> Bryan rants about ARM trying to go that way and thinks it's a terrible idea. I'm glad it's failing, assuming that's actually the case.
I'd be curious why because the PC model seems to be way more user-friendly, competition-friendly, and long-term-reliable than the current ARM model. I wish I could just download an ISO of Android 13 and install it on almost any Android phone like I could Windows.
The PC model worked because a lot of people put a lot of blood sweat and tears into making it work and then embraced the sunk cost fallacy to a degree only previously seen in politics and religion.
Open Firmware—between the device tree system and the bytecode driver system—plus ELF provide a truly universal boot protocol for 32-bit and larger systems. And not only that, major and tractable implementations are now Open Source too, including things like the bytecode compilers.
It’s practically unconscionable that modern ARM and RISC-V don’t simply require Open Firmware boot support.
In RISC-V, the boot model is standarized. There's SBI (from years ago, where the open implementation opensbi is used by most boards) and UEFI (implemented not in any random way, but after SBI runs, and as per the spec published earlier this year).
All the pieces are in place for RISC-V to effectively dodge boot chaos. Way before the server/workstation RISC-V hardware hit the market.
In ARM, it's a mess. Because ARM took way too long to do way too little re: boot standardization.
You also have to look at ARMs largest customers. This influences development and the most prominent aren't necessarily interested in ARM becoming a more open platform. Which it fundamentally isn't just as x86.
I'd be curious why because the PC model seems to be way more user-friendly, competition-friendly, and long-term-reliable than the current ARM model. I wish I could just download an ISO of Android 13 and install it on almost any Android phone like I could Windows.