Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Russia Wants To Replace US Computer Chips With Local Processors

timothy posted about a month ago | from the domestic-production dept.

AMD 340

An anonymous reader writes with this news from Tass: Russia's Industry and Trade Ministry plans to replace U.S. microchips (Intel and AMD), used in government's computers, with domestically-produced micro Baikal processors in a project worth dozens of millions of dollars, business daily Kommersant reported Thursday. The article is fairly thin, but does add a bit more detail: "The Baikal micro processor will be designed by a unit of T-Platforms, a producer of supercomputers, next year, with support from state defense conglomerate Rostec and co-financing by state-run technological giant Rosnano. The first products will be Baikal M and M/S chips, designed on the basis of 64-bit nucleus Cortex A-57 made by UK company ARM, with frequency of 2 gigahertz for personal computers and micro servers."

cancel ×

340 comments

Good luck with that (-1, Flamebait)

mozumder (178398) | about a month ago | (#47287679)

They're idiots and their entire economy revolves around selling things they can find on the ground.

Making microprocessors takes some actual talent.

Re:Good luck with that (2)

mrbill1234 (715607) | about a month ago | (#47287695)

Did you read the article? The processors are based on ARM.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

gnupun (752725) | about a month ago | (#47287725)

The processors are based on ARM.

But won't they get the ARM source code in verilog (or VHDL), so they can spot any backdoors?

Re:Good luck with that (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287771)

Probably not. Just because you have the VHDL source of something means zilch.

See the "FOSS OpenSSL" thing. You need to inspect and mathematically prove correctness.

That means it would be the correct approach to use a Russian design in the first place.

Vladimir is not a computer guy...

The OpenSSL Disasters were a result of attitude. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287839)

The recent OpenSSL disasters were the result of the attitude of the open source security community.

Unless you had already been blessed by their High Priests, they would yell " NEVER ROLL YOUR OWN CRYPTO! " at you over and over and over if you tried to practice the craft. They would drown you in ridicule. They would do this even if you merely tried to critique their code!

Now, most reasonable computer programmers don't want to be subjected to this sort of antagonism, so they just wouldn't get involved with reading or writing crypto code because it inevitably meant being on the receiving end of such antagonism.

Then the Disasters came. OpenSSL, which a lot of people quietly suspected was total shit, was indisputably proven to be total shit. The High Priests were shown to be windbags, and void of substance. Their precious code was flawed in the most serious of ways. But more importantly, they were proven to have been wrong several times over.

The whole situation reminds me of the lyrics of a famous song from a few years back, chronicling the fall of the self-appointed "Elite":

I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sleep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own

It was a wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People couldn't believe what I'd become
Revolutionaries wait
For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh who would ever want to be king?

For some reason I can't explain
I know St Peter won't call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world

Re: The OpenSSL Disasters were a result of attitud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287879)

I take you're known for melodrama in your social circles.

Re:The OpenSSL Disasters were a result of attitude (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a month ago | (#47287907)

This is an obvious troll but OpenSSL had a subtle problem that was easily remedied. It wasn't proven to be total shit. Rather is was proven to be a human creation and thus imperfect.

Re:The OpenSSL Disasters were a result of attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287941)

That's why the OpenSSL cretins had their own weird and 100% insecure heap manager. Because OpenSSL was a human creation of NSA and some useful idiots of those.

Re:The OpenSSL Disasters were a result of attitude (4, Informative)

jbolden (176878) | about a month ago | (#47287999)

The person who wrote the bug has described at length where the bug came from. The source code, and email history at the time obviously supports the very non paranoid origin that it came from a performance tweak to avoid allocating and deallocating memory. There was no NSA involvement.

Re:The OpenSSL Disasters were a result of attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287951)

As far as I'm concerned, you've just proven the GP to be correct. You've shown the exact same attitude that he described. You resort to name calling to belittle him because he pointed out very real flaws in OpenSSL. Then you deny that there are serious problems with OpenSSL, even though many of us IT pros have had to deal with two extremely serious OpenSSL flaws with it during the past few months. We aren't talking about the minor bugs we patch now and then, too. Heartbleed was one of the worst, far-reaching software and security disasters (and that is an appropriate term for it) we've ever seen. It far, far exceeds the problems Microsoft software ran into 10 to 12 or so years ago. And on top of all of that, you justify your rancid attitude by claiming that it's okay that OpenSSL is "imperfect", even though the attitude you and others hold is what drove away people who wanted to do their best to help make it as perfect as can be.

Re:The OpenSSL Disasters were a result of attitude (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a month ago | (#47287989)

Really Heartbleed was one of the worst security disasters we've had? Based on what? How many exploits were there? What was the financial cost? How long did it remain? How many systems were compromised? There is no indications that it was one of the worst security disasters based on any metric.

Re:The OpenSSL Disasters were a result of attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47288033)

Not to mention that the discoverer of the flaw included a one line fix with the announcement.

Re:The OpenSSL Disasters were a result of attitude (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47288087)

Are you honestly downplaying the seriousness of the Heartbleed security disaster?

What makes Heartbleed so bad is that we don't exactly know how often it has been exploited. It's a problem that existed for many months, affected hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of servers around the world. Many of them still aren't patched. And it isn't the kind of exploit that necessarily gets logged anywhere, too.

