OpenCores

OpenCores

One issue about free hardware

First

Prev

3/4

Next

Last

One issue about free hardware by Unknown on May 13, 2004			Not available!
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:55:03PM -0700, Erez Birenzwig wrote: [q] Hi Richard, When was the last time you read all of GCC code ? Or Python ? Or Perl ? Or Apache ? I can keep going.... [/q] Well, RMS wrote gcc, so I would hope that he read it too! :) [q] To conclude, I think that open source EDA tools is nice, but in reality most of the participant in this list, are either working for EDA companey, electronics engineers or students, for good EDA tools that can compete with commercial ones, you need a lot of know-how, and a good background. It's a lot harder to design and write then a new window manager or a new shell for windows. The problems are at a different scale, and most of the code is propriatry and not accessible. This makes the task very hard and you need very dedicated people to do that, espacially because the community is not as large. [/q] I was still in diapers when the GNU project started but I'm assuming that's the same argument that RMS ran into, ie 'Why develop a free Unix, it's going to be hard and there are already commercial ones out there?'. I wonder what a good term would be for the things that are currently described as 'IP' in the hardware field. Ie a common phrase is something like 'the memory controller is someone else's IP'. Maybe proprietary core vs free core? -- Alex Harford <A HREF="http://www.alexharford.com">http://www.alexharford.com</A> <A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">alex-spam at alexharford.com</A> Tel: (604) 738-5674 On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:55:03PM -0700, Erez Birenzwig wrote: Hi Richard, When was the last time you read all of GCC code ? Or Python ? Or Perl ? Or Apache ? I can keep going.... Well, RMS wrote gcc, so I would hope that he read it too! :) To conclude, I think that open source EDA tools is nice, but in reality most of the participant in this list, are either working for EDA companey, electronics engineers or students, for good EDA tools that can compete with commercial ones, you need a lot of know-how, and a good background. It's a lot harder to design and write then a new window manager or a new shell for windows. The problems are at a different scale, and most of the code is propriatry and not accessible. This makes the task very hard and you need very dedicated people to do that, espacially because the community is not as large. I was still in diapers when the GNU project started but I'm assuming that's the same argument that RMS ran into, ie 'Why develop a free Unix, it's going to be hard and there are already commercial ones out there?'. I wonder what a good term would be for the things that are currently described as 'IP' in the hardware field. Ie a common phrase is something like 'the memory controller is someone else's IP'. Maybe proprietary core vs free core? -- Alex Harford http://www.alexharford.com alex-spam at alexharford.com Tel: (604) 738-5674

