Maybe worth noting that SPARC was (is?) licensable:
OpenSPARC is under GPL2.
386BSD was 1992:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.unix.bsd/c/TZ-gIRRHiXA/m/eA...
BSD/386, later BSD/OS, was 1993:
https://www.krsaborio.net/bsd/research/1993/0411.htm
A pic of a contemporary advert:
My impression is that there was also a bit of a culture clash. BSD was the white coat academic world and not very welcoming to outsiders. Linux was the dirty hacker style at a time where online collab became a thing.
And then there was the lawsuit that held back BSD at a crucial time in history.
Agreed, but my impression was of a more complex one than you imply.
There were a whole bunch of competing commercial Unix-like OSes in the 1980s.
But there were other prejudices as well.
In Proper Grown-Up Unix terms, PCs were toys, poorly-made weird little things that were no more than office equipment. So nothing worth using ran on the 386.
There was no local bus yet, no IDE or EIDE, slow AT expansion bus, no processor cache, and so on -- meaning a forest of proprietary or semi-proprietary extensions and buses and special slots. This opened up a market for a vendor to port to Brand X PCs and Brand X's own weird storage and display.
Enter Interactive Corp, which tried to combat this, and worked on Unix ports for various vendors' hardware. Expensive OS for expensive machines.
And there was SCO which wasn't proud, wasn't fancy, ran on commodity kit, and didn't try to be a general purpose OS like that white lab-coat brigade expected. So SCO Xenix worked, and you could run apps on it, but in the box there was no C compiler, no networking, no X11, nothing. It was a runtime-only OS and it was still expensive.
Everyone sneered at it but it did the job. I put in a lot of it.
Then if you weren't paying, someone else was who would never see the word "Unix", there were all the vastly expensive RISC boxes with their vastly expensive expansions and vastly expensive -- well, everything. Sun, HP, DEC, IBM, SGI, loads of company would sell you rooms full of workstations, single-user minicomputers with big screens. They cost as much as a house.
Actual BSD ran on actual minicomputers that cost as much as a small street of houses and those dudes wouldn't even look at PCs.
Which left a market for enterprising vendors squeezing Unix-like things onto low end kit.
Various flavours of BSD, including BSD/OS; SCO Xenix in both 286 and 386 versions; Interactive 386ix; several vendors' own-brand licensed Unixes, including Dell, later, an official Intel one that mainly ran on Intel's own pizza-box workstations.
And all the proprietary computer vendors entered the game too. Commodore did Unix for high-end Amigas; Atari did Unix for high-end STs; Acorn did Unix for high-end Archimedes; Apple did Unix for high-end Macs, allegedly originally just to get a US military deal; etc. etc.
All these are still $1000 per instance OSes though.
Then, universally scorned, MWC Coherent, a real Unix-like OS for $99... and QNX, which was apparently good but mainly focused on real-time stuff, and cost more than the casual could afford.
(As a European I never saw this but it was in all the ads in all the US mags. There was a lot of "cheap" American stuff we didn't get over here, like paid-for shareware. We had metered phone calls so no BBS scene. Only rich Americans got that stuff.)
Coherent was so good that AT&T accused them of theft and sent Dennis Ritchie around to check. He came back and said, no, it's legit.
And Andy Tanenbaum's Minix, a toy for students, not for real work, but essentially free with a book.
These latter indirectly showed that you _could_ copy AT&T's holy grail and make it work, so while Richard Stallman was building all the tools but choosing the wrong kernel and sabotaging the whole thing, along came this Finnish kid with his learning exercise, and excited beardies on Usenet said that it actually worked and it was at least as good as Minix and was getting to Coherent levels.
So the point is, there was a spectrum, from legendary machines made from purest unobtainium, to ludicrously expensive x86 stuff for very specific (and ludicrously expensive models) of PC kit, to the still ludicrously expensive SCO that got no respect, to "cheap" stuff that nobody had in Europe because it had no business purpose. There was legendary free stuff in America but it only ran on room sized computers that cost as much as a lottery win, so I never saw it. "Free" as in "it's free if you're so rich it doesn't matter."
And "free" shareware that was "free" as in "the phone bill to get it will cost more than just buying a commercial version in a shiny box".
But there _was_ a spectrum, from vastly expensive to "a small business will pay for this", down to theoretical stuff in America that you could dream about... which paved the way until the point where an ordinary PC was a 32-bit machine with a memory management unit and hundreds of megs of disk and several megs of RAM, and suddenly, this Lin-Min-Gnu-ix thing was doable, if you had a beard and a checked shirt with black jeans and wore hiking boots every day.
