When I saw RISCV mentioned as an alternative, I had to check the date twice to make sure it wasn't an April Fools'. I understand the concerns and all, but wish the alternatives were a little better picked out.
Most people already mentioned SPARC and ARM as alternatives, so I won't delve into those arguments other than point out that there will _always_ be commercial interests at stake here - hardware, unlike software, requires considerable material resources to create* and distribute (and is still harder - and therefore rarer - to create for its own sake), so there won't be a wide variety of viable options out there, and new CPU architectures don't grow on trees.
Better to lobby for open specs on the "offending" bits of hardware, really.
* - yes, software creation can also require material resources (and a whole lot of time, which can be expensive). Let's not belabor that point...
Most people already mentioned SPARC and ARM as alternatives, so I won't delve into those arguments other than point out that there will _always_ be commercial interests at stake here - hardware, unlike software, requires considerable material resources to create* and distribute (and is still harder - and therefore rarer - to create for its own sake), so there won't be a wide variety of viable options out there, and new CPU architectures don't grow on trees.
Better to lobby for open specs on the "offending" bits of hardware, really.
* - yes, software creation can also require material resources (and a whole lot of time, which can be expensive). Let's not belabor that point...