It has been proven that it could allow for private keys to be stolen, as demonstrated by those researchers who managed to quickly attack some experimental servers that CloudFlare had set up to test this. I hope I don't have to explain to you the seriousness of compromised private keys.

I recall hearing that the tax authorities in Canada had sensitive taxpayer data stolen from their servers due to this horrible bug, as well.

Those two incidents alone should scare the living shit out of any IT professional. I'm not kidding around. It's completely irresponsible to downplay the severity of this incident. Anyone who says that this is one of the worst computer security incidents to ever have happened is totally and indisputably correct. It could very well be the worst.

My gosh, I do hope that you're just being argumentative in this case in some pathetic effort to save face after being proven wrong earlier, and that you really do understand the serious nature of Heartbleed.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a month ago | (#47288049)

Sure using a local design would be the ideal but that would require having a usable local design.

However local production has distinct advantages even if the design is imported. Firstly it makes it harder for other countries to cut off supply. Secondly it means that if a backdoor is to be slipped in it must be slipped in at a much earlier stage of the process making it harder to keep secret. Thirdly it means you are sending less money abroad.

Re: Good luck with that (2)

relisher (2955441) | about a month ago | (#47288027)

The Russian government has already helped to creat a fairly successful corporation that specializes in Sparc processors named ÐoeЦÐÐ, or Moscow Center for SPARC Technology (wiki link in Russian here: http://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki... [wikipedia.org] ÐoeЦÐÐ) I don't see any reason they would have difficulty doing the same with ARM

in soviet russia (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a month ago | (#47288005)

in soviet russia we ARM YOU!

Re:Good luck with that (3, Insightful)

ruir (2709173) | about a month ago | (#47287729)

Are they? 99.9999% of governments do not understand their infrastructure security model revolving about using foreign hardware and processors is not a very bright idea.

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287737)

They are one badly planned invasion away from having a large embargo slapped against them. It is in their own best interests to not be dependent on other countries for critical products. The bigger question is why did they wait so long to try to develop this kind of talent. The less dependent they are on other countries the easier it is for them to continue to be a bad actor.

Re:Good luck with that (4, Insightful)

Vlad_the_Inhaler (32958) | about a month ago | (#47287805)

Who is going to slap an embargo on them? Not the UN, Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council. I can't imagine China would vote for that either.
What percentage of processors are made in (mainland) China?

Re:Good luck with that (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287755)

Better than revolving their economy around selling things they can find in other people's ground, eh, America?

Seriously, though, Russia's biggest mistake in the past 100 years was Khrushchev's decision to pursue a mission of copying the West rather than developing independently of the West. Lenin was a genius and Stalin was pure evil, but they (especially Stalin) were technocratically brilliant.

Re:Good luck with that (4, Interesting)

Mal-2 (675116) | about a month ago | (#47287831)

The Russians have cloned foreign hardware before, with varying degrees of success. While it will always be one or two generations behind (because you can't reasonably clone something not yet released), their past history would indicate that these will actually work, if they are willing to commit the necessary resources. With there being less and less difference between generations lately, cloning now makes more sense than it did ten years ago. ARM processors themselves were originally cobbled together by a team with plenty of talent but little financial backing, so who's to say a clone can't be done under the same conditions?

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47288081)

Look up history of SEMATECH. The US government pumped money over years into microchip design for the specific purpose of making the US the only place to make high end chips. I think we are still to this day riding that way by quite a bit. We did exactly what we complain about other countries doing, such as Chinese with solar panels, and it worked very well.

So, yes the Russians can do it, but it would take a decade to accomplish. If that is their timeline for this, then it will probably work. If their timeline is 2 years, it will probably fail. However, if they go with a differeing technology, as you suggested ARM as an example, and don't care about things like size and power consumption, it will make the challenge much easier for them to meet.

Re:Good luck with that (5, Funny)

Froggels (1724218) | about a month ago | (#47287917)

their entire economy revolves around selling things they can find on the ground.

We are so much better because our economy revolves around moving money between accounts.

It will be interesting to see how good these chips (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a month ago | (#47287683)

It will be interesting to see how good these chips are. Potentially they could provide a cheap alternative for datacentres

Re:It will be interesting to see how good these ch (0)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a month ago | (#47287733)

I expect them to be as fully reliable as the Russian space program.

Re:It will be interesting to see how good these ch (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a month ago | (#47287747)

That might not be a bad target. The Russian space program has a history of reliable but fairly conservative designs, e.g. the Soyuz has a solid multi-decade track record. Versus the American space program, which goes for more cutting-edge stuff like the Space Shuttle, but has more reliability problems.

Re:It will be interesting to see how good these ch (4, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a month ago | (#47287779)

The Russian space program has a history of reliable but fairly conservative designs, e.g. the Soyuz has a solid multi-decade track record.

The Soyuz had two loss of crew accidents in 120 flights. And ten more mission failures.

Shuttle had two loss of crew accidents in 135 flights. And no extra mission failures.

I fail to see the reliability advantage of the Soyuz.

Re: It will be interesting to see how good these c (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287821)

How many near miss incidents each? I suspect accurate figures atent easy to come by...

Re:It will be interesting to see how good these ch (5, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a month ago | (#47287827)

I fail to see the reliability advantage of the Soyuz.

The Soyuz can still take you into space. The Space Shuttle can't.

That's infinitely more reliable.

