11 ms·

Intel Releases the Arduino 101 Source Code

105 points by tdrnd 10y ago

nxzero 10y ago
Is there anything that's still closed-source on the board and if so, what?
- j-pb 10y ago
  The micro-controller HDL files.
- dec0dedab0de 10y ago
  well this is not OpenSource, they just released the code.
  - mbanzi 10y ago
    Here is a link to the board design files.. everything is open source (apart from the processor itself) https://www.arduino.cc/en/uploads/Main/Arduino101RefDesign.zip https://www.arduino.cc/en/uploads/Main/Arduino101RefDesign.z...
- nxzero 10y ago
  What about the hardware?
userbinator 10y ago
Intel has been making some very... unusual SoCs recently. As I understand it, this one has a 486-like core at 32MHz. Too bad it's not PC-compatible, because something of that size, performance, and power-consumption would make a great retro PC to play with old software and experiment.
- lewi 10y ago
  It would! The Curie is a wonderful little SoC. The built in BLE, Gyro and Power management make it perfect for much more than a beefy UNO clone. After seeing so much press from Lady Gaga to the X Games, I got a few 101s and started deving. Got to the point I wanted to get a few boards made with it. Turns out the only way a private individual can buy a Curie chip is attached to the 101 board. Perplexed, I asked a representative a few days ago at a trade show why they were so scarce. It appears Intel, or rather the division responsible, isn't making the individual module available for purchase. That is unless, and I quote, "Your name is Oakley or similar". Which makes me a little sad as their brand messaging calls for a "Makers Movement" but doesn't give us the products they have developed for it. One thing I find particularly amusing is the 101's step counter tutorial featured on their Maker page[1]. A 7cm x 5cm pedometer with a battery management circuit that isn't mapped out on the board. Either way, I hope they release this wonderful little package they have developed. [1] https://www.arduino.cc/en/Tutorial/Genuino101CurieIMUStepCounter https://www.arduino.cc/en/Tutorial/Genuino101CurieIMUStepCou...
  - dekhn 10y ago
    Why don't you just buy 101's and remove the curie chip from the 101?
    - jhpankow 10y ago
      Once you've got the chip removed (which is non-trivial) you then have to prepare it to be resoldered, which would require re-balling in the case of a BGA pinout. This is beyond the scope of what a maker/hobbyist could do.
      - justinclift 10y ago
        Don't people do that with converted toaster ovens?
        dekhn 10y ago
        Yes. This sort of thing is classic maker, and if you bought the chips from Intel directly you'd still have to integrate them onto a board.
        Gracana 10y ago
        Re-balling is possible for hobbyists, but it's an extra tricky step that you'd need to do. Why bother when you can buy a nice ARM SoC?
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    > After seeing so much press from Lady Gaga to the X Games, I got a few 101s and started deving. Got to the point I wanted to get a few boards made with it. Turns out the only way a private individual can buy a Curie chip is attached to the 101 board. > Perplexed, I asked a representative a few days ago at a trade show why they were so scarce. It appears Intel, or rather the division responsible, isn't making the individual module available for purchase. That is unless, and I quote, "Your name is Oakley or similar". This has been my biggest frustration with Intel. They will not sell their solder-on chips to distributors for some reason. I feel like they could make some major inroads into ARM-dominated markets if they made getting their products much easier. After all, how are you supposed to become an "Oakley" if you can;t get off the ground in the first place? Plus, if you get there on ARM chips, what is your motivation to suddenly switch to Intel once you are big enough for them to give a shit about you?
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  I was wondering if you could get one of those old embedded i386 chips and make a minimal single-board retro PC.
cyphar 10y ago
It's not released under a free software license. What a shame.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ashitlerferad 10y ago
  Which license?
  - ISL 10y ago
    It appears to be the "Intel Software License Agreement". As near as I can tell, it's for inspection only?
    - Sanddancer 10y ago
      Website has the wrong license. Source itself all seems to be 3-clause BSD.
      - baldfat 10y ago
        This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license. The modified BSD license is not bad, as lax permissive licenses go, though the Apache 2.0 license is preferable. However, it is risky to recommend use of “the BSD license”, even for special cases such as small programs, because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the modified BSD license are more or less equivalent. However, the Apache 2.0 license is better for substantial programs, since it prevents patent treachery. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  That's a website bug; the software itself is Free Software, but the download site incorrectly wrapped it in a default click-through EULA. Fixed internally, and the change should propagate to the download site soon.
snvzz 10y ago
I'd rather use eChronos or seL4. They're provable and free software. Intel call their thing an RTOS; it's bullshit. They lack proof of hard realtime.
- dekhn 10y ago
  RTOS means a bunch of things; hard realtime is a very specific subset of that.
kefka 10y ago
Why am I not surprised. I guessed this months ago and told people to stay away from it. It was a closed-source blob masquerading as open source hardware (under the Arduino name). Good thing the people at my hackerspace understood what I was saying, and bought none.
- rym_ 10y ago
  What aren't you surprised with?
- Sanddancer 10y ago
  It's a bug on the website. The source itself is all 3-clause BSD.
lgleason 10y ago
In the meantime if you want to play with a small solution there are solutions like the Mbientlab MetaWear that give you a nice small package and are approachable as a maker. https://mbientlab.com/metawear/ https://mbientlab.com/metawear/
samlittlewood 10y ago
Interested to see that the download contains 3 distinct GCC cross toolchains: x86, ARC, and ARM. Um, Wow!

