×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

JavaScript-Based OpenRISC Emulator Can Run Linux, GCC, Wayland

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the layers-within-layers dept.

Graphics 89

An anonymous reader writes "The jor1k is an interesting open-source toy emulator project to emulate a 32-bit OpenRISC OR1000 processor, 63MB of RAM, ocfb frame-buffer, and ATA-hard drive ... all in JavaScript. Though JavaScript based, there are asm.js optimizations and the performance seems to be quite decent in modern web browsers. The jor1k OpenRISC emulator can do a lot, even handle running the Linux kernel, GCC compiler, ScummVM Monkey Island, and the Wayland/Weston compositor, all from within the web browser."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

89 comments

JS is a Conspiracy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110445)

..to increase the attack surface of the browser, so that gobbermint can fuck your user account in the future, too.

Re:JS is a Conspiracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45112871)

Good start. To polish this troll you need to write a bit more detail, making it more like you honestly believe this claim. It’s a good premise, and with a little work you could probably get a few hundred replies on Slashdot.

Turtles all the way down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110463)

And the web browser runs on an OS, and so forth and so on.

Re:Turtles all the way down. (1)

Arkh89 (2870391) | about 6 months ago | (#45110659)

Honestly, admit that you didn't know what to do with ALL that CPU cycles in the first place!

The end is nigh (1, Funny)

32771 (906153) | about 6 months ago | (#45110465)

Students still have too much time on their hands.

Re:The end is nigh (5, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 6 months ago | (#45110485)

Students still have too much time on their hands.

If they're doing all this emulation in JavaScript - they're going to need all that time...

Re:The end is nigh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110515)

Students still have too much time on their hands.

When a JavaScript compiler comes, I plan on stocking water, food and ammo and head for the hills.

A get a sandwich board that reads "It's the END OF DAYS! JavaScript can be compiled into native code! REPENT!!

Revelations 666:666

Re: The end is nigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110655)

Revelations 666:666

Shouldn't that Revelations x666:x666 ?

Re: The end is nigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45114615)

No. 0x29A:0x29A

Re:The end is nigh (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 6 months ago | (#45110615)

The classic student project used to be: "Design your own language, and write a compiler for it."

Now it's: "Take something that is not written in JavaScript, and write it in JavaScript."

Re:The end is nigh (1)

qbast (1265706) | about 6 months ago | (#45110647)

Obviously they need to write JavaScript in JavaScript.

Re:The end is nigh (1)

narcc (412956) | about 6 months ago | (#45111085)

I once wrote a Basic interpreter in Basic to annoy a friend.

Re:The end is nigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45111919)

BAZINGA!!

Re:The end is nigh (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 6 months ago | (#45112189)

I did the same on a VIC-20 my uncle loaned me. It was functional enough to have subroutines, variables, GOTO and simple IO. My uncle thought the whole thing was utterly idiotic, but it taught me a helluva lot about tokens, string handling, stacks, program counters and the like. It was probably the first project where I "got" programming and decided to become a programmer, way back in the early 1980s.

Re:The end is nigh (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 6 months ago | (#45115327)

"I once wrote a Basic interpreter in Basic to annoy a friend."

I believe that is still the number 1 reason for writing anything in BASIC.

Re:The end is nigh (3, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | about 6 months ago | (#45111373)

Obviously they need to write JavaScript in JavaScript.

So I can wait for code to run while I wait for code to run?

Web applications don't need App Store approval (4, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#45110871)

I wonder if this fad of porting everything to JavaScript has something to do with preparing for an imagined day when popular home computing platforms will become as locked down as iOS and the game consoles are today. Web applications run fine, but anything else requires the platform owner's digital signature. And for a long time, getting such a signature from console makers has required establishment of a corporation or LLC, the payment of a substantial entry fee, an additional computer for running the development environment, and a team of developers who have had to move hundreds of miles just to get the required "relevant industry experience" working for a well-known software company.