One issue about free hardware by Unknown on May 13, 2004			Not available!
On Wednesday 12 May 2004 02:42 pm, Richard Stallman wrote: [q] So in my previous post, when I say "open-source", I really mean "free software". Your comments would be appreciated. Ok. The bigger problem is the complete lack of an free-software flow from=20 RTL to implementation. There is simply no GCC equivalent for=20 compiling digital logic -- every ASIC and FPGA designer is at the=20 mercy of [non-free] tools on the font-end. (My biggest pet-peeve is=20 FPGA synthesis. FPGAs have had dual-port RAMs for ~7 years now, yet=20 we still can't infer dual-port block RAM from HDL. Arggh!) One hurdle to free-software synthesis and place&route is proprietary=20 architectures. The major FPGA vendors refuse to disclose the=20 underlying details needed to for a quality PAR tool or physical=20 synthesis. Can people figure that out by studying some FPGAs' design structure, or does it change so often that it would be useless?[/q] The architectures are well known. It's the configuration bit stream and the timing characteristics that are hidden from view. The proprietary bit stream locks you into to the vendors tools; which are typically no-cost, but are certainly not free. [q] But oddly enough the biggest roadblock to free-software EDA is=20 ourselves. For some reason or another, there is an apparent lack of=20 interest and motivation. Just a few examples: 1. Every couple of months the topic of free-software tools arise. =20 Generates quite a bit of discussion, then dies as quickly as it=20 started. It always takes more than just superficial interest to get something to work. 2. With Confluence under GPL, I have yet to receive a single bug=20 report or source code contribution. What is Confluence, and what does it do?[/q] A functional programming language for digital logic and hard-real-time software design. The Confluence compiler emits C, HDL, and NuSMV: a language for formal verification (also GPL). [q] (I can't see access a web page except by sending mail, and I would not get the page contents it until the next batch of mail.) 3. Icarus Verilog, the foremost free-software Verilog implementation,=20 still only has one active developer. The FSF could put that on our list of projects to recommend people contribute to. Would the developer of it like to contact me? (If you know how to contact him, could you ask him to?)[/q] I second Bill's assesment of Icarus. Semantically speaking, Verilog is a pretty ugly language to implement. I applaud Stephen's efforts. [q] 4. The only semi-successful FPGA packing, placement, and routing=20 project haulted activity in March, 2000. What stopped it?[/q] The authors were acquired by a major FPGA vendor. (Bill, I'm refering to VPR.) [q] 5. The one person who came the closest to reverse engineering the=20 Virtex bit stream -- the critical step for physical synthesis --=20 became frustrated with the lack of support and interest from the FPGA=20 community, and finally closed shop on 12/24/2003. What kind of support did he need? Also, who does "FPGA community" refer to in this context? (I see multiple possibilities.)[/q] He sited opposition from the vendors, but that is to be expected. He probably needed moral support more than anything. That, and a free FPGA architecture. I was primarily refering to the small firms and consultants-for-hire that make up the bulk of FPGA designers. Quite a few have a weird attitude towards free EDA -- it's hard to explain. In short, he wasn't receiving any recognition from the group that could have directly benefited in the end. Promoting Confluence for the last 2 years, I clearly understand his frustrations. The audience is small, yet the commercial presents of EDA/FPGA is enormous. The marketing machines that drive $200K/software sales and $3K/chip sales are unlike any other industry. [q] Depending on what he needs, maybe the FSF could provide it, if you can put me in touch with him.[/q] Neil Franklin (neil at franklin period ch) <A HREF="http://neil.franklin.ch/Projects/VirtexTools/">http://neil.franklin.ch/Projects/VirtexTools/</A> -- Tom Hawkins Launchbird Design Systems, Inc. Home of the Confluence Logic Design Language <A HREF="http://www.launchbird.com/">http://www.launchbird.com/</A> On Wednesday 12 May 2004 02:42 pm, Richard Stallman wrote: So in my previous post, when I say "open-source", I really mean "free software". Your comments would be appreciated. Ok. The bigger problem is the complete lack of an free-software flow from=20 RTL to implementation. There is simply no GCC equivalent for=20 compiling digital logic -- every ASIC and FPGA designer is at the=20 mercy of [non-free] tools on the font-end. (My biggest pet-peeve is=20 FPGA synthesis. FPGAs have had dual-port RAMs for ~7 years now, yet=20 we still can't infer dual-port block RAM from HDL. Arggh!) One hurdle to free-software synthesis and place&route is proprietary=20 architectures. The major FPGA vendors refuse to disclose the=20 underlying details needed to for a quality PAR tool or physical=20 synthesis. Can people figure that out by studying some FPGAs' design structure, or does it change so often that it would be useless? The architectures are well known. It's the configuration bit stream and the timing characteristics that are hidden from view. The proprietary bit stream locks you into to the vendors tools; which are typically no-cost, but are certainly not free. But oddly enough the biggest roadblock to free-software EDA is=20 ourselves. For some reason or another, there is an apparent lack of=20 interest and motivation. Just a few examples: 1. Every couple of months the topic of free-software tools arise. =20 Generates quite a bit of discussion, then dies as quickly as it=20 started. It always takes more than just superficial interest to get something to work. 2. With Confluence under GPL, I have yet to receive a single bug=20 report or source code contribution. What is Confluence, and what does it do? A functional programming language for digital logic and hard-real-time software design. The Confluence compiler emits C, HDL, and NuSMV: a language for formal verification (also GPL). (I can't see access a web page except by sending mail, and I would not get the page contents it until the next batch of mail.) 3. Icarus Verilog, the foremost free-software Verilog implementation,=20 still only has one active developer. The FSF could put that on our list of projects to recommend people contribute to. Would the developer of it like to contact me? (If you know how to contact him, could you ask him to?) I second Bill's assesment of Icarus. Semantically speaking, Verilog is a pretty ugly language to implement. I applaud Stephen's efforts. 4. The only semi-successful FPGA packing, placement, and routing=20 project haulted activity in March, 2000. What stopped it? The authors were acquired by a major FPGA vendor. (Bill, I'm refering to VPR.) 5. The one person who came the closest to reverse engineering the=20 Virtex bit stream -- the critical step for physical synthesis --=20 became frustrated with the lack of support and interest from the FPGA=20 community, and finally closed shop on 12/24/2003. What kind of support did he need? Also, who does "FPGA community" refer to in this context? (I see multiple possibilities.) He sited opposition from the vendors, but that is to be expected. He probably needed moral support more than anything. That, and a free FPGA architecture. I was primarily refering to the small firms and consultants-for-hire that make up the bulk of FPGA designers. Quite a few have a weird attitude towards free EDA -- it's hard to explain. In short, he wasn't receiving any recognition from the group that could have directly benefited in the end. Promoting Confluence for the last 2 years, I clearly understand his frustrations. The audience is small, yet the commercial presents of EDA/FPGA is enormous. The marketing machines that drive $200K/software sales and $3K/chip sales are unlike any other industry. Depending on what he needs, maybe the FSF could provide it, if you can put me in touch with him. Neil Franklin (neil at franklin period ch) http://neil.franklin.ch/Projects/VirtexTools/ -- Tom Hawkins Launchbird Design Systems, Inc. Home of the Confluence Logic Design Language http://www.launchbird.com/

