Chinese OS and software ecosystem

tokenanalyst said:

How many versions we have of the BSD OS, how many linux distros,LibreOffice, MariaDB and so on? in open source, forking is more common that you can imagine, is one of the strength of open source, allowing some projects to survive.

Click to expand...

This attack on RISC-V and open source is epic flailing from tech troglodytes.
The issue is if they pass a law to shut down anyone from the US contributing to open source projects for national security reasons. That'll hurt the open source community a lot.

I don't think there's enough concentrated stupidity yet to ban US companies from working on RISC-V but it's getting closer, just need some more good chip news coming out of China.

supersnoop said:

You know how I know you didn't read through the article?

Click to expand...

I was thinking that they only attacked RISC-V specifically, damn they already strike FOSS in general.
Linux kernel, etc would be scrutinized

tokenanalyst said:

How many versions we have of the BSD OS, how many linux distros,LibreOffice, MariaDB and so on? in open source, forking is more common that you can imagine, is one of the strength of open source, allowing some projects to survive.

Click to expand...

No doubt and no dispute that forking is the strength of open source. But how many of these forks you mentioned are still active and considered successful? Not that many. And how many such forks are developed completely isolated from the origin? Probably even fewer.

Requirements on the tech skills to fork a Linux distro are relative low. Most of them just use the same kernel, same GNU tool chains, same set of user-space utilities and libraries, same GUI if it is desktop oriented, and same set of service software if it is for servers. Linux distros update the components all the time. They pull in the latest kernel, toolchains, user-space utilities, libraries and programs etc. to make new releases. I have done this myself back in the days and I don't see things have changed dramatically.

Yes it's a whoe different level of tech skills required to fork the Linux kernel for different purposes, such as realtime, or telco grade, or for massive clusters in Google/Facebook/etc. But do you see who are making and maintaining these forks? Google, Facebook, Telcos, auto makers, etc., i.e. the big boys with the money and talent.

Even these big boys don't carry the weight on their own. They do not maintain their own Linux kernel forks in isolation. They keep sync'ing with the upstream. They push their changes back upstream in the name of sharing. But you can also call that offloading. In this way, you can see that these forks are effectively new branches grown on top of their origins and they keep getting "nutrition" from the main branch.

In both cases of Linux distro and Linux kernel, the forks still live within the ecosystems. Now if your fork is completely cut off from its origin, i.e. the main branch, you will have to stand up and root on your own. It's going to be even more difficult if you are no longer in the ecosystem.

I am not familiar with BSD but I know it has a much smaller user base comparing to Linux. I doubt such a small user base can support many forks to thrive, not to mention forks that grow in dark corners without exchanges with the ecosystem.

MariaDB is a fork of MySQL. I haven't heard of another fork of either. Database is not my field. As far as I know, MariaDB is doing well because Oracel bought up MySQL and everyone disliks Oracle. Some of the main developers of MySQL joined MariaDB even. If your fork can get the main developers of the original project on board, sure you have a better chance of success or even better to surpass the origin. But that does not happen often.

SanWenYu said:

Yes you can fork it if you can carry it forward on your own and improve it further for your own needs. This happens and there are success stories of this approach.

But no all sanctioned entities have the required capabilities and capacities.

As I said in other posts already, that's not even the main point of such sanctions.

Click to expand...

If an OSS software is useful and needed by lots of people, someone or some companies will fund its continuous development
If the sanctions can't stop people from using and continue to develop OSS software, then what is the main point?

SanWenYu said:

Everyone knows that no ban works like a perfect valve without any leak. There will always be ways to "work around" bans. But authorities everywhere still instate bans here and there.

Click to expand...

This isn’t a leaky valve. This is politicians putting some duct tape on the Hoover Dam, then patting each other on the back, making press releases, and photo ops.

SanWenYu said:

Yes it's a whoe different level of tech skills required to fork the Linux kernel for different purposes, such as realtime, or telco grade, or for massive clusters in Google/Facebook/etc. But do you see who are making and maintaining these forks? Google, Facebook, Telcos, auto makers, etc., i.e. the big boys with the money and talent.

Even these big boys don't carry the weight on their own. They do not maintain their own Linux kernel forks in isolation. They keep sync'ing with the upstream. They push their changes back upstream in the name of sharing. But you can also call that offloading. In this way, you can see that these forks are effectively new branches grown on top of their origins and they keep getting "nutrition" from the main branch.

I am not familiar with BSD but I know it has a much smaller user base comparing to Linux. I doubt such a small user base can support many forks to thrive, not to mention forks that grow in dark corners without exchanges with the ecosystem.

Click to expand...