Re:Web applications don't need App Store approval (1)

Jeremi (14640) | about 6 months ago | (#45111955)

Web applications run fine, but anything else requires the platform owner's digital signature.

I'm still trying to figure out what magic there is in JavaScript that makes it an acceptably safe way to run unsigned code. Yes, it's an interpreted language running in a sandbox, but then so is Java, and Java applets (seemingly) went from "perfectly safe to run in your web browser" to "disabled by default because they're a big security hole" in the span of about a year. What's to stop something similar from happening to JavaScript (and really, to any Turing-complete language that becomes popular enough for the hackers to start spending time on)?

Re:Web applications don't need App Store approval (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 6 months ago | (#45113271)

There haven't been as many pure Javascript/HTML/CSS security bugs, in comparison, it's almost always plugins.

Also browsers (atleast Firefox ans Chrome) get frequent updates.

The installed base of ChromeOS isn't miniscule anymore. Supposedly 1 in 5 of US schools districts now have ChromeOS as their primary digital student device.

So it will be interesting to watch ChromeOS security track record in the coming years.

Also: A platform that does not have an Internet connection and a browser is a dead platform. Javascript is large part of the web. I don't think you can turn it off. Maybe there will be a noscript for the average user some day ?

An improved Content Security Policy or similar would really help though to prevent x-site problems, but those are different problem that don't infect the host system.

Re:Web applications don't need App Store approval (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 6 months ago | (#45113499)

The installed base of ChromeOS isn't miniscule anymore. Supposedly 1 in 5 of US schools districts now have ChromeOS as their primary digital student device.

I live in the technology center of the east coast. We have a Google presence here ... There are no school districts in the state that I'm aware of using ChromeOS.

1 in 5 must not include the same US as the one I live in.

A platform that does not have an Internet connection and a browser is a dead platform.

Sigh, okay, if you can't imagine a use case that doesn't fit your narrow view of the world, one must not exist.

Re:Web applications don't need App Store approval (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 6 months ago | (#45115357)

I meant, what end user operating system or would not include a browser (or a webruntime) these days ?

Probably suicide for a device operating system if you want want any traction in the marketplace.

Currently, for many people the TV and the car do not yet include a browser or webruntime, but that is changing. An example is Automotive grade Linux. The user-facing applications are HTML5-apps.

Re:Web applications don't need App Store approval (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#45113489)

Java applets (seemingly) went from "perfectly safe to run in your web browser" to "disabled by default because they're a big security hole" in the span of about a year. What's to stop something similar from happening to JavaScript

For one thing, Chrome runs JavaScript in what amounts to a sandbox within a sandbox. For another, lack of Oracle.

Re:Web applications don't need App Store approval (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45132199)

'm still trying to figure out what magic there is in JavaScript that makes it an acceptably safe way to run unsigned code.

For a long time, javascript in the browser, was such a dysfunctional language lacking any real form of IO outside of the DOM, that exploits actually required exploiting the interpreter. Then along came XMLHttpRequest, followed by a long list of newer javascript technologies that are the driving force behind much of these new gee-wiz look what I can do in javascript applications.

Along with all this new functionality, are bound to be boatloads of exploits. Things like webGL are just bound to have platform/library holes due to their underlying complexity and the fact that the underlying GL libraries are maintained for performance rather than security.

Re:Web applications don't need App Store approval (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45112757)

I wonder if this fad of porting everything to JavaScript has something to do with preparing for an imagined day when popular home computing platforms will become as locked down as iOS and the game consoles are today. Web applications run fine, but anything else requires the platform owner's digital signature.

The solution is to refuse to buy such platforms.

Re:Web applications don't need App Store approval (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 6 months ago | (#45112799)

But you can't refuse to have other people buy such platforms, and hedging your bets is typically a good idea.

Re:The end is nigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110673)

Students still have too much time on their hands.

At least they have enough available RAM. 63MB should be enough for anyone ;-)

Re:The end is nigh (1)

Behrooz Amoozad (2831361) | about 6 months ago | (#45110743)

Good thing you're an AC, otherwise anything you said could be used against you in case your father buys you a company.