One issue about free hardware by Unknown on May 13, 2004			Not available!
On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 02:41, Richard Stallman wrote: [q] As I understand it you are proposing a thought experiment. Absolutely not. I suggested a method of verification in hope that it may be of direct practical use, sooner or later. Yes, when we trust neither the tools, the code, the fab line, or the design, but all the parties who contribute them. That is not a solution; we cannot assume that everyone we deal with is honest. One of the benefits of free software is that we need not assume this. We can see the results of other people's work; we are not constrained to depend on blind faith. It will be a problem, in the future, if we are constrained to placing blind faith in chip fabricators. Blind faith is not the solution, it is the problem. Some are arguing that it would be unfeasible for them to modify the chip design they are sent. If that is sufficient to avoid depending on blind faith, that's good. My suggestion is available in case it helps.[/q] Actually one solution for your "mistrust" problem is to build the computer and peripherals from FPGAs, and then synthesize and download the actual hardware descriptions yourself ! This might not be practical for everybody, but for "mission critical" systems (e.g. firewalls ?) this might be the only way to get a trusted system. Regards, rudi ======================================================== ASICS.ws ::: Solutions for your ASIC/FPGA needs ::: ..............::: FPGAs * Full Custom ICs * IP Cores ::: FREE IP Cores -> <A HREF="http://www.asics.ws/">http://www.asics.ws/</A> <- FREE EDA Tools On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 02:41, Richard Stallman wrote: As I understand it you are proposing a thought experiment. Absolutely not. I suggested a method of verification in hope that it may be of direct practical use, sooner or later. Yes, when we trust neither the tools, the code, the fab line, or the design, but all the parties who contribute them. That is not a solution; we cannot assume that everyone we deal with is honest. One of the benefits of free software is that we need not assume this. We can see the results of other people's work; we are not constrained to depend on blind faith. It will be a problem, in the future, if we are constrained to placing blind faith in chip fabricators. Blind faith is not the solution, it is the problem. Some are arguing that it would be unfeasible for them to modify the chip design they are sent. If that is sufficient to avoid depending on blind faith, that's good. My suggestion is available in case it helps. Actually one solution for your "mistrust" problem is to build the computer and peripherals from FPGAs, and then synthesize and download the actual hardware descriptions yourself ! This might not be practical for everybody, but for "mission critical" systems (e.g. firewalls ?) this might be the only way to get a trusted system. Regards, rudi ======================================================== ASICS.ws ::: Solutions for your ASIC/FPGA needs ::: ..............::: FPGAs * Full Custom ICs * IP Cores ::: FREE IP Cores -> http://www.asics.ws/

One issue about free hardware by Unknown on May 13, 2004			Not available!
On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 02:42, Richard Stallman wrote: [q] The main problem is the use of IP (in the sense of "core") I hope that "IP" here does not mean "intellectual property". That term is exceedingly harmful when it confuses copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc. When it is used to describe designs, programs, etc., it is even more harmful, because it leads people to identify "code" or "circuitry" in their minds as "property" at such a low level that they have trouble even imagining any other way to look at it. If we seek even to encourage free designs, we must reject this equation--so we had better not go along with terminology that presupposes it.[/q] Well, I'm not sure I agree with your statements. Yes, IP does stand for Intellectual Property, and yes it is a confusing term. However, there are so far no problems from people on both commercial and educational side to use these free "IP Cores". -- rudi ======================================================== ASICS.ws ::: Solutions for your ASIC/FPGA needs ::: ..............::: FPGAs * Full Custom ICs * IP Cores ::: FREE IP Cores -> <A HREF="http://www.asics.ws/">http://www.asics.ws/</A> <- FREE EDA Tools On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 02:42, Richard Stallman wrote: The main problem is the use of IP (in the sense of "core") I hope that "IP" here does not mean "intellectual property". That term is exceedingly harmful when it confuses copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc. When it is used to describe designs, programs, etc., it is even more harmful, because it leads people to identify "code" or "circuitry" in their minds as "property" at such a low level that they have trouble even imagining any other way to look at it. If we seek even to encourage free designs, we must reject this equation--so we had better not go along with terminology that presupposes it. Well, I'm not sure I agree with your statements. Yes, IP does stand for Intellectual Property, and yes it is a confusing term. However, there are so far no problems from people on both commercial and educational side to use these free "IP Cores". -- rudi ======================================================== ASICS.ws ::: Solutions for your ASIC/FPGA needs ::: ..............::: FPGAs * Full Custom ICs * IP Cores ::: FREE IP Cores -> http://www.asics.ws/

One issue about free hardware by Unknown on May 13, 2004			Not available!
On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 06:50, Alex Harford wrote: [snip] [q] I wonder what a good term would be for the things that are currently described as 'IP' in the hardware field. Ie a common phrase is something like 'the memory controller is someone else's IP'. Maybe proprietary core vs free core?[/q] Thats actually a very good point. Perhaps this is a good time to create a new term. As I understand from Richards, post the words "intellectual" and "Property" are bad choices. So perhaps we should try to come up with a catchy name that can replace "IP". How about: 1) "Functional Block" or "FB" for short 2) one variant would be "Free Functional Block" or FFB OK, ok, I'm not being very creative this early in the morning, may be somebody else has some good ideas ? Regards, rudi ======================================================== ASICS.ws ::: Solutions for your ASIC/FPGA needs ::: ..............::: FPGAs * Full Custom ICs * IP Cores ::: FREE IP Cores -> <A HREF="http://www.asics.ws/">http://www.asics.ws/</A> <- FREE EDA Tools On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 06:50, Alex Harford wrote: [snip] I wonder what a good term would be for the things that are currently described as 'IP' in the hardware field. Ie a common phrase is something like 'the memory controller is someone else's IP'. Maybe proprietary core vs free core? Thats actually a very good point. Perhaps this is a good time to create a new term. As I understand from Richards, post the words "intellectual" and "Property" are bad choices. So perhaps we should try to come up with a catchy name that can replace "IP". How about: 1) "Functional Block" or "FB" for short 2) one variant would be "Free Functional Block" or FFB OK, ok, I'm not being very creative this early in the morning, may be somebody else has some good ideas ? Regards, rudi ======================================================== ASICS.ws ::: Solutions for your ASIC/FPGA needs ::: ..............::: FPGAs * Full Custom ICs * IP Cores ::: FREE IP Cores -> http://www.asics.ws/