No, that means it is still being used (3, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a month ago | (#47287845)

The shuttles could still be made/maintained/used. They aren't, but that is a financial and political decision. It isn't as though they reached a magic expiration date and crumbled to dust. A new one could be built and used, no problem, if there was the money and will to do so.

The GPs point stands.

Re:No, that means it is still being used (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287863)

The Titanic could still be made/maintained/used. It isn't, but that is a financial and political decision. It isn't as though it reached a magic expiration date and crumbled to dust. A new one could be built and used, no problem, if there was the money and will to do so.

The GP's point stands.

Re:No, that means it is still being used (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287865)

The shuttles could still be made/maintained/used. ... It isn't as though they reached a magic expiration date and crumbled to dust

No it could not and they had expiration date. Their frame lifetimes (because of aluminum) has been reached. They would have to be scrapped and new ones built.

Anyway, you can't compare shuttle with soyuz. One was semi-reusable at a cost higher than building many new of the later.

Re:No, that means it is still being used (4, Interesting)

kirovs (1700150) | about a month ago | (#47287891)

No, it does not. He falls prey to conformational bias. First the difference in number of flights (135 vs 120) is insignificant. Second, first Souyz flew in 1966 (or 1967, don't remember). It did that almost 15 years before the first shuttle flight. Therefore it had to use older technology and do so without much of the experience, technology and knowledge that the designers of the shuttle had. Perhaps it is not coincidence that the 2 losses Souyz had were before the shuttle even took off. Compare this to the shuttle failures. I think that Souyz is more reliable than the shuttle, but I admit that this is opinion rather than data supported hypothesis since data points are few and unreliable (near misses).

Re:No, that means it is still being used (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47287905)

Second, first Souyz flew in 1966 (or 1967, don't remember). It did that almost 15 years before the first shuttle flight. Therefore it had to use older technology

This discussion is not about how great an achievement Soyuz is, and thus virtually your entire comment is irrelevant. The question is about which is more reliable. They have very close records. If you want to discuss irrelevancies, then why not bring up how much more the shuttle could do on a mission than Soyuz? Arguably, the shuttle did much more per flight. By some bullshit metric I could conceive, that would make it safer. But let's just consider the ratio of failed to successful missions, that seems more reasonable. By that metric, they are pretty close.

Re:No, that means it is still being used (3, Interesting)

avmich (194551) | about a month ago | (#47287983)

We're safely away from the original topic, so anything flies. Including Soyuz and Shuttle.

When you're talking about reliability of these two crafts, you may talk about "design reliability" or "device reliability". Which design is more reliable? Well, Shuttle has advantage of hindsight, some less drastic loads, and numerically - more flights accomplished. Soyuz has advantage of last death 33 years ago - and of design being constantly tweaked. I.e., Discovery and Atlantis were physically created in 1980-s, way before Challenger catastrophe, with knowledge available then. Granted, Shuttle had advantage of vastly more resources spent on design and overall architecture was created some 10 years after that for Soyuz. Yet Discovery and Atlantis had - not all, but many - designs frozen in 1980.

Of course, some other systems were constantly upgraded until the end of the program.

Soyuz also has some architectural decision unchangeable - e.g., infamous capsule diameter. Yet other things - including even small increases in that diameter in specific places to allow taller crew onboard - kept changing - they are still changing. Just like Shuttle, Soyuz had avionics upgrades. Unlike Shuttle - because Soyuz is more modular - Soyuz had changes in Orbital module (reflected in mass and size) and in Propulsion unit (e.g., unified fuel storage system). If we assume that Soyuz landing - for example - is simpler, has less failure modes than Shuttle - then it's easier to make it safer, everything else being equal, which of course it isn't.

We should admit that Soyuz manufacturer has greater flexibility in changing Soyuz for next flight. For example, if a critical flaw - as it was after Soyuz-11 - is found, the next flight can be delayed and the craft substantially redesigned - as Soyuz-T was born. Not so with Shuttles - after Challenger NASA still had 3 units, which were substantially made the same, and couldn't recreate - or reassemble - them anew. In other words, we can argue that Shuttle reliability is more frozen when a Shuttle is assembled, while Soyuz is assembled for each flight - and for each flight there is an opportunity to learn from previous mistakes.

Not that it's only beneficial to Soyuz. Shuttle has the benefit of being tested in actual flight - the same craft flies again and again. Soyuz maker can't easily prevent problems related to a particular vehicle - since that vehicle flies only once - it only can learn from previous flights and improve the next one. But here we have more opportunities for iterations - that's perhaps why Soyuz last death was in 1971, and why Soyuz maker is so conservative with changing Soyuz today. Elon Musk is, in the eyes of Energia, a reckless cowboy calling for accidents to happen.

Suppose Shuttle would fly again. Can NASA learn enough from Columbia? Can it change Shuttle so that it won't suffer from falling ice? Reliably? Will it cause substantial redesign? May be, but Shuttle is unlikely to fly again. Now, Soyuz is still flying. Will it fly 20 more years? Will it get an unusual enough situation to critically fail - despite all precations and all history of redesigns? May be. We'll see.

Re:No, that means it is still being used (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47288001)

We're safely away from the original topic, so anything flies. Including Soyuz and Shuttle.

What? No, no we aren't. You might be, but I'm not going to play that game with you. And on topic, my statement still stands. Why not address it instead of prevaricating? The equipment on the shuttle was also "tweaked" throughout its lifetime, though AFAICT they never made any _major_ changes... but that's not what "tweaked" means.