Re:The end is nigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110767)

Good thing you're an AC, otherwise anything you said could be used against you in case your father buys you a company.

The internet never forgets. I just hope no one ever finds my posts about how OS/2, Beta Max and HD DVD would leave their competition in the dust. ;-)

Re:The end is nigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110853)

Imagine if someone had come up with something like this back in the days for ActiveX "fun". The code could have been adapted so that the script kiddies could have been creating litters of script Puppies. "Click here to see some cute Puppies!"

jor1k Demo Pages (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110471)

Running the demo in the Chrome browser on Linux pegged one of my 8 CPUs at 100% non-stop. Free memory stayed steady though.

Re:jor1k Demo Pages (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110653)

Safari, Mac OS X, Mac mini: basically killed my machine, all programs stopped responding and it took minutes to click "Force Quit" the browser.

Re:jor1k Demo Pages (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110719)

I'm already too scared to run it on my machine, mines will literally explode, it is so old. (well, 7 years)

I wonder if my tablet will run it, or basically turn it in to a grenade.

Re:jor1k Demo Pages (2)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 6 months ago | (#45112071)

What sort of Mac Mini are you using, an original G4 model or someting? I ran the demo just fine in Firefox 24.0 and Safari 6.0.5 on Mac OS 10.7.5 using a MacBook Pro from 2009. Here's a screenshot of Safari running jor1k [palegray.net] .

When you say something doesn't work, you should probably include details on what you're trying to run the thing on. Mod parent down.

But does it run Lin- (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110531)

Oh. I um. I guess it does.

triple threat (4, Funny)

Sneftel (15416) | about 6 months ago | (#45110541)

ScummVM

So it's a virtual machine running on a virtual machine running on a virtual machine. Nice.

Re:triple threat (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110689)

It looks like virtual machines all the way down.

Re:triple threat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110733)

Yo dawg...nah, sorry, I can't...

Re:triple threat (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 6 months ago | (#45111577)

and if the universe is actually a turning complete computer that would mean that the physical computer is actually a virtual machine.

Re:triple threat (1)

Sneftel (15416) | about 6 months ago | (#45112951)

Really, if the universe is Turing complete, I think that's strong evidence that the universe itself is a virtual machine.

You only learn of this NOW? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110551)

jor1k has been out for months and Slashdog finally learns about it.

PATHETIC!

Re:You only learn of this NOW? (1)

black3d (1648913) | about 6 months ago | (#45112449)

Right, but it's only just gained keyboard support, so up until now it was a fairly boring text-demo.

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110553)

THIS IS THE FUTURE!

So, who cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110579)

Who cares about a hardware simulator running in a web browser?

Re:So, who cares? (2)

WillKemp (1338605) | about 6 months ago | (#45110667)

Who cares about a hardware simulator running in a web browser?

I do.

Re:So, who cares? (1)

Inda (580031) | about 6 months ago | (#45119953)

It does fit nicely into the "neat" and "cool" categories.

I have zero use for it, but it is still neat and cool.

Kudos to the coder.

But can it run a web browser? (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 6 months ago | (#45110593)

(I heard you like Javascript and Linux, so I put a Linux inside your Javascript inside your Linux inside your Javascript inside your Linux.)

Re:But can it run a web browser? (1)

Behrooz Amoozad (2831361) | about 6 months ago | (#45110761)

It may, but it's no use.Because the VM cannot have network interfaces because the JS VM won't allow it to have *enough* network access.

Re:But can it run a web browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45111475)

Emulate network interfaces, tunneling ethernet over json.

Re:But can it run a web browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45112279)

This is where we insert great-scott.jpg

Re:But can it run a web browser? (1)

Gibgezr (2025238) | about 6 months ago | (#45114599)

I think my brain just did a div-by-zero. Thank you for making/ruining my day.

For my next trick (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110633)

A Javascript emulator made of 3D printers... We get it, computers are powerful because it takes very little energy to represent a bit. So what?