One issue about free hardware by Unknown on May 13, 2004			Not available!
[q] As I understand from Richards, post the words "intellectual" and "Property" are bad choices. So perhaps we should try to come up with a catchy name that can replace "IP". How about: 1) "Functional Block" or "FB" for short 2) one variant would be "Free Functional Block" or FFB OK, ok, I'm not being very creative this early in the morning, may be somebody else has some good ideas?[/q] Me neither, but I'll try. 3) "Free Logic Block" => FLB 4) "Free Logic Core" => FLC :-/ Peco [q] Regards, rudi ======================================================== ASICS.ws ::: Solutions for your ASIC/FPGA needs ::: ..............::: FPGAs * Full Custom ICs * IP Cores ::: FREE IP Cores -> <A HREF="http://www.asics.ws/">http://www.asics.ws/</A> <- FREE EDA Tools _______________________________________________ <A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores</A>[/q] -- Juan JosÃ© "Peco" San MartÃn MicrobÃ³tica www.microbotica.es As I understand from Richards, post the words "intellectual" and "Property" are bad choices. So perhaps we should try to come up with a catchy name that can replace "IP". How about: 1) "Functional Block" or "FB" for short 2) one variant would be "Free Functional Block" or FFB OK, ok, I'm not being very creative this early in the morning, may be somebody else has some good ideas? Me neither, but I'll try. 3) "Free Logic Block" => FLB 4) "Free Logic Core" => FLC :-/ Peco Regards, rudi ======================================================== ASICS.ws ::: Solutions for your ASIC/FPGA needs ::: ..............::: FPGAs * Full Custom ICs * IP Cores ::: FREE IP Cores -> http://www.asics.ws/ http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores -- Juan JosÃ© "Peco" San MartÃn MicrobÃ³tica www.microbotica.es

One issue about free hardware by Unknown on May 13, 2004			Not available!
[q] On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:55:03PM -0700, Erez Birenzwig wrote: [q]> Hi Richard, > > When was the last time you read all of GCC code ? Or Python ? > Or Perl ? Or Apache ? I can keep going.... >[/q] Well, RMS wrote gcc, so I would hope that he read it too! :)[/q] About GCC, I guess I owe an appology to Richard, so I appologize for not knowing that you wrote GCC, which I use about once a week. I guess it's also a good oportunity to thank you :) [q] [q]> To conclude, I think that open source EDA tools is nice, but in[/q] reality most [q]> of the participant in this list, are either working for EDA companey, > electronics engineers or students, for good EDA tools that can compete[/q] with [q]> commercial ones, you need a lot of know-how, and a good background. It's > a lot harder to design and write then a new window manager or a new[/q] shell for [q]> windows. The problems are at a different scale, and most of the code is > propriatry and not accessible. This makes the task very hard and you[/q] need very [q]> dedicated people to do that, espacially because the community is not as[/q] large. [q]>[/q] I was still in diapers when the GNU project started but I'm assuming[/q] that's the [q] same argument that RMS ran into, ie 'Why develop a free Unix, it's going[/q] to be [q] hard and there are already commercial ones out there?'. I wonder what a good term would be for the things that are currently[/q] described [q] as 'IP' in the hardware field. Ie a common phrase is something like 'the[/q] memory [q] controller is someone else's IP'. Maybe proprietary core vs free core? -- Alex Harford <A HREF="http://www.alexharford.com">http://www.alexharford.com</A> <A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">alex-spam at alexharford.com</A> Tel: (604) 738-5674 _______________________________________________ <A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores</A> [/q] On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:55:03PM -0700, Erez Birenzwig wrote: > Hi Richard, > > When was the last time you read all of GCC code ? Or Python ? > Or Perl ? Or Apache ? I can keep going.... > Well, RMS wrote gcc, so I would hope that he read it too! :) About GCC, I guess I owe an appology to Richard, so I appologize for not knowing that you wrote GCC, which I use about once a week. I guess it's also a good oportunity to thank you :) > To conclude, I think that open source EDA tools is nice, but in reality most > of the participant in this list, are either working for EDA companey, > electronics engineers or students, for good EDA tools that can compete with > commercial ones, you need a lot of know-how, and a good background. It's > a lot harder to design and write then a new window manager or a new shell for > windows. The problems are at a different scale, and most of the code is > propriatry and not accessible. This makes the task very hard and you need very > dedicated people to do that, espacially because the community is not as large. > I was still in diapers when the GNU project started but I'm assuming that's the same argument that RMS ran into, ie 'Why develop a free Unix, it's going to be hard and there are already commercial ones out there?'. I wonder what a good term would be for the things that are currently described as 'IP' in the hardware field. Ie a common phrase is something like 'the memory controller is someone else's IP'. Maybe proprietary core vs free core? -- Alex Harford http://www.alexharford.com alex-spam at alexharford.com Tel: (604) 738-5674 _______________________________________________ http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