Re:It will be interesting to see how good these ch (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287873)

The Soyuz accidents killed a total of 4 people, in 1967 and 1971. The shuttle accidents killed a total of 14 people, in 1986 and 2003.

Your comparison is cherry-picking the facts.

Re:It will be interesting to see how good these ch (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287993)

More people tend to die when a space bus crashes vs a space tricycle.

Re:It will be interesting to see how good these ch (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287881)

The Soyuz is still doing missions, 31 years after its last accident. The Shuttle shuttle was retired in 2011, 8 years after its last accident.

I know which one I would feel safer in today.

Re:It will be interesting to see how good these ch (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month ago | (#47288025)

That might not be a bad target. The Russian space program has a history of reliable but fairly conservative designs, e.g. the Soyuz has a solid multi-decade track record. Versus the American space program, which goes for more cutting-edge stuff like the Space Shuttle, but has more reliability problems.

The Space Shuttle was a terrible design and a crappy project.

That aside, if this chip project is half as successful as Soyuz (The only operating manned space vehicle in existence) then I think they'll be pretty damned happy about it.

Business sells to bad government, there is a cost! (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about a month ago | (#47287685)

Been saying this for years now since the earliest reports of NSA spying and the cooperation of technology companies came out. Most people kept saying it was nonsense that global trust in US technology can never be lost if only because ours is "the best" and is too expensive to replace. Seems to me that's not a deciding factor these days. The bad behaving US government is causing real harm to business now. As soon as business begins to realize how toxic that relationship is, they will stop doing it. But then again, we still have lots of companies trying to send (outsource) tech to China... China who has a long history of taking the tech and spinning it off on their own. Hoy myopic can they be?

Re:Business sells to bad government, there is a co (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287815)

Most people kept saying it was nonsense that global trust in US technology can never be lost if only because ours is "the best" and is too expensive to replace.

TFS says "Russia's Industry and Trade Ministry plans to replace U.S. microchips (Intel and AMD), used in government's computers, with domestically-produced micro Baikal processors." They haven't done it or even started to do it yet.

I'm not saying they don't have reason to. Just that it's an announcement from some bureaucrat from some probably corrupt and incompetent Russian ministry.

Not to mention the difficulties of actually producing sufficient quantities of working state of the art processors to replace all those chips from Russian chip foundries.

American arrogance (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287945)

Not to mention the difficulties of actually producing sufficient quantities of working state of the art processors to replace all those chips from Russian chip foundries.

We Americans do not have a monopoly on smart people or technical know-how. As a matter of fact, for the last 15+ years we have been offshoring much of our high tech manufacturing - it's not just the low tech shit. Intel has been offshoring much of their stuff and I like the idea of karma coming to bite them in the ass.

Russia has LOTS of hard currency and they can buy the best of the best from any company on the planet. So, if they do have a problem, they can just buy someone from Intel, AMD or someone else - or just hire someone that one of those companies canned - I mean "downsized" - what a way to get back at the short sighted-treat people like commodity-corporate assholes.

In other words, I have no doubt that the Russians will be successful - and more power to them. I am looking forward to some advances in microchip technology.

Re:Business sells to bad government, there is a co (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about a month ago | (#47288037)

" But then again, we still have lots of companies trying to send (outsource) tech to China... China who has a long history of taking the tech and spinning it off on their own. Hoy myopic can they be?"

I don't mind China (or Russia) taking the tech. I don't mind when they don't give back. A minor example: the many Android variants running on cheap tablets that can't be upgraded because the source code for their non-standard hardware isn't available. (Technically you can upgrade such tablets but you'd lose a lot of the functions that make it useful, like wifi/bluetooth, maybe even the touch screen, so that you basially wind up with a keyboardless mini PC.)

I wonder what their reasoning is...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287703)

Is it based on publicly released info from Snowden or something more severe that they now know from him that the public don't. Or could it be general retaliation for the NSA's actions designed to hit US companies pockets...

Re:I wonder what their reasoning is...? (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about a month ago | (#47287739)

Not paying attention? Russia is also breaking free of the petro-dollar monopoly. You may not think much of it, but the fact has been that all oil and gas has been traded in US dollars around the globe. That has been one of the reasons US dollars have maintained any value at all. With so much of the US production and even many services going overseas, we simply aren't producing anything here. At least not the way we once did and still can.

There are nations interested in de-Americanizing the world. I can't say I blame them right now. But as things fail to turn around or get corrected, we in the US are going feel the hurt in ways which are painful to imagine.

Re:I wonder what their reasoning is...? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a month ago | (#47287767)

I would argue that no one sane right now would push for that much of de-americanisation that fast.

Reality is, you don't want to push a country with military that is more powerful and has more capability to project force over long distance than anyone else in the world to collapse quickly. That has a huge risk of military taking things in their own hands and everyone suffering for it.

Re:I wonder what their reasoning is...? (1)

Nutria (679911) | about a month ago | (#47288031)

That is a very confusing post. Are you saying that the US military might implement a coup d'etat?

Re:I wonder what their reasoning is...? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287801)

Not paying attention? Russia is also breaking free of the petro-dollar monopoly. You may not think much of it, but the fact has been that all oil and gas has been traded in US dollars around the globe. That has been one of the reasons US dollars have maintained any value at all. With so much of the US production and even many services going overseas, we simply aren't producing anything here. At least not the way we once did and still can.

