> I think there's a huge difference between "take an existing system design, and declare it open" and "design a system in the open". This article isn't suggesting Intel make x86 open to all, for example. You get a completely different design when something is designed behind closed doors as a black-box product, versus designed in the open.
I don't - I believe there are an insufficient number subject matter experts conversant enough in processor design to provide the depth of auditing needed.
I'm not saying openness is good or bad (its usually good) just that its not a panacea here.
Re:Is it time for open processors?
by freedomben on Friday January 19, 2018 @11:02PM
(#16191995)
Is this the StarOffice you were referring to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarOffice
Is that still being hacked on? I thought most of the OO people moved to Libre Office
Linux and Windows have drastically different designs, based on how they grew up. Early Mozilla releases were open-source, but still "bore the scars of many rapid cycles of closed-source development" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mozilla_Application...]. From the recent news, it seems that StarOffice is finally becoming somewhat hackable for us mere mortals (who don't speak German). It's the process, more than the license. An open license enables an open process.
"Magic bullet" implies you've got something evil (x86, with bugs!) and want to magically transform it (x86, with no bugs?), but nobody is proposing that. It sounds more like they want to put Conway's Law to work for us (e.g., RISC-V).