On 10/30/24 23:21, Anon Loli wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 12:26:54PM +0100, Christian Schulte wrote:
>> On 10/28/24 22:53, Anon Loli wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 05:35:47PM +0100, Christian Schulte wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/24 03:01, Mike Larkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Every one of us who has worked in this area, at this level, has read those
>>>>> 800+ page documents. Sometimes they are many thousands of pages (eg the latest
>>>>> Intel SDM or latest ACPI spec).
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell us what you are doing and what you want to know and maybe we can point
>>>>> you to the right docs, but there is no short-cutting reading the reference
>>>>> manuals.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would really like to understand why this architecture stood the test
>>>> of time. Just because it boots in 8 bit CPU mode from the 70ties not
>>>> even capable of beating a 6502? Just because developers were not
>>>> continuously forced to throw away all knowledge and could build upon it?
>>>> Seems to be the reason. Intel tried to throw away legacy burdens and got
>>>> set straight by AMD. I am currently approaching page 4000 of
>>>> documentation. Shaking heads. Unbelievable. What I am lacking so far is
>>>> a current PCI bus specification. This seems to not be available to non
>>>> members who I am certainly not. Coming from a hardware background,
>>>> documents like this
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.intel.sg/content/dam/doc/datasheet/io-controller-hub-10-family-datasheet.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> clearly were a waste of time, at least when your goal is not to produce
>>>> mainboards. Well. Normally you would program devices directly. It even
>>>> contains write-once-by-firmware registers. It will take some time for me
>>>> to understand the reasoning behind this. Not questioning there are no
>>>> reasons for doing it that way. I am just trying to make me stop hating
>>>> that architecture. I am still failing at this task but I would like to
>>>> overcome this. At least it has linear address space. Oh. What a wonder.
>>>> Every 68k had this decades ago. Oh sorry. Your comments are very helpful
>>>> to me so far so thank you. Because the machine independent parts in the
>>>> kernel really are abstractions of formerly machine dependent parts,
>>>> understanding the worst case of those - namely x86 and amd64 - will help
>>>> me understand those. I am still in the process of reading x86/amd64
>>>> documentation even if it make me shake my head every so often.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> --
>>>> Christian
>>>
>>> I just wrote a whole big-ass e-mail about how hardware has been shit for
>>> decades now.
>>> I do not feel like rewriting all of it right now.... it was a genius e-mail.
>>>
>>> I fucking hate when my e-mail client goes bananas because it's terminal based.
>>> Fuck escape sequences and stupid retarded Unix.
>>> When do escape sequences actually work as intended? When?
>>>
>>> Anyways suckless.org rocks, and should be implied to hardware.
>>>
>>> Open Source is Insufficient to Solve Trust Problems in Hardware
>>> https://youtube.com/watch?v=Hzb37RyagCQ
>>>
>>> How do you know the hardware in front of you actually conforms to the hardware
>>> design you might or might not have?
>>> You can't, it's not like software, at least you can't with existing hardware,
>>> watch the video.
>>>
>>> Mud towers build on mud foundation are still mud and will collapse under mud.
>>>
>>> This was more-less the important stuff
>>> Fuck I hate re-writing emails fuck me!
>>>
>>
>> Fuck. Ass. Genius. You maybe want to watch the Youtube Channels of Ben
>> Eater [1] or James Sharman [2] for a starting point talking about
>> hardware and how to build a CPU from scratch using bread boards. Fuck.
>> Ass. Genius. Then start reading about what microelectronics is about or
>> even get a degree in microelectronics. Fuck. Ass. Genius.
>>
>> [1] <https://www.youtube.com/@BenEater/playlists>
>> [2] <https://www.youtube.com/@weirdboyjim/playlists>
>>
>> --
>> Christian
>
> Since I am autistic, I have trouble understanding when exactly someone is
> making fun of me or what tone they are using, especially trough text.
According to the messages you sent here this far, I pretty much doubt
you are suffering autism.
> For the sake of friendliness I shall assume that you said all of that in good
> spirit and were not condescending.
Everyone on these lists here will be friendly. You appear really rude. I
just used kind of the same words you are using. If this makes you feel
uncomfortable or even irritates you, what do you think those same words
make others feel about you?
> Fuck stupid retarded Unix.
Very nice posting this here. Thank you.
> Since I extremely-extremely love problem solving - creating and debugging
> hardware ought to be fun!
Then just brew your own circuits in your kitchen with a density of 5nm
and tell us how many silicon atoms you could fit on your designs.
--
Christian
No comments:
Post a Comment