There are nations interested in de-Americanizing the world. I can't say I blame them right now. But as things fail to turn around or get corrected, we in the US are going feel the hurt in ways which are painful to imagine.

I know this is a favorite conspiracy among internet commenters for whatever reason, but the petrodollar conspiracy is a myth. The US dollar has value because it is legal tender in the worlds largest economy. The United States is also the worlds largest manufacturer, surpassing the next five manufacturers combined in total output. It also requires these goods to be sold in dollars. Domestically, the United States also has the largest capital holdings in the world, estimated to be valued in hundreds of trillions of dollars. Since the dollar is legal tender, these capital assets are also valued and traded in dollars. It is also the world's historically most stable currency, making it very attractive for sovereign reserve funds.

Source: I'm taking honors economics in high school right now.

Re:I wonder what their reasoning is...? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287811)

With so much of the US production and even many services going overseas, we simply aren't producing anything here. At least not the way we once did and still can.

False:

" As of 2010, the country [the united states] remains the world's largest manufacturer, representing a fifth of the global manufacturing output."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_united_states

Why do people keep saying this?

Re:I wonder what their reasoning is...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287883)

False your false.

I order some widget. Made in the USA, right on the bag. $20. What is it made of? $0.05 of Mexican (plastic mold) and $2 of Chinese (relays and electronics) parts, put in a $0.001 american plastic bag.

Your "manufacturing output" is nothing but paper bullshit. All US does is repackage and resell Chinese stuff.

Re:I wonder what their reasoning is...? (4, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47287919)

" As of 2010, the country [the united states] remains the world's largest manufacturer, representing a fifth of the global manufacturing output."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org]

[citation needed] because sadly, your citation does not itself provide a proper citation. It simply links to an entire department of the UN, that is not acceptable. Can you provide a proper citation that explains what "global manufacturing output" means? Does that include things assembled in the USA from foreign parts, like International-Navistar engines with blocks cast in China? The block is the most important part of the engine, to me that motor is at least half-Chinese.

Why do people keep saying this?

Probably because they have seen no credible evidence to the contrary.

Re:I wonder what their reasoning is...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287997)

I can't say I blame them right now. But as things fail to turn around or get corrected, we in the US are going feel the hurt in ways which are painful to imagine.
Sorry, but America will always be on top and it's people with attitudes like yours who are giving us a bad image. If you don't like it here then why don't you just leave and move to Russia like that coward Edward Snowden? I'm sure they would be happy to have you, but in 6 months you would be desperate to return back to the the US which has a standard of living 20 times better than in Russia as well have 100 times more freedom.

Re:I wonder what their reasoning is...? (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about a month ago | (#47288083)

"That has been one of the reasons US dollars have maintained any value at all. With so much of the US production and even many services going overseas, we simply aren't producing anything here. At least not the way we once did and still can."

Military and agricultural exports, nothwithstanding the controversy surrounding GMOs, are still strong.

Re:I wonder what their reasoning is...? (0)

wjcofkc (964165) | about a month ago | (#47287749)

Your first idea? No. Second? Sure. Overwhelmingly it has to do with the economic sanctions we (US) slapped on them. They are not in a position to do the same back except to do business elsewhere and at home is always a good place.

Re:I wonder what their reasoning is...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287761)

It is by now bleeding obvious that sovereign nations cannot trust US or Israeli IT products. Even the rather slow Russkies have realized this to some degree.

Using a UK microprocessor is a half-assed idea, though. The Russkies should really stop to be lazy bastards and develop a 100% Russian stack from chips to database management systems.

Regarding the Untermenschen argument, their T34 and their SU34 systems were/are leading edge. I could add the S400 and the Topol-M system. Oh, and I did forget their high-speed torpedos.

Re:I wonder what their reasoning is...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287935)

Chernobyl would have been reason enough. Surprised they waited so long though.

Why ARM or Baikal? (2)

ruir (2709173) | about a month ago | (#47287707)

Why not pick up the Loongson project from the chinese? Although I agree the ARM codeset seems very viable in the near future, MIPS is quite well known and the project seems to be stalling...

Re:Why ARM or Baikal? (1)

Nutria (679911) | about a month ago | (#47288045)

Well, MIPS is an American architecture too.

Re:Why ARM or Baikal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47288059)

My best guess is that Putin wants to somehow commercialize this activity, because he knows that purely military efforts cannot sustain themselves. In the SU, they had so much secrecy around military R&D that the rest of the economy suffered from a lack of technology influx.
In America, mil-tech would sooner or later end up in commercial products, which greatly supported American economy. Silicon Valley itself was started with military money. HP was essentially grown on the massive military electronics spending.

So the Russian government probably hopes they can sell this ARM-based processor into the mobile device business, while MIPS CPUs would be much harder to sell into these markets. Will the plan work out ? So far they have not been able to emulate the Chinese in any useful way. Yandex, Kaspersky and mail.ru are a kind of a success, but where is the hardware biz ?

Non US hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287709)

Russia probably has a market for non-US chips as well: it won't be surprising to see these in China or North Korea soon.

Plus, they probably will be designed in SI units rather than inches.

In Soviet Russia (-1, Troll)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a month ago | (#47287727)

In Soviet Russia, lame, done-to-death jokes repeat you.