Misapprehension (1)

tricorn (199664) | about 6 months ago | (#45110637)

"The machine is big endian machine, but the typed array from Javascript work with little endian. "

I'm already not impressed.

Same for x86 (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110679)

Well, I guess everyone has read about the Javascript PC emulator :
http://bellard.org/jslinux/index.html

Just Stop. Please. It's Time to Stop. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45110883)

Remaking EVERYTHING in JS is a total, complete waste of time. There's a saying that everything that can be written in C will eventually be written in C. This makes sense because once it's in C, it's going to run really quickly. That little whatever that was re-written in C, even partially, is just about as good as it gets when it comes to responsive, low-overhead, user-space tools. JS will never get appreciably better than it is now without those improvements affecting all other dynamic languages in turn, and JS is not regarded as a mogul of excellent syntax, language features, or any of the other notable strengths of other languages. Anything written in JS will eventually need a re-write. Using Node for little async, concurrent server communication relatively a niche. Just stop. This JS nonsense is way out of hand.

Re:Just Stop. Please. It's Time to Stop. (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#45111059)

There's a saying that everything that can be written in C will eventually be written in C. This makes sense because once it's in C, it's going to run really quickly.

Or not run at all if it doesn't get digitally signed. You often need permission from a platform's curator to use C on that platform. You don't need anyone's permission to use JavaScript.

Re:Just Stop. Please. It's Time to Stop. (1)

user32.ExitWindowsEx (250475) | about 6 months ago | (#45111429)

That can change.

Re:Just Stop. Please. It's Time to Stop. (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#45111457)

Would it change in the "more open" direction, with more platforms allowing use of unsigned native code? Or would it change in the "more closed" direction, with devices enforcing a no-script policy on web sites that haven't paid to be on the platform's whitelist?

Re:Just Stop. Please. It's Time to Stop. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 6 months ago | (#45122891)

sure, on the day that webpages either stop using js for everything OR the machine in question becomes so locked up that you can't browse the web with it.

Re:Just Stop. Please. It's Time to Stop. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45111473)

Or not run at all if it doesn't get digitally signed.

Then you shouldn't be writing a emulator in JS. Not our fault if the system is a walled-garden. Plus I'd imagine that once this gets popular enough, EULAs and Developer Agreements will be rewritten to forbid it. If they don't already.

The greatest thing we have when it comes to IT is the ability to run what we (the owner of the physical device) want to, and the clueless and ignorant willingly hand over control in exchange for it being an appliance.

It will be a sad day indeed when the only way to run what you want is to ether build an "Illegal General Purpose computer system" or to bypass the special firewall on that compiler.......

Re:Just Stop. Please. It's Time to Stop. (0)

gangien (151940) | about 6 months ago | (#45111531)

Because they can.

Off topic, what happened to my slashdot, where this post would get modded down.. :(

Re:Just Stop. Please. It's Time to Stop. (0)

bensyverson (732781) | about 6 months ago | (#45112163)

I hate to say it, but in the world of end-user apps, Javascript won. (Note that I'm not talking about niche applications like 3D rendering or server software.) And I write this as a committed Mac and iOS developer. Moore's Law and improved JS compilers have made Javascript responsive enough for 99.9% of applications. Native end-user apps will stumble along for a while, but they're walking dead.

There are no more technological hurdles for Javascript to overcome. The payment model is the last nut to crack. Firefox is working on that [mozilla.org] . Maybe it'll take a bigger player to make it happen. But make no mistake: it will happen. It'll happen because it's cheaper to pay one development team that can deploy to every device.

As recently as last year, Facebook moved away from mobile to native [theverge.com] , but that move already looks amazingly dated. Since Facebook moved from "HTML5" to native ObjC, Apple released the iPhone 5, which was over twice as fast [primatelabs.com] as the 4s [primatelabs.com] , and then the 5s, which is about twice as fast as the 5. The Javascript version of Facebook may have felt unresponsive on an iPhone 4 or 4S, but those days are history.