One issue about free hardware by Unknown on May 13, 2004			Not available!
Hi, Rudi. [q]> I wonder what a good term would be for the things that are currently described > as 'IP' in the hardware field. Ie a common phrase is something like 'the memory > controller is someone else's IP'. Maybe proprietary core vs free core?[/q] Thats actually a very good point. Perhaps this is a good time to create a new term. As I understand from Richards, post the words "intellectual" and "Property" are bad choices. So perhaps we should try to come up with a catchy name that can replace "IP". How about: 1) "Functional Block" or "FB" for short 2) one variant would be "Free Functional Block" or FFB[/q] I remember how I first reacted to the term "IP" as it's now used in the hardware cores field. I thought it was pretty dumb. I read it in EETimes. Guess who gets to define these terms? Not you and me, but the authors, and evil marketing guys at large companies. Frankly, unless we're going to have a huge marketing campaign (and the press goes along), it's too late to redefine the term IP. Other names I hate: 9/11. It's a date, not an attack. It also sounds like a Porsche. AI was a real winner. Imagine trying to duplicate human intelligence with a PDP-11. How about "custom" ASIC? Isn't that a contradiction? How about how we say a million dollars? I write $1M. The financial guys write $1MM. What's MM? Candy! How about FPGA vs. CPLD? Someone needs to beat up Altera and convince them that they actually make FPGAs. Here's a story about what happens when we keep changing the name of a thing... For years I tried to sell structured ASIC technology to silicon vendors. We had to come up with our own term, since there was none in common use. We threw our hat in with Chip Express and called them "Module based arrays". Lightspeed used a different term, just so they could pretend they invented the idea, and then of course LSI used yet another, and they still refuse to call their technology Structured ASICs. The silicon vendors though we were nuts for trying to sell them a thing they couldn't even describe with a simple phrase. My understanding is that the guys at EETimes got tired of our terms, and started calling them structured ASICs, which I think is a dumb name -- what does "structured" mean? Does it imply that traditional ASICs have no structure? The term is only a little more than one year old, but now everyone knows what it means. Now when I talk to potential clients, they know what I'm trying to sell. Getting a name for a thing is huge. The technology is at least 15 years old, but it took 14 years to come up with a name! While I'm bashing names I don't like, how about GNU? It's cool for hip college kids, but the term doesn't stick in the brain easily. Linux is much easier to say, and easier to learn (at least when pronounced like "lin-ux", rather than "line-ux"). Why do you think everyone says "I'm using Linux" instead of "I'm using GNU"? And what in the heck is that animal on the GNU web page? I bought a Linux Penguin for my daughter. She even calls it "Tux". I'm not sure I'd buy a toy animal I can't even describe. I know... it's got a name, I just don't know it! Unfortunately, all these terms I hate are what they are for (mostly evil) marketing reasons. Trying to fight them is IMO a lost cause. One term I like is RMS. It's not only a way to measure signals, it's a guy (Richard Stallman). Wow. He's got his own word! Now that's a marketing achievement. Also, it makes me feel cool, since I'm one of the in-crowd that knows what it means (ok, I don't know what M stands for). Even Bill Gates doesn't have his own word. Bill Hi, Rudi. > I wonder what a good term would be for the things that are currently described > as 'IP' in the hardware field. Ie a common phrase is something like 'the memory > controller is someone else's IP'. Maybe proprietary core vs free core? Thats actually a very good point. Perhaps this is a good time to create a new term. As I understand from Richards, post the words "intellectual" and "Property" are bad choices. So perhaps we should try to come up with a catchy name that can replace "IP". How about: 1) "Functional Block" or "FB" for short 2) one variant would be "Free Functional Block" or FFB I remember how I first reacted to the term "IP" as it's now used in the hardware cores field. I thought it was pretty dumb. I read it in EETimes. Guess who gets to define these terms? Not you and me, but the authors, and evil marketing guys at large companies. Frankly, unless we're going to have a huge marketing campaign (and the press goes along), it's too late to redefine the term IP. Other names I hate: 9/11. It's a date, not an attack. It also sounds like a Porsche. AI was a real winner. Imagine trying to duplicate human intelligence with a PDP-11. How about "custom" ASIC? Isn't that a contradiction? How about how we say a million dollars? I write $1M. The financial guys write $1MM. What's MM? Candy! How about FPGA vs. CPLD? Someone needs to beat up Altera and convince them that they actually make FPGAs. Here's a story about what happens when we keep changing the name of a thing... For years I tried to sell structured ASIC technology to silicon vendors. We had to come up with our own term, since there was none in common use. We threw our hat in with Chip Express and called them "Module based arrays". Lightspeed used a different term, just so they could pretend they invented the idea, and then of course LSI used yet another, and they still refuse to call their technology Structured ASICs. The silicon vendors though we were nuts for trying to sell them a thing they couldn't even describe with a simple phrase. My understanding is that the guys at EETimes got tired of our terms, and started calling them structured ASICs, which I think is a dumb name -- what does "structured" mean? Does it imply that traditional ASICs have no structure? The term is only a little more than one year old, but now everyone knows what it means. Now when I talk to potential clients, they know what I'm trying to sell. Getting a name for a thing is huge. The technology is at least 15 years old, but it took 14 years to come up with a name! While I'm bashing names I don't like, how about GNU? It's cool for hip college kids, but the term doesn't stick in the brain easily. Linux is much easier to say, and easier to learn (at least when pronounced like "lin-ux", rather than "line-ux"). Why do you think everyone says "I'm using Linux" instead of "I'm using GNU"? And what in the heck is that animal on the GNU web page? I bought a Linux Penguin for my daughter. She even calls it "Tux". I'm not sure I'd buy a toy animal I can't even describe. I know... it's got a name, I just don't know it! Unfortunately, all these terms I hate are what they are for (mostly evil) marketing reasons. Trying to fight them is IMO a lost cause. One term I like is RMS. It's not only a way to measure signals, it's a guy (Richard Stallman). Wow. He's got his own word! Now that's a marketing achievement. Also, it makes me feel cool, since I'm one of the in-crowd that knows what it means (ok, I don't know what M stands for). Even Bill Gates doesn't have his own word. Bill