Lets Get Real (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287731)

During the Soviet Union, all they could do was "clone" a PDP-11 chip with an early version of a hardware bug that was later rectified by DEC

Russia has been trying to build a "Silicon Valley" outside of Moscow and to date is pretty much a dismal failure.

One really needs freedom of thought to innovate and to be bleeding edge. Russia has been sliding back into old ways, and the Soviet Bureaucracy mentality and fear of the state are very much at full strength -- under such conditions I do not see this progressing at all. They will have to fall back on stealing foreign technology and replicating it.

No matter how many announcements and throwing of cash at the problem (plus rampant corruption) they will not make any breakthrus.

Re:Lets Get Real (2, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | about a month ago | (#47287757)

That, and reiderstvo. Who, in their right mind, would want to start a business, if some well-connected cunt is simply going to steal your entire company off you?

Putin and his crew are Russia's worst enemy, if only for the fact that all the robbers and corrupt officials are an integral part of his much-vaunted 'power vertical'.

Re:Lets Get Real (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287807)

Is this so ? It appears much more you Americans and Jews are big-time pissed off the raping of Russia under Jelzin by YOU does not continue.

Putin is not perfect, but sure as hell infinitely better for Russia than the Drinker Boris.

Re:Lets Get Real (2, Interesting)

benjfowler (239527) | about a month ago | (#47287853)

Yeltsin was an drink-sodden idiot who made the entire world a worse place. NOBODY in their right mind thinks the world is safer with a weak Russia. And the neoliberal experiment in Russia was nothing more than a massive crime against the Russian people -- you'll get very few arguments from anybody there (I've seen what these arseholes did to Hungary, and it was nowhere near as bad there). But here's where things start to go wrong -- in the Russian popular imagination, the adventures of the Chicago Boys in Russia (and the chaos it visited upon your country), is now synonymous with modern standards of good governance that we demand of our own governments in the West.

Putin is a missed opportunity, in that he has the power and a mandate to turn Russia into a normal country, governed by the rule of law. Instead, we have a strong Russia, making a nuisance out of itself everywhere, instead of leading from the front. And because you have a completely cowed press, Russian political culture has ossified, and you'll be stuck with Lukashenko-lite until he either dies or retires.

You mightn't like the fact that abroad, Putin is massively unpopular -- especially because he is thin-skinned, mercurial, impulsive, surrounds himself with idiots and yes-men, and has a very sheltered world view. And it's overshadowed the fact that Russia was right about Syria, and was probably in the right in Crimea, which is a shame. Because if Putin wasn't such a massive dickhead, Russia could be a big force for good in the world.

Re:Lets Get Real (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47287931)

NOBODY in their right mind thinks the world is safer with a weak Russia.

Except people who view Russia in the light of history, and note that when they have too much military might, they tend to project it. The answer to an out-of-control USA ain't a strong Russia, it's to weaken the USA. Making more strong nations just leads to more conflicts and eventually wars.

Putin is a missed opportunity, in that he has the power and a mandate to turn Russia into a normal country, governed by the rule of law. Instead, we have a strong Russia, making a nuisance out of itself everywhere, instead of leading from the front.

Yes, just like every other nation which has amassed enough power to project it, ever.

Re:Lets Get Real (1)

Nutria (679911) | about a month ago | (#47288097)

it's to weaken the USA.

Unless the elimination of the Pax Americana has the very undesirable effect of countries who have lived for decades under the protection of the US military decide to rearm because the countries that they fear have no check on expansion.

Re:Lets Get Real (5, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a month ago | (#47287789)

When it came to bleeding edge military technology, USSR was top notch. Don't believe the bullshit propaganda on this one. I recommend starting looking on documentaries made around 1995-2000 many of which can be found on youtube. Back then Russia was opening up to the West and a lot of massive technological marvels that they produced were first seen by the West.

To quote a Lockheed Martin head engineer of space engine program after seeing the test firing of Soviet closed circuit engine which he flat out refused to believe to be possible until that firing:

"Seeing this made us ask some very uncomfortable questions about our research and development processes".

Just like USSR was behind in some things, USA was behind in some other things. And USSR's solution to many parts where it was behind were stunningly brilliant. For example nearly fully automated long range aircraft that was MiG-25 was massively automated and computerized. On vacuum tubes. US and Japanese specialists didn't believe it when they got the thing from Belenko, and there were several documentaries covering the plane and Belenko's case which had some very interesting talking points from engineers working on it.

And after Cold War ended, when asked why, the explanation was that vacuum tubes actually survived extreme conditions of extreme altitude and extreme speed flight much better than transistors, and that it was more efficient to code around their slowness than to burden the aircraft with climate control systems for transistor based computers.

Assuming people like that won't make any breakthroughs is simply stupid.

Re:Lets Get Real (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about a month ago | (#47287825)

I would never assume they won't make any breakthroughs but what you're expecting is far beyond "making breakthroughs". You seem to believe a government run research program with a relatively small budget can outperform a multibillion dollar decades old giant of innovation like Intel. If Russia had three times Intel's budget for the next ten years they could probably catch up. Other than that it's just not happening.

Re:Lets Get Real (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287957)

Small budget?

Well... it all depends on their priorities... Either it's "Make the best X we can with Y amount of money" or "Make the cheapest X we can for Y amount of money that we then can sell for Z amount of money so we can finance project Q"

The first option there is probably the best.. And the second part here is that they can probably ignore all the existing patents that covers all this and there by reducing per-unit cost with quite a bit.