This replaced Interactive Systems 386/ix that I had been using on the same PC since 1987.
Try "a decade and a half".
AT&T itself ported UNIX™ to the Intel 8086 in 1978:
https://www.nokia.com/bell-labs/about/dennis-m-ritchie/other...
The 8086 was the first ever microprocessor to run Unix – before 68000 or anything.
The first release of MS, later SCO, Xenix was 1981.
https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-history-of-xenix
It was later ported to the 8086 in 1983 and 80286 by 1985.
https://landley.net/history/mirror/unix/scohistory.html
So Unix was running some 4 years before IBM launched the PC and Xenix was on the market by 2 years after launch.
That was a full 8 years before Linus got Linux 0.01 out in 1991.
UNIX is a 1970s OS; x86 PC Unix was a commercial 1980s product; Linux is a 1990s thing.
I lucked out and got a system with 16GB And 2x procs, added in the XVR-2500 and PcPro to play with. It’s also ex-Lockheed Martin which is fun/mildly alarming!
Since this thread is likely to draw knowledgable sparc people, there’s a totally unrelated question I have - I have a sun blade 150, and was looking around on the motherboard. There are few jumpers that say things like “x86 debug” or x86 rom something - and the socket is technically 378… and from what I can research, the chipset worked with x86… Was there a point at which the sun blade motherboard was setup to work with either sparc or x86?!
Not so crazy given AMD made a chipset that worked for both alpha and x86, and HP had the zx1 chipset that worked on itanium and hp-parisc?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_chipsets 750/760 both work for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_21264 https://www.openpa.net/pa-risc_chipsets_zx1.html
It was a neat party trick to take your ID card out of your terminal and walk down the hall, put it into someone else's and boom, have your session, but that was more rare than you might think.
All in all I think I would prefer a workstation.
Admins on the other hand, probably preferred these. If the thin clients were more like $100-200, this would have taken over the world. But they were more like $1000+. Sun considered that a bargain. Which shows you what Sun thought consumers.
For Sun hardware? I'm pretty sure that was a bargin
There was no way to build that for $100 to $200 at that time.
Our Cobalt Networks boxes were about $1k.
Take out the disk, add the display.
Just because the software makes it a thin client doesn't make the hardware cheaper.
It went for the equivalent of $2000 (which I later donated to a charity) and attracted quite a bidding war. Apparently at least one major airport (I won't say where or in which bit of the world) used one to control its landing light system and were, through a weird network of contractors, looking to buy more hardware for redundancy...
I have also put an IndyO2 SGI machine on eBay that similarly found a repurposed fate. We are now finally at the point where the machines I held on to as a teenager much to my mum's chagrin are now becoming highly valuable again!
This guy better not be using spell check with a tantrum like that tagged to his opening line.
Nowadays instead of carrying a smartcard you carry a slim 13" laptop and plug in a single USB-C cable from the docking station. Much better, yes. But just being able to plug in a smart card in a meeting room and get going instantly would be appreciated even today.
And in particular it would be amazing for that to work with a) huge monitors, b) audio and video.
Nice to see someone with the geekiness and wherewithal to really commit to the bit.
PaulHoule•2mo ago
hulitu•2mo ago
Citation needed. There is only 1 workstation maker with ARM: Apple.
Octoth0rpe•2mo ago
also, system76 has one: https://system76.com/desktops/thelio-astra-a1.1-n1/configure
also, dell: https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/desktop-computers/dell-pro-m...
HP is coming soon, will be called `ZGX Nano AI Station` apparently
Also lenovo: https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/workstations/thinkstation-p-s...
ndiddy•2mo ago
Octoth0rpe•2mo ago
The system76 one uses an ampere chip, but a discrete nvidia card; so not quite the same.
Generally I agree, I do not mix nvidia/linux. The point is that arm workstations are clearly being produced by many different vendors at this point.
ndiddy•2mo ago
afr0ck•2mo ago
cayleyh•2mo ago
PaulHoule•2mo ago
I sure as hell hope that if Qualcomm even comes close to parity with other platforms they change their name because I'm going to have a hard time associated Snapdragon and their other products with anything that is quality. So far these are for desktop CPUs what
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant
is for cars. On the other hand, Intel is doing everything it can to keep the x86 platform from advancing which will let even the laggards catch up.
lproven•2mo ago
This is true, but there's a consolation -- they suck much much less than RISC-V kit.