One issue about free hardware by Unknown on May 13, 2004			Not available!
IP can be anything from soft cores to hard marcos, in software IP is a software library for example. So in "hardware" I'd stick to a common term "core" or "soft core". For cores that are free and open source, you can say "free core" or "open core". regards, Damjan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rudolf Usselmann" <<A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">rudi at asics.ws</A>> To: "Discussion list about free open source IP cores" <<A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">cores at opencores.org</A>> Cc: <<A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">rms at gnu.org</A>> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:15 AM Subject: Re: [oc] One issue about free hardware [q] On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 06:50, Alex Harford wrote: [snip] [q]> > I wonder what a good term would be for the things that are currently[/q] described [q]> as 'IP' in the hardware field. Ie a common phrase is something like[/q] 'the memory [q]> controller is someone else's IP'. Maybe proprietary core vs free core?[/q] Thats actually a very good point. Perhaps this is a good time to create a new term. As I understand from Richards, post the words "intellectual" and "Property" are bad choices. So perhaps we should try to come up with a catchy name that can replace "IP". How about: 1) "Functional Block" or "FB" for short 2) one variant would be "Free Functional Block" or FFB OK, ok, I'm not being very creative this early in the morning, may be somebody else has some good ideas ? Regards, rudi ======================================================== ASICS.ws ::: Solutions for your ASIC/FPGA needs ::: ..............::: FPGAs * Full Custom ICs * IP Cores ::: FREE IP Cores -> <A HREF="http://www.asics.ws/">http://www.asics.ws/</A> <- FREE EDA Tools _______________________________________________ <A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores</A> [/q] IP can be anything from soft cores to hard marcos, in software IP is a software library for example. So in "hardware" I'd stick to a common term "core" or "soft core". For cores that are free and open source, you can say "free core" or "open core". regards, Damjan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rudolf Usselmann" rudi at asics.ws> To: "Discussion list about free open source IP cores" cores at opencores.org> Cc: rms at gnu.org> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:15 AM Subject: Re: [oc] One issue about free hardware On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 06:50, Alex Harford wrote: [snip] > > I wonder what a good term would be for the things that are currently described > as 'IP' in the hardware field. Ie a common phrase is something like 'the memory > controller is someone else's IP'. Maybe proprietary core vs free core? Thats actually a very good point. Perhaps this is a good time to create a new term. As I understand from Richards, post the words "intellectual" and "Property" are bad choices. So perhaps we should try to come up with a catchy name that can replace "IP". How about: 1) "Functional Block" or "FB" for short 2) one variant would be "Free Functional Block" or FFB OK, ok, I'm not being very creative this early in the morning, may be somebody else has some good ideas ? Regards, rudi ======================================================== ASICS.ws ::: Solutions for your ASIC/FPGA needs ::: ..............::: FPGAs * Full Custom ICs * IP Cores ::: FREE IP Cores -> http://www.asics.ws/ http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

One issue about free hardware by Unknown on May 14, 2004			Not available!
A typical NIC card has one ASIC, doing all the logic processing, from receiving the packet to transferring it over the PCI bus. It has at least 100K transistors, do you feel like looking at them one by one through a microscope to make sure they are all doing what they suppose to do ? My suggestion was to develop a program to automate this process. It's all open source, I decline to describe my work as "open source" or discuss it under that heading, because "open source" is the slogan of a movement formed to reject the views of the free software movement that I support. See <A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html</A> for more explanation. A typical NIC card has one ASIC, doing all the logic processing, from receiving the packet to transferring it over the PCI bus. It has at least 100K transistors, do you feel like looking at them one by one through a microscope to make sure they are all doing what they suppose to do ? My suggestion was to develop a program to automate this process. It's all open source, I decline to describe my work as "open source" or discuss it under that heading, because "open source" is the slogan of a movement formed to reject the views of the free software movement that I support. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for more explanation.