Re:Lets Get Real (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47287943)

When it came to bleeding edge military technology, USSR was top notch. Don't believe the bullshit propaganda on this one. I recommend starting looking on documentaries made around 1995-2000 many of which can be found on youtube.

don't believe the propaganda, watch documentaries on youtube, komrade!

And after Cold War ended, when asked why, the explanation was that vacuum tubes actually survived extreme conditions of extreme altitude and extreme speed flight much better than transistors, and that it was more efficient to code around their slowness than to burden the aircraft with climate control systems for transistor based computers.

And you believed that? HAHAHA. It was because they physically couldn't make complex, hardened CPUs. They worked with what they had. It's a testament to their brilliance, but not to their ability in war. Once you actually get to the point where you're producing microchips, they just keep getting cheaper the more you make. It does, however, cost a hell of a lot to get there in the first place.

Unclean hands (1)

tepples (727027) | about a month ago | (#47287791)

This is something I haven't understood. Some Russian guy develops a block puzzle game on a Russian clone of a PDP-11, and this clone is the only reason the world has heard of the Electronika brand. Yet he goes lawsuit happy on anyone who clones his game.

Re:Lets Get Real (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a month ago | (#47287899)

Russia has been trying to build a "Silicon Valley" outside of Moscow

Everyone has been trying to build a Silicon Valley with their own people for decades.
What they don't get (and the last few US governments don't get) is that Silicon Valley worked because it was about providing opportunities for people from everywhere instead of tightly controlling it.
A shining example is the early days of Intel.
When the best in the world can, and want to, set up shop instead of merely the best from California or wherever you get better results than a planned operation with a chosen few.

Re:Lets Get Real (1)

Mal-2 (675116) | about a month ago | (#47287981)

No matter how many announcements and throwing of cash at the problem (plus rampant corruption) they will not make any breakthrus.

Except for Big Iron (for which they aren't going to be using ARMs, real or clone), they aren't in need of breakthroughs to make usable hardware.

Look at it this way -- say for some strange reason, Apple stopped making new iPhone models, and Samsung and HTC got sued into not doing anything new. Three years from now you're stuck with the same one they make today. It still works. Would that really be so awful? Legally it would suck. Technologically, not so much.

How can you tell if a country is a US puppet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287741)

They're not doing this.

Logical continuation for applications and OSs (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287753)

This is logical. They have already replaced Windows with ReactOS in their military systems, according to publicly available photos. Googling for reactos russia" also reveals that the government likely funds the development.

Probably a good idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287775)

Where can I get these Russian replacements? I don't want the NSA spying on me through the back doors that are certainly designed into all AMD and Intel processors.

NSA already has access to all vPro machines by their own admission, so who's to say that something like vPro (if not vPro itself) is baked into all CPUs?

Re:Probably a good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287833)

Emigrate to Russia and you might be able go get them someday, and you don't have worry about the NSA spying. Just don't criticize Putin or you just might wind up dead.

A man of daring do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287777)

The article says they're doing this on desktops and servers (it implies ALL government desktops and servers, but we will disregard that silliness). So the plan is to replace x86/64 Intel and AMD chips with Russian ARM chips. For desktops and servers. Presumably desktops running Windows, an operating system which does not support ARM (never mind all their 15-year-old custom Windows applications). This is a daring plan! Lesser men like you and I wouldn't have had the nerve to equip our own bureaucracy with nonfunctional computers, but that is the brilliance of Poutine!

Re:A man of daring do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287849)

As opposed to you Polish-Ukrainian lazies, the Russians can get off their asses every couple of years.

Re:A man of daring do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287909)

Unfortunately not to build a better country but to invade their neighbours in search of better vodka :)

In Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287781)

The micro processes you!!

Dumb posturing (2)

benjfowler (239527) | about a month ago | (#47287803)

If security for Russian govenrnment computers were my responsibility, I'd be far more concerned about the attack surface being exposed by all the crap software running on top of that processor, rather than the processor itself. Anyway, ARM is a licensed design, not domestic (unless they're planning on engineering a clean-room version for themselves?)

I suppose that chipmaking is a nice thing to have domestically, in case the shit hits the fan, but I suppose if I were serious about increasing cybersecurity, I'd be looking at the systems being run within govenrnment and contractors, make as much of it Open Source as possible (or at the very least, buy source licenses), and then continually audit and patch the crap out of everything. It's hard, boring, unsexy work, and in this case, it doesn't produce cool headlines for the political class, so we get this story instead.

This is what you get when you have morons running your government.

Re:Dumb posturing (1)

loonycyborg (1262242) | about a month ago | (#47287829)

Actually no sane variation of windows runs on ARM architecture, so they'd be forced to adopt some other OS, possible choices there are mostly opensource.

Re:Dumb posturing (1)

Andy_R (114137) | about a month ago | (#47287835)

Time to dust off that Acorn Archimedes!

Dreaming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287841)

Intel has basically won, just no one has caught on yet.

Smaller geometries == faster , cheaper chips but at much more $$$.

Intel is the leader now, no one else wants to spend the $$$ play catch up. We are now talking multiple B$ for a fab plant.

Another generation, game over.