A lot of people may be reading this and thinking "yeah, yeah, people have been talking about 'write once, run anywhere' for decades." They're right—we've been staring at the oncoming freight train for decades, and now it's finally here. If you write end-user apps and you're not polishing your Javascript right now, that train will roll right over you.

Re:Just Stop. Please. It's Time to Stop. (1)

marsu_k (701360) | about 6 months ago | (#45113111)

The Javascript version of Facebook may have felt unresponsive on an iPhone 4 or 4S, but those days are history.

Nitpicking a bit - the JS engine used in Safari has seen much improvement in the past few years. But if you make a HTML5-based app with something like Cordova, it will use the old JS engine which is markedly slower. Sure, faster processor helps, but it would be nice if Apple would enable the newer JS engine on HTML5-based apps instead of just Safari.

Re:Just Stop. Please. It's Time to Stop. (1)

bensyverson (732781) | about 6 months ago | (#45114707)

Right, but that's not a technical issue; it's a policy issue. If people started buying web apps, there would be tremendous demand for Apple to turn on WebGL and JS optimization, and they'd do it.

Re:Just Stop. Please. It's Time to Stop. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45114633)

A lot of people may be reading this and thinking "yeah, yeah, people have been talking about 'write once, run anywhere' for decades." They're rightâ"we've been staring at the oncoming freight train for decades, and now it's finally here. If you write end-user apps and you're not polishing your Javascript right now, that train will roll right over you.

Oh goody, I can't wait. As an end-user of those applications, can I ask if there's anything else I can do to make your life as a developer any easier? Stop complaining about bugs? Buy a faster machine? Use a competitors application which isn't crap?

Ah yeah, maybe that last one!

Re:Just Stop. Please. It's Time to Stop. (1)

bensyverson (732781) | about 6 months ago | (#45114763)

You have it backwards—developers will hate the move to JS, and users won't notice. It's exactly the opposite of what you describe.

Developers won't do it willingly, but their clients and/or employers will demand it. It's strictly financial.

Re:Just Stop. Please. It's Time to Stop. (1)

Tony Isaac (1301187) | about 6 months ago | (#45112455)

You are missing a major point. It's not just about being able to write a machine emulator in javascript, although that is a very impressive feat. Javascript has one major feature that no other language has: it runs natively, with no plugins required, in every modern Web browser. Javascript is realizing the dream that java aspired to: it runs on every modern computing platform.

As evidenced by the success of Google's Chromebooks, the Web browser is becoming, in and of itself, an operating system. There's a lot of old software out there that is still useful, but will never be rewritten. This kind of emulation might give some of that old software a new life.

Re:Just Stop. Please. It's Time to Stop. (1)

sydneyfong (410107) | about 6 months ago | (#45113987)

It's almost like forbidding people to write books in Japanese because the good ones eventually get translated to English.

People do what they like. Deal with it.

Re:Just Stop. Please. It's Time to Stop. (1)

spage (73271) | about 6 months ago | (#45116139)

Oh STFU. If you come out with a neat piece of software that runs in a browser, you can post a link to it (like this one) and millions of people can run it in a single click because it's so damn easy. If your software is written in anything else but JavaScript, people have to screw around downloading runtimes and saving and executing binaries, and at best 5% as many people will bother trying it. Sure, an app store simplifies that, but now you have to build multiple app versions, iOS, Android, and whatever the hell Windows uses, and you've still left millions of potential users out.

It's the universal availability of JavaScript and zero-install that you get by running it in a web browser that drives the innovation and interest in it, and there's no sign of it stopping. Go build an OpenRISC emulator in C that's far better in every way than this, post a link to the installer, and watch your effort get ignored.

Javascript is a language - can write stuff in it! (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 6 months ago | (#45111227)

News at 11.

Although TBH I like all these demonstrations of just how far we've regressed. "Remember doing this in the mid-'80s on an 8MHz 8086? Remember finding it a bit slow, then being so happy when you upgraded to that 286? Relive the original experience once again with feeling on a 2.6GHz desktop... in a browser window! And when the latest Fuckbuster Javascript engine is released, it'll be like a 286 again."