Not correct. With big money you can support it on your own in isolation. What is Windows NT after all? MS’ own kernel. Those companies are sharing Linux because it’s cheaper.

You think Tencent, Alibaba, PDD, China Mobile, Huawei, and Bank of China doesn’t have enough money and resources to create a national Linux fork if it was a necessity?

On BSD, there is a very famous fork of it, you may have heard of it… macOS… an offshoot of it is used on some kind of phone…

Anyway, not trying to make fun, just trying to point out how fruitless these politicians actions are.

If Biden's administration were to regulate U.S. companies' participation in the Swiss-based foundation in the manner lawmakers are seeking, the move could complicate how American and Chinese companies work together on open technical standards. It also could create hurdles for China's pursuit of chip self-sufficiency, as well as for U.S. and European efforts to create cheaper and more versatile chips.

Jack Kang, vice president of business development at SiFive, a Santa Clara, California-based startup using RISC-V, said potential U.S. government restrictions on American companies regarding RISC-V would be a "tremendous tragedy."

"It would be like banning us from working on the internet," Kang said. "It would be a huge mistake in terms of technology, leadership, innovation and companies and jobs that are being created."

Click to expand...

The lawmakers expressed concerns that Beijing is exploiting a culture of open collaboration among American companies to advance its own semiconductor industry, which could erode the current U.S. lead in the chip field and help China modernize its military. Their comments represent the first major effort to put constraints on work by U.S. companies on RISC-V.

Click to expand...

I looked over these statements and I don't see how this prohibits Chinese firms from working with or using RISC-V ISA. At best, they can prohibit Chinese firms from using RISC-V cores or features designed by American chip designers. I believe that would affect StarFive.

But China has prepared for this. That's why CAS is develop Xiangshan core. That's why Alibaba came out with its own RISC-V.

Especially with Alibaba, it has made the source code for its core completely open sourced for RISC-V community.

In terms of contribution, Chinese firms probably make as much additions to RISC-V as the rest of the world combined.

So, this seems to be a process that will only kill American firms participation in RISC-V.

That's why SiFive is complaining. They will get killed by this.

I think we should keep an open mind on how the US can possibly use RISC-V to sabotage China's domestic tech efforts, they are very smart and determined. This is one of the reasons why I believe China should always have a plan B ISA.

SanWenYu said:

Not saying it is as effective as the western authorities want but it still makes it harder for sanctioned entities to use the open source software.

Open source is not about the source only which is usually not enough to reliably reproducce the software. Not mention that once you lose the access to the project, you are on your own even if you fork it.

It is the like with hardware, having the blueprints does not necessarily enables one to reverse engineer and reproduce it 100%. There are uncodified know-hows in engineering.

Another case is the semiconductor tools. The US sanctions are not to take away what the Chinese fabs already have (we know the Americans would wish to achieve that, too). The goal of those sanctions is to keep China from getting the newer and better models down the road.

Click to expand...

How are you going to lose access to an open source project…? It’d have to be closed source for that to happen, otherwise getting updates is incredibly easy considering anyone on the internet can “git clone” the latest release and pass you the source code. Is the US going to build their own great firewall & monitor all traffic in & out of their side of the internet now?

It’s so very easy to use a third party country or VPN to get past these kinds of restrictions. They’d have to come up with far worse restrictions on the internet than China ever did to even slow it down.

tphuang said:

So, this seems to be a process that will only kill American firms participation in RISC-V.

Click to expand...

I wonder if that's the real goal of these American politicians. Maybe lobbyists for ARM and Intel are pushing for legislation that will sabotage RISC V under the guise of "national security".

Let me repeat myself one more time. I did not say weaponizing open source projects is effective. Just like with semiconductors, there are ways to find alternatives when the supply of certain component or tool is cut off. We have all seen how it has been worked out. When it comes open source software, I am sure the bans will be defeated sooner or later.

Also no need to tell me that git clone is all you need. Having the access to the source code is not enough. It is not unimaginable that the US can one day dictate that software projects hosted in the US cannot respond to any request from the sanctioned entities. Again there will be loopholes for sure if this does happen. But it'll still be a hurdle to overcome.

Yes export bans on open source projects will be a double-edged sword that will hurt the US itself. Well, semiconductor bans are double-edged sword, too, but it did not stop the US. It's hard to predict what a desperate regime will do.

I have said that anyone can create their own forks if he can afford it and are willing to spend the time and money. But it goes back to my point that the time and money add up as the cost of the fork that could have been spent on something else. Maybe that is one of the goals of the export bans. In other words, the US government might just wish that the export bans can kill you. If not, hurt you, or at the least slow you down.