Same shit as the Chinese Longsoon processor (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a month ago | (#47287861)

This isn't something serious, just nationalism and/or cronyism. A real domestic processor project? It wouldn't be "dozens of millions of dollars" it would be tens of billions. Intel spent $10 billion on R&D... in 2013 alone. TSMC, who's just a fab not a designer, spent $1.4 billion in 2013.

Semiconductor manufacture is EXPENSIVE. A single modern fab easily tops a billion dollars to build, more like $3 billion. That's just to build it, running it and upgrading it can easily cost that much again over a few years. That is projected to grow to about $15 billion for a high end fab in 2020. All that, and you only have the ability to make chips, you don't actually have any chips to make.

Designing chips is again expensive. You need a bunch of smart, skilled, and experienced engineers and they need to put in a ton of work. It takes years. Companies that do fast design revisions have multiple teams that trade off working on chips, one team will be working on the next gen chip, another team on the gen after that, so that there is enough time to get the designs done.

So if Russia really wanted their own chips, like their own design, their own production, and all that, and wanted said chips to be on the same level as modern chips from Intel, IBM, etc, well they'd have to spend a ton of money, and a good amount of time.

This is, as you say, posturing. License an existing core design (made by Western nations), build an older technology fab, and produce some low end chips that aren't really that useful.

Re:Same shit as the Chinese Longsoon processor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47288073)

Or if they want the same performance they redesign the concept into running a bunch of slower cores (with the ability to turn them on/off).. And when i'm talking about a bunch i'm talking about 500-1000... Sure it will require lots of adaptations, and new development, so software can actually benefit from them... But this way they do not have to go down the route of producing cpu's that runs at a few Ghz but could get away with a couple of 100Mhz (with one instruction always taking one cpu-cycle).. Also for the chip-design they do not have to do everything on the same wafer but could divide it up into multiple cores that they then integrate into one package.. Benefit with that is that if one core is bad they just scrap that instance instead of a big chunk of sillicon.

500*200Mhz = 100000000000 instructions per second. (AsAP2 with 167 cores at 65nm runs at 1.2Ghz for comparison)
8*2Ghz = 16000000000 instructions per second.
That would be 6.25 times more instructions per second, and for this example i'm making an assumption that the 8-core x86-chip does one instruction per second. But of course you cannot do a straight comparison of number of instructions per second two architectures does but it give a hint..

Then as they develop their own fab's and are able to shrink it down, with one or two generations behind in fab-tech, they can bump up the speed per core and add more cores per chip...

But it's gonna take major rewrites to get the software running at the same speeds of course..

As references (both scalability of what can be done and cost of developing a new design):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org] or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]

Major limitations of todays processors are not what we can do, but what we can do and still maintain backward compatibility.

Vodka cooled! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287809)

Because in Soviet Russia, vodka cools you!

State decree (2)

amightywind (691887) | about a month ago | (#47287847)

Hardware down grade by state decree. What could go wrong?

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287851)

I cannot wait to diversify my exploitation techniques. Please russia provide interesting pwning material !

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287875)

You're going to exploit your mother's love for you into getting her to buy you more Cheetos?

You're going to exploit your mother's love for you into getting her to buy you some more fabric so you can sew yet another anime-inspired cosplay costume?

You're going to exploit your mother's love for you into getting her to buy you some more of those plush cartoon ponies you so crave?

You're going to exploit your mother's love for you into getting her to buy you another case of Mountain Dew?

Where are they going to fab the chips? (2)

WoTG (610710) | about a month ago | (#47287903)

This is kind of interesting... but they don't have a modern fab in Russia, do they? It'll take a lot of foreign parts to build a domestic fab...

Re:Where are they going to fab the chips? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47288013)

I am not an expert on this, but I heard they bought an entire AMD fab that was once in Dresden. Of course that will be something like a 100nm process, BUT:

1.) Rather have a "low-power" computer which is secure than have something like an NSAndroid.

2.) Most American systems waste cycles and transistors for eye-candy. An Atari ST with 512Kbyte is actually "good" enough for 95% of office tasks. And sure as hell it is good enough as a Secure Communications Terminal for their tanks, bombers, fighters and special forces.

3.) Have some smart people write proper code and the Atari-class computer will be doing the same job as that Android crapola with its 2000Mbyte of RAM and a Retina display. Of which 700Mbytes is consumed by a Java-based Kitten-Liking-App.

I agree the Russians have some very serious problems(e.g. ageing population), but so does America(drug abuse, financial insanity).

Just not letting their finance system being fucked up by the Banksters gives Russia massive mileage. But who knows what the future will bring...

Yakov Smirnoff (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47287937)

In America, you program computer...in Soviet Russia, computer programs you!

Re:Yakov Smirnoff (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47288041)

In NSA America, computer spies on you! Err wait...

On the bright side: capitalism (2)

cellocgw (617879) | about a month ago | (#47287939)

This is global capitalism at its best :-) . Now all the US (and Korean and Chinese and Japanese and...) chip manufacturers have a whole nation of potential new competitors. The New Russia is out to crush all economic competitors! Communism within the borders but Capitalism to conquer the world!

(you can assign your own level of humor, sarcasm, and paranoia to this post.)

Okayyyy! (3, Insightful)

Chas (5144) | about a month ago | (#47288061)

But then they won't be able to pirate Windows for these systems.

Oops! Was I not supposed to point out the elephant in the room?

and I want... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47288091)

a 20 inch thing! ain't gonna happen...

Load More 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...