marketing this laptop for general users and not
           | specifically to programmers or others willing to compromise
           | on software.
           | 
           | It's not an insurmountable challenge, especially 64-bit PPC
           | which works okay in BE, as there are enough diehard PPC64
           | users keeping the patches flowing to keep it working. But
           | some things will never work without incredible porting
           | efforts, and some of the things that work have issues.
        
         | monocasa wrote:
         | PowerPC has been settling on powerpc64le lately for that
         | reason. Is be surprised if little endian isn't at least an
         | option, if not the default.
        
           | spijdar wrote:
           | Unfortunately the SoC they've chosen, while technically
           | supporting little endian, doesn't include the VMX extensions
           | to the ISA IIRC, which all (?) distros require as they
           | generally assume ppc64le = POWER8 or higher, which include
           | VMX. There may be other caveats, but at the very least, you'd
           | need a custom distro to get LE working on it, with special
           | build flags used to restrict it to Altivec instructions.
        
             | monocasa wrote:
             | Everything I'm looking at says that the T2080 SoC they've
             | chosen contains e6500 CPU cores, which contain VMX units
             | (also known as AltiVec). Unless you're talking about later
             | additions to the VMX ISA, and not the VMX unit wholesale.
             | 
             | I'm also seeing the e6500 listed as Power 2.06 compliant,
             | just the same as POWER8.
             | 
             | AltiVec is just NXP's (nee Freescale's nee Motorola's)
             | trademark for VMX just like Velocity Engine is Apple's
             | trademark.
        
               | spijdar wrote:
               | I was mistaken, but the end result is the same. It's VSX
               | that's POWER7 and higher specific, which is an extension
               | of VMX/Altivec.
               | 
               | The reality is actually worse -- Altivec/VMX doesn't work
               | at all in little-endian on the e6500.
               | https://www.nxp.com/files-
               | static/training/doc/ftf/2014/FTF-N... (search for "big-
               | endian")
               | 
               | So an LE distro for the e6500 would have to built with
               | Altivec support disabled.
               | 
               | (The powerpc notebook guys mention this in their FAQ, but
               | sort of vaguely says that modern distros require "some
               | functionality" not provided by the e6500
               | https://www.powerpc-notebook.org/faq/)
        
       | Y_Y wrote:
       | That website is a trainwreck on mobile firefox. Two screen-
       | covering popups and wrong language detection.
        
         | csilverman wrote:
         | Agreed. They've disabled reader mode, too. Took one look at
         | that mess and decided I didn't care enough to even try tapping
         | the deliberately minuscule X buttons.
         | 
         | I'm at the point where I am so done with disrespectful websites
         | that I'm willing to forgo information I'd otherwise care about
         | just so I don't have to engage with them.
        
         | MrGilbert wrote:
         | Same on Safari. That's not how one should do it in 2021...
         | 
         | Welp, I'll just skip the article then.
        
         | duskwuff wrote:
         | Three popups on desktop, one of which collapses into a large,
         | persistent "chat" bubble in the upper left of the window.
         | 
         | Not to judge a book by its cover, but this certainly doesn't
         | speak well for the level of care put into this project.
        
       | threshold wrote:
       | These guys can't design a website I'm not giving them money to
       | build a laptop. And why PowerPC? And if they have prototypes
       | coming in October where are the photos? Not one photo of a PCB.
       | This is vaporware.
        
       | jrururufuf666 wrote:
       | cant donate in crypto, too bad
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-09-18 23:00 UTC)