<not-a-yuki>
risc5 can go two ways once the spec is finalised: it becomes the alternative ISA of big-iron datacentres (cuz they just got burned HARD by Intel), but remains fairly niche on the consumer side. Think MS would have to step in, but give it sorta Tier-I support and allow any suitable Win32 code to run (*unlike* Windows RT which was locked down to hell ffs)
<not-a-yuki>
As for me, I'm BSD. Linux community has gotten rather divisive over the years, if the absolute proliferation of niche distros wasn't a hint 🙃
<jn>
microsoft wasn't burned by ARM yet, so i don't see them turning to RISC-V
<jn>
not-a-yuki: the hardware doesn't care if it's running linux or BSD. what *both* need are an MMU and megabytes or gigabytes of RAM
<not-a-yuki>
oh it's a bit of an extended side note
<not-a-yuki>
but their current Acorn strategy looks like a dead end: Windows Mobile is finally dead, and current Nokia laptops (Surface 3+) are EM64T now
<not-a-yuki>
leaving Windows RT itself mostly orphaned
<jn>
ok, on a site note of a site note: strange, one of the things that scare me the most about BSD that there are at least three of them, which don't usually seem to merge each other's code, at least on the kernel side
<jn>
(whereas in linux, anyone who doesn't upstream their kernel patches is just wrong, and there is only one true kernel upstream ;)
<jn>
not-a-yuki: ok, then MS hasn't been burned hard enough by Intel and AMD
<not-a-yuki>
true, but the userland environment is immensely fragmented, kinda hard to support desktop use cases / this is why it does well in business
<not-a-yuki>
Linux that is
<jn>
i agree on linux userland being fragmented. biggest example: systemd and all the controversies surrounding it
<jn>
if i just subscribe and don't post anything, does that violate both rules? because if i don't post anything, then (1) i don't contribute useful information, and (2) i don't make any sort of announcement
<jn>
maybe the wording just confuses me
<Gamayun>
As I understand it, it just means that *when/if* you contribute information that is useful to other people, you put it in the wiki and refer to the wiki when posting to the list.
<jn>
ah, ok, now it makes more sense. thanks
<lkcl>
the jn: problem was that when arm-netbooks ml started, we had contributors basically info-dumping crap at the list
<lkcl>
critical information scrolling past and they were not caring in the slightest bit about the fact that you can't edit mailing list archives
<lkcl>
so i set a rule: if you info-dump, DON'T. put it ON THE WIKI and post a LINK
<lkcl>
static information is static information equals wiki
<lkcl>
discussion is discussion is a mailing list.
<jn>
ok. i'm going to start a discussion about something i noticed in the spec
<lkcl>
the two are totally different, and it's best expressed by the question, "is a read-only archive of a mailing list an editable collaborative document?" no of course it bloody well isn't
<lkcl>
jn: great! go ahead
<lkcl>
i'll review it, talk it over, and decide if the specification needs to be changed.
<jn>
do i need to wait until my ML registration is completed before i send mails?
<lkcl>
you're referring to the eoma68 specification?
<lkcl>
yes. stops spam
<lkcl>
done
<jn>
yes, the eoma68 spec, as published on the elinux wiki
<jn>
thanks
<jn>
it might turn out that i was just wrong. more on this after some thorough research
<jn>
an "I/O board" is a housing board, right?
oaken-source has joined #arm-netbook
oaken-source has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
<jn>
done. i think i didn't find a fundamental error, but rather just confusing/inconsistent parts, in the spec