I run a bunch of nearly 15 year old laptops. I am not a performance addict. But I have not laid fingers on a RISC-V box I'd be willing to spend a morning on.
snvzz•2mo ago
The first RVA23 and development boards are coming.
Tenstorrent announced Atlantis in the RISC-V Summit, based on Ascalon microarchitecture and due 2026H1.
lproven•2mo ago
The thing is, I have been in this business for 38 years now, and people have been telling me this for at least 3 or 4 years now. Including face-to-face from industry chip makers.
Really, honestly, right now, next month, OK, next quarter, but definitely by next year, really, the next generation is coming and it will bring the speed. The performance is coming, really soon.
And in fact, it's dire. It's crap.
Apple has a huge lead with its Arm chips and although most of the team that made that happen went off to other companies years ago now, nobody else has caught up. Qualcomm isn't there, but it's closer than anyone else. Amazon's server chips look promising but they're huge multicore things, not desktop/single-user devices at all, and they're very expensive in standalone desktops like from System 76.
Nobody so far can equal what Arm can do in skilled hands, and I bought my first desktop Arm computer in 1989. I've known that the potential was there for over a third of a century because I was there at the start.
I have Raspberry Pi 3, 4 and 5 devices here.
Look at this thing: https://system76.com/desktops/thelio-astra-a1.1-n1/configure
It is one hundred times the price of a Pi and can it deliver 100x the single thread performance? No, it cannot.
Can any money buy a RISC-V that can compare to the performance of a $60 Pi 5?
I don't think it can, and promises of "jam tomorrow" don't cut it.
snvzz•2mo ago
From ratified spec to hardware on shelves, a 3 year delay has been consistent. This time, it should be no different.
I see no reason for RVA23 chips not to show up as promised next year, particularly with concrete announcements such as the one from Tenstorrent.
RVA23 is densely packed with everything that high performance micro-architectures need.
lproven•2mo ago
I approached John Ronco from SiFive who had just come off stage after a talk at the Ubuntu Summit in Rīga:
https://events.canonical.com/event/31/contributions/199/
... and asked him, telling him that I was the Linux reporter from The Register. He swore blind that I'd be blown away by the kit that SiFive would release the next year.
That was November 2023.
It didn't happen.
At the following Ubuntu Summit, I spoke to Nirav Patel right after he did this demo:
https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/18/riscv_framework_main_...
I tried that machine.
I tried to be charitable:
« It runs, it works, and even high-definition video playback is smooth, but this is not a powerhouse CPU. The machine we tried was sluggish and not very responsive. Even playing a single YouTube video, CPU utilization in the System Monitor was pretty high, and it was working hard when we tried moving the video window around. Minimizing it did reduce the CPU burden, though. Aside from video decoding, the machine felt less responsive than our old Raspberry Pi 3, to pick a more familiar example. In our opinion, RISC-V is not yet competitive with Arm in performance. »
We are another year on, and I just recently returned from the following Ubuntu Summit. I am still waiting.
snvzz•2mo ago
A RVA20 compliant chip, released in 2023. I have one of these (VisionFive 2, received February 2023) with a couple hard disks and ZFS, serving as home NAS. Between RPi 3 and RPi 4 in CPU speed, similar I/O as RPi 4.
Obviously not a speed demon, but it was the very first mass-produced RISC-V SoC.
>He swore blind that I'd be blown away by the kit that SiFive would release the next year.
Probably the Intel thing that never actually happened, despite there been test chips which is what your acquaintance likely was able to play with.
SiFive released something else instead, earlier this year, as stopgap. Based on their P550 microarchitecture, it is dramatically faster than JH7110, but of no particular interest to anybody not directly involved in RISC-V, as it lacks vector and thus isn't RVA23 compliant.
In 2026, it'll be 2023+3, and many usefully fast RVA23 core IPs (Above Zen1 performance) are expected to finally show up in development boards, although only the one from Tenstorrent has had a concrete announcement so far.
lproven•2mo ago
But so far, the promises have not come true, and I am a skeptic at heart.
P.S. what "Intel thing"?
snvzz•2mo ago
Horse Creek, a platform developed by a collaboration between Intel and SiFive.
Something happened behind the scenes, and it got cancelled.
Instead, SiFive released some development board with Eswin EIC7700 recently, to fill the gap.
lproven•2mo ago
bitwize•2mo ago