One issue about free hardware by Unknown on May 14, 2004			Not available!
Just my two cents on terminology... An old evil marketing trick is to subvert other's terms and causes. It can work both ways... If people want to call their free software "open source", why fight them. It might be easier to encourage the use of "open source" to mean "free software" in casual use (as seems to be happening). It won't work. Our voice is much weaker than the voices of all the real supporters of open source philosophy. To spread the ideas of free software, the only method is to spread the term "free software". I think there's no danger of people on this forum getting confused by the term IP. Nearly everyone who uses the term gets confused by it, even lawyers who know better. Just my two cents on terminology... An old evil marketing trick is to subvert other's terms and causes. It can work both ways... If people want to call their free software "open source", why fight them. It might be easier to encourage the use of "open source" to mean "free software" in casual use (as seems to be happening). It won't work. Our voice is much weaker than the voices of all the real supporters of open source philosophy. To spread the ideas of free software, the only method is to spread the term "free software". I think there's no danger of people on this forum getting confused by the term IP. Nearly everyone who uses the term gets confused by it, even lawyers who know better.

One issue about free hardware by Unknown on May 14, 2004			Not available!
[q] Just my two cents on terminology... An old evil marketing trick is to subvert other's terms and causes. It can work both ways... If people want to call their free software "open source", why fight them. It might be easier to encourage the use of "open source" to mean "free software" in casual use (as seems to be happening). It won't work. Our voice is much weaker than the voices of all the real supporters of open source philosophy. To spread the ideas of free software, the only method is to spread the term "free software".[/q] That's fine, I suggest we'll use Free Software from now on to describe what I assume is the unmodified GPL license. [q] I think there's no danger of people on this forum getting confused by the term IP. Nearly everyone who uses the term gets confused by it, even lawyers who know better.[/q] Well, lawyers know what they want to know :) And IP in their mind is the patanet, or more likely, the money they'll make from registering it. :) [q] _______________________________________________ <A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores</A> [/q] Just my two cents on terminology... An old evil marketing trick is to subvert other's terms and causes. It can work both ways... If people want to call their free software "open source", why fight them. It might be easier to encourage the use of "open source" to mean "free software" in casual use (as seems to be happening). It won't work. Our voice is much weaker than the voices of all the real supporters of open source philosophy. To spread the ideas of free software, the only method is to spread the term "free software". That's fine, I suggest we'll use Free Software from now on to describe what I assume is the unmodified GPL license. I think there's no danger of people on this forum getting confused by the term IP. Nearly everyone who uses the term gets confused by it, even lawyers who know better. Well, lawyers know what they want to know :) And IP in their mind is the patanet, or more likely, the money they'll make from registering it. :) _______________________________________________ http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

One issue about free hardware by Unknown on May 14, 2004			Not available!
[q] Just my two cents on terminology... An old evil marketing trick is to subvert other's terms and causes. It can work both ways... If people want to call their free software "open source", why fight them. It might be easier to encourage the use of "open source" to mean "free software" in casual use (as seems to be happening). It won't work. Our voice is much weaker than the voices of all the real supporters of open source philosophy. To spread the ideas of free software, the only method is to spread the term "free software".[/q] That's fine, I suggest we'll use Free Software from now on to describe what I assume is the unmodified GPL license. [q] I think there's no danger of people on this forum getting confused by the term IP. Nearly everyone who uses the term gets confused by it, even lawyers who know better.[/q] Well, lawyers know what they want to know :) And IP in their mind is the patanet, or more likely, the money they'll make from registering it. :) [q] _______________________________________________ <A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores</A> [/q] Just my two cents on terminology... An old evil marketing trick is to subvert other's terms and causes. It can work both ways... If people want to call their free software "open source", why fight them. It might be easier to encourage the use of "open source" to mean "free software" in casual use (as seems to be happening). It won't work. Our voice is much weaker than the voices of all the real supporters of open source philosophy. To spread the ideas of free software, the only method is to spread the term "free software". That's fine, I suggest we'll use Free Software from now on to describe what I assume is the unmodified GPL license. I think there's no danger of people on this forum getting confused by the term IP. Nearly everyone who uses the term gets confused by it, even lawyers who know better. Well, lawyers know what they want to know :) And IP in their mind is the patanet, or more likely, the money they'll make from registering it. :) _______________________________________________ http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores

