☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml to Technology@lemmy.mlEnglish · 5 months agoAmerica’s assassination attempt on Huawei is backfiringwww.economist.comexternal-linkmessage-square17fedilinkarrow-up127arrow-down114file-textcross-posted to: technology@lemmygrad.mlworld@lemmy.world
arrow-up113arrow-down1external-linkAmerica’s assassination attempt on Huawei is backfiringwww.economist.com☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml to Technology@lemmy.mlEnglish · 5 months agomessage-square17fedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: technology@lemmygrad.mlworld@lemmy.world
minus-squareerwan@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up8·5 months agoIt’s neither. It’s a specification that you can use to build your own chip. So it’s more like MPEG where you can read the doc and create your own implementation.
minus-squareGolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·edit-25 months agoToo technical; didn’t understand. I prefer RISC-V at this point
minus-squareerwan@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up3·5 months agoHow can you have a preference if you don’t understand?
minus-squareGolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·5 months agoYou didn’t say it’s fully open-source so RISC-V is better no matter how “open” ARM is
minus-squareerwan@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up4·5 months agoYes, on the licensing front RISC-V is better.
It’s neither. It’s a specification that you can use to build your own chip.
So it’s more like MPEG where you can read the doc and create your own implementation.
Too technical; didn’t understand. I prefer RISC-V at this point
How can you have a preference if you don’t understand?
You didn’t say it’s fully open-source so RISC-V is better no matter how “open” ARM is
Yes, on the licensing front RISC-V is better.