Re:Javascript is a language - can write stuff in i (2)

chefmonkey (140671) | about 6 months ago | (#45112165)

You must have had an *awesome* 8 MHz 8086 if it could do this: http://www.unrealengine.com/html5/ [unrealengine.com]

Re:Javascript is a language - can write stuff in i (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 6 months ago | (#45113185)

This is WebGL, which is a wrapper round OpenGL, which is an API making use of...

Re:Javascript is a language - can write stuff in i (1)

chefmonkey (140671) | about 6 months ago | (#45114563)

The point here is that emscripten can get within 1/2 native speed when the resulting code is put on a modern JavaScript engine. You're not regressing 25 years; you're regressing about 18 months.

Re: Javascript is a language - can write stuff in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45115501)

Port a game like gears 3 over to emscripten and see how it does. Citadel has 0 code other than graphics and texture loading going on. Run the ai and all the rest of a real game engine in it at a reasonable rate and I might start getting impressed.

Re: Javascript is a language - can write stuff in (0)

bensyverson (732781) | about 6 months ago | (#45121343)

It would run fine... Game engines are just not that CPU intensive, and JS can do a few megaflops on low end hardware. The reason no one has done a game that elaborate in JS is that there's no way to charge for it.

ma8e (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45111501)

Rules are This Practic4l purposes, = 1400 NetBSD BSD's filesystem

The YASEP got windows in JS ;-) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45112297)

and it's not a copy-paste of the Patterson & Hennessy books
http://yasep.org [yasep.org]
It is even Mandelbrot-complete !

63MB of RAM (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 6 months ago | (#45112443)

63MB of RAM?!

Re:63MB of RAM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45119435)

They actually added 64MB, but the emulated memory chip turned out to be defective, so that the last 1MB could not be used.

Not quite there yet on Android (3, Informative)

Tony Isaac (1301187) | about 6 months ago | (#45112463)

I tried the demo on my Nexus 7 using Chrome. The OS boots up, but there doesn't seem to be any way to activate the on-screen keyboard, so no way to send input to the window. Still, very impressive that it (mostly) works on Windows AND Android!

No USA, Europe wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45112933)

None of that was done by any Americans, but good old old-world Europeans.
I don't know about you, but I think USA is losing it.

Practical use of jor1k (2)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 6 months ago | (#45114819)

All developers should have to test their software in jor1k. If it runs too slow or consumes too much RAM the defects must be fixed prior to release.

So JS is an HDL now? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 6 months ago | (#45115411)

From what I know, OpenRISC is an open sourced (I believe GPL'ed) MIPS CPU that exists in terms of HDL models, and can be implemented in any fab. So one could take the models, program it into an FPGA, and then one would have a functional OpenRISC CPU. What about a pure OpenRISC CPU? Well, get in the market & the volumes, and a company could start doing design and/or fabs, and you'd have a CPU. Given the costs incurred in designing it, the volumes have to be high enough to justify it.

So now they're simulating this CPU in JS? So is JS an HDL now? Or is it a case of a micro-simulator written in JavaScript and implemented on Windows? But what would be the point of doing that? Why not design an actual emulator of OpenRISC, have a VM of whatever OS one wants on it, and then build up all FOSS apps for that?

Adding Value with WebRTC (1)

psema4 (966801) | about 6 months ago | (#45124797)

Under the name of Atomic OS, I've been playing around with related ideas (on and off) for nearly a decade now.

Although I have a number of others, my primary suggestion would be to add WebRTC-based network devices in jor1k or JS/Linux. This would allow SPAs (Single Page Applications) to provide an interface into new censorship-resistant networks.

Yes it's putting tubes in your tubes but I think it'll happen and likely sooner than you think. There's at least one project out there (name withheld by request of the projects' author, will go into beta soon) that I suspect will usher in a new era of web-based computing.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...