One issue about free hardware by Unknown on May 14, 2004			Not available!
[q] A typical NIC card has one ASIC, doing all the logic processing, from receiving the packet to transferring it over the PCI bus. It has at least 100K transistors, do you feel like looking at them one by one through a microscope to make sure they are all doing what they suppose to do ? My suggestion was to develop a program to automate this process. [/q] I believe the promlems in generating an automated program to do this have been explained in this thread more then once. As to the point of free hardware, unfortunatly, hardware cost money, it's not just buying a computer and downloading a free Linux variant from the internet, and you're ready to play with C. Hardware requires a bit more. Even if you take the two big vendors of FPGAs Xilinx and Altera, they provide propriatry software for free for all of the small FPGAs they sell. Once you want to design something larger then that, you have to buy their software. Their software include all the basic HW functions, from synthesis to place and route. The synthesis isn't the best, but it works. The second part to this is that you have to buy a development board, which usually cost some money, which is exactly the money most people don't want to spend. And if you want to actually use it for something, you'll have to buy another one, and so on. You can't just keep the result on the hard drive and use it when you feel like it. [q] It's all open source, I decline to describe my work as "open source" or discuss it under that heading, because "open source" is the slogan of a movement formed to reject the views of the free software movement that I support. See <A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html</A> for more explanation. [/q] Again sorry for the "open source" title. I also believe that the idea of free software is an interesting one. It doesn't change anything for most big companies though. Because most computer users don't know how to set up their computer (Either Linux, Windows or OS-X) you just change the business model, instead of selling software you sell services or solutions (e.g. Sun), and you hope that someone is developing the software you need, or you just do it your self. This business model is good for large companies, most small companies can't afford that and they will just collapse. Small companies can't write all the software they require, and there is a lot of software out there that doesn't exist as free software. There are many reasons for that, but the main one is, if it's not main stream it's not there. Erez. A typical NIC card has one ASIC, doing all the logic processing, from receiving the packet to transferring it over the PCI bus. It has at least 100K transistors, do you feel like looking at them one by one through a microscope to make sure they are all doing what they suppose to do ? My suggestion was to develop a program to automate this process. I believe the promlems in generating an automated program to do this have been explained in this thread more then once. As to the point of free hardware, unfortunatly, hardware cost money, it's not just buying a computer and downloading a free Linux variant from the internet, and you're ready to play with C. Hardware requires a bit more. Even if you take the two big vendors of FPGAs Xilinx and Altera, they provide propriatry software for free for all of the small FPGAs they sell. Once you want to design something larger then that, you have to buy their software. Their software include all the basic HW functions, from synthesis to place and route. The synthesis isn't the best, but it works. The second part to this is that you have to buy a development board, which usually cost some money, which is exactly the money most people don't want to spend. And if you want to actually use it for something, you'll have to buy another one, and so on. You can't just keep the result on the hard drive and use it when you feel like it. It's all open source, I decline to describe my work as "open source" or discuss it under that heading, because "open source" is the slogan of a movement formed to reject the views of the free software movement that I support. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for more explanation. Again sorry for the "open source" title. I also believe that the idea of free software is an interesting one. It doesn't change anything for most big companies though. Because most computer users don't know how to set up their computer (Either Linux, Windows or OS-X) you just change the business model, instead of selling software you sell services or solutions (e.g. Sun), and you hope that someone is developing the software you need, or you just do it your self. This business model is good for large companies, most small companies can't afford that and they will just collapse. Small companies can't write all the software they require, and there is a lot of software out there that doesn't exist as free software. There are many reasons for that, but the main one is, if it's not main stream it's not there. Erez.

One issue about free hardware by Unknown on May 14, 2004			Not available!
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 08:52:40AM +1200, Erez Birenzwig wrote: [q] The second part to this is that you have to buy a development board, which usually cost some money, which is exactly the money most people don't want to spend. And if you want to actually use it for something, you'll have to buy another one, and so on. You can't just keep the result on the hard drive and use it when you feel like it. [/q] Devel boards are getting cheaper, into the range affordable to university students and hobbyists. Please excuse the url wrapping: <A HREF="http://www.em.avnet.com/evk/home/0,1719,RID%253D0%2526CID%253D7816%2526CCD%253DUSA%2526SID%253D4746%2526DID%253DDF2%2526SRT%253D1%2526LID%253D4746%2526PVW%253D%2526BID%253DDF2%2526CTP%253DEVK,00.html">http://www.em.avnet.com/evk/home/0,1719,RID%253D0%2526CID%253D7816%2526CCD%253DUSA%2526SID%253D4746%2526DID%253DDF2%2526SRT%253D1%2526LID%253D4746%2526PVW%253D%2526BID%253DDF2%2526CTP%253DEVK,00.html</A> $499 USD for a board with 1.5M gates, PCI connector, VGA hardware, etc. -- Alex Harford <A HREF="http://www.alexharford.com">http://www.alexharford.com</A> <A HREF="http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores">alex-spam at alexharford.com</A> Tel: (604) 738-5674 On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 08:52:40AM +1200, Erez Birenzwig wrote: The second part to this is that you have to buy a development board, which usually cost some money, which is exactly the money most people don't want to spend. And if you want to actually use it for something, you'll have to buy another one, and so on. You can't just keep the result on the hard drive and use it when you feel like it. Devel boards are getting cheaper, into the range affordable to university students and hobbyists. Please excuse the url wrapping: http://www.em.avnet.com/evk/home/0,1719,RID%253D0%2526CID%253D7816%2526CCD%253DUSA%2526SID%253D4746%2526DID%253DDF2%2526SRT%253D1%2526LID%253D4746%2526PVW%253D%2526BID%253DDF2%2526CTP%253DEVK,00.html $499 USD for a board with 1.5M gates, PCI connector, VGA hardware, etc. -- Alex Harford http://www.alexharford.com alex-spam at alexharford.com Tel: (604) 738-5674

First

Prev

3/4

Next

Last

© copyright 1999-2025 OpenCores.org, equivalent to Oliscience, all rights reserved. OpenCores®, registered trademark.