105 points by tdrnd 10y ago

nxzero 10y ago

Is there anything that's still closed-source on the board and if so, what?

j-pb 10y ago
The micro-controller HDL files.
dec0dedab0de 10y ago
well this is not OpenSource, they just released the code.
- mbanzi 10y ago
  Here is a link to the board design files.. everything is open source (apart from the processor itself) https://www.arduino.cc/en/uploads/Main/Arduino101RefDesign.zip https://www.arduino.cc/en/uploads/Main/Arduino101RefDesign.z...
nxzero 10y ago
What about the hardware?

userbinator 10y ago

Intel has been making some very... unusual SoCs recently. As I understand it, this one has a 486-like core at 32MHz. Too bad it's not PC-compatible, because something of that size, performance, and power-consumption would make a great retro PC to play with old software and experiment.

lewi 10y ago
It would! The Curie is a wonderful little SoC. The built in BLE, Gyro and Power management make it perfect for much more than a beefy UNO clone. After seeing so much press from Lady Gaga to the X Games, I got a few 101s and started deving. Got to the point I wanted to get a few boards made with it. Turns out the only way a private individual can buy a Curie chip is attached to the 101 board. Perplexed, I asked a representative a few days ago at a trade show why they were so scarce. It appears Intel, or rather the division responsible, isn't making the individual module available for purchase. That is unless, and I quote, "Your name is Oakley or similar". Which makes me a little sad as their brand messaging calls for a "Makers Movement" but doesn't give us the products they have developed for it. One thing I find particularly amusing is the 101's step counter tutorial featured on their Maker page[1]. A 7cm x 5cm pedometer with a battery management circuit that isn't mapped out on the board. Either way, I hope they release this wonderful little package they have developed. [1] https://www.arduino.cc/en/Tutorial/Genuino101CurieIMUStepCounter https://www.arduino.cc/en/Tutorial/Genuino101CurieIMUStepCou...
- dekhn 10y ago
  Why don't you just buy 101's and remove the curie chip from the 101?
  - jhpankow 10y ago
    Once you've got the chip removed (which is non-trivial) you then have to prepare it to be resoldered, which would require re-balling in the case of a BGA pinout. This is beyond the scope of what a maker/hobbyist could do.
    - justinclift 10y ago
      Don't people do that with converted toaster ovens?
      - dekhn 10y ago
        Yes. This sort of thing is classic maker, and if you bought the chips from Intel directly you'd still have to integrate them onto a board.
      - Gracana 10y ago
        Re-balling is possible for hobbyists, but it's an extra tricky step that you'd need to do. Why bother when you can buy a nice ARM SoC?
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  > After seeing so much press from Lady Gaga to the X Games, I got a few 101s and started deving. Got to the point I wanted to get a few boards made with it. Turns out the only way a private individual can buy a Curie chip is attached to the 101 board. > Perplexed, I asked a representative a few days ago at a trade show why they were so scarce. It appears Intel, or rather the division responsible, isn't making the individual module available for purchase. That is unless, and I quote, "Your name is Oakley or similar". This has been my biggest frustration with Intel. They will not sell their solder-on chips to distributors for some reason. I feel like they could make some major inroads into ARM-dominated markets if they made getting their products much easier. After all, how are you supposed to become an "Oakley" if you can;t get off the ground in the first place? Plus, if you get there on ARM chips, what is your motivation to suddenly switch to Intel once you are big enough for them to give a shit about you?
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
I was wondering if you could get one of those old embedded i386 chips and make a minimal single-board retro PC.

cyphar 10y ago

It's not released under a free software license. What a shame.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ashitlerferad 10y ago
Which license?
- ISL 10y ago
  It appears to be the "Intel Software License Agreement". As near as I can tell, it's for inspection only?
  - Sanddancer 10y ago
    Website has the wrong license. Source itself all seems to be 3-clause BSD.
    - baldfat 10y ago
      This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license. The modified BSD license is not bad, as lax permissive licenses go, though the Apache 2.0 license is preferable. However, it is risky to recommend use of “the BSD license”, even for special cases such as small programs, because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the modified BSD license are more or less equivalent. However, the Apache 2.0 license is better for substantial programs, since it prevents patent treachery. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
JoshTriplett 10y ago
That's a website bug; the software itself is Free Software, but the download site incorrectly wrapped it in a default click-through EULA. Fixed internally, and the change should propagate to the download site soon.

snvzz 10y ago

I'd rather use eChronos or seL4. They're provable and free software. Intel call their thing an RTOS; it's bullshit. They lack proof of hard realtime.

dekhn 10y ago
RTOS means a bunch of things; hard realtime is a very specific subset of that.

kefka 10y ago

Why am I not surprised. I guessed this months ago and told people to stay away from it. It was a closed-source blob masquerading as open source hardware (under the Arduino name). Good thing the people at my hackerspace understood what I was saying, and bought none.

rym_ 10y ago
What aren't you surprised with?
Sanddancer 10y ago
It's a bug on the website. The source itself is all 3-clause BSD.

lgleason 10y ago

In the meantime if you want to play with a small solution there are solutions like the Mbientlab MetaWear that give you a nice small package and are approachable as a maker. https://mbientlab.com/metawear/ https://mbientlab.com/metawear/

samlittlewood 10y ago

Interested to see that the download contains 3 distinct GCC cross toolchains: x86, ARC, and ARM